It is always a debate for this subject and where is photography
heading to?
Traditionally a "good picture" we talk about composition and exposure
but now with digital technology things has changed.
Now forget about exposure and compositions, images is stored digitally
and the final image is "created" through the manupulations of PC. We
should define this new generation as "image creator" and Not
photographer at all.
Currently the output for digital image on print is still cosidered
costly compared to those printed from film. Using thermal-dye sub
printer is excellent choice but it cannot control certain color tones
properly at times eg. tungsten /candle light sometimes giving funny
unusaul shades of tones. Compared side by side with a conventional
print at the first glance the digital print looks eye-catching but
closer into the details it cannot be as good as the conventional print
from film.
For long term storage, film will have problems like color shift in a
couple of years. But for digital storage, will there be a possibility
that your file might get corrupted one fine day???
jim
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [OM] Digital vs. film
Author: MIME {chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx} at BEACON
Date: 9/9/98 12:06 PM
Ken Norton wrote:
>
> >>>We will never know the limits of digital technology, in the pass 20
> >years the films only improved very little (has the resolution improved
> >by two or three times?). But how about the computer and storage device?>>
>
> I'd say that the resolution and color accuracy HAS improved 2-3x over the
> past 20 years. In chromes, the improvement has been slow due to the
> superior quality that we've had with Fuji 50 and K25/64. But it sure is
> nice to beable to get similar resolution and quality in a 200 speed film as
> we did in a 50/64 speed film.
>
> How about print film? Fuji Super-G 800 is awesome. The wedding films of
> today are fantastic. How about T-Max? That isn't any slouch.
>
> Fact is, we are living in an awesome time where the films are no longer the
> limiting factors in our creative efforts. Kodak, Fuji, Agfa and Ilford are
> regularily introducing new films that keep improving and pushing the
> technological envelope.
>
> One question I have, is storage of digital pictures. Negatives and slides
> are extremely cheep, small and have long life spans. When will digital
> beable to beat that? CD-ROMS? I don't think so--not with today's
> technology. True archival storage will remain in the analog domain for some
> time yet.
>
> Ken N.
Yes, Ken, I agree with you, with present's technologies film is still
much better than digital in terms of quality and price. But I just want
to point out that, the digital image developed very fast, just like the
computer, speed and capacity has increased more than a hundred times in
20 years (with the same price level). Digital camera has just entered
the consumer market for two to three years, so what will happen 5 to 10
years later? I expect the consumer grade digital camera will be around
US200 with over 1500 lines of resolution, the memory card can be
"process" at mini-lab for 1 hr (or even less) prints.
Concerning the storage, here a 650MB CD-ROM cost only 1.5US. It can
store 100 images with PCD format or JPEG compressed images. I think it
can last for over 50 years, what is the price for each image? The best
thing is it will not distort as film with fading. I know someone may say
there probably no device for you to retrive the CD-ROM information as
technologies changes. But you can transfer the images to newer storage
medias when they come and I think at that time the capacity will be ten
times or hundred times the existing one.
C.H.Ling
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|