Re: Digital v real photography - slightly OT and longA very good friend, and
well respected photographer, just got a Canon digital camera. He says he loves
it sooo much, he will probably not go back to film. For something up to 8x10,
he says it is the same quality as ASA100 print film in quality, and the
immediate feedback and gratification of not running to development stores,
makes it great. Also, he's shot 700 shots his first month, so he says compared
to film costs, there is huge savings. I tend to agree. The ability to see
that someone blinked, the lighting is too low, too bright etc.. makes for a
better photographer quicker. No need to play peek a' boo with the film..
Those I completely agree. He says the stuff from his digital camera is better
than scanning from film as far as quality, I probably can agree with that as
well.. It's hard to argue against all that. That is where digital is strong..
When I went to Death Valley with my friend about 4 years ago, he brought his
Minolta, (which I like a lot). Well.. at 135 degrees (yes, we went in the
summer!!!) the camera DIED. He told me it's ok not to bring my p&s (which
would have died also) and thus, we did not get any pictures whatsoever. That
is why when I was looking to buy a camera, I bought an Om-1n. I wanted a
camera that without batteries, I can still take a picture.. imagine that!!!
What cool technology is that, which does not need batteries?? Was what someone
asked me... it's amazing what this next generation thinks like (of course, I'm
25, so they are all probably my generation, but I won't admit that..)
But there is a (SAD) story I'd like to share with you all...
A friend of mine, he went to China, and adopted a daughter. Blind adoption,
the social services picked a child, and that was it. Like a 1 year old girl.
The couple flew to china to pick up the girl. He bought a digital camera JUST
for this moment. He several 128Meg compact flash cards, so he wouldn't "run
out of film" or run out of memory as is more accurate.. He took a bunch of
pictures, and loaded them onto the computer to view when he got home.
He was prepared to burn a CD the next day.. He had cleared the compact flash
already. As he was about to burn a CD, he got a virus in which all his jpg's
were all deleted. He had lost ALL his pictures. He cried for several days,
and returned the digital camera. With film, EVEN with crappy development, no
virus will destroy my negatives.. Some people say burn it onto a CD and you'll
be fine. I have never lost my negatives (generally in a photo box, like
everybody else) and short of a fire or a flood, they are always safe. I've had
CD's gone bad on me from scratches etc.. I will not trust that the only copy I
have of something that I highly value, be on digital camera.
If I shoot film, I can convert to digital. If I shoot digital, I cannot
convert to analog. So film will always have an advantage. Some guy who was in
a heated debate with his roommate about film vs. digital, took film to the
labs.. and he measured something like Velvia or Provia to be about 29
megapixels in quality density. So.. when, digital cameras get to about 20
megapixels, then I'll think about it...
Casing point. Someone who keeps arguing that digital cameras are now the only
way to go. Tell them to have a wedding, and hire someone with only a digital
camera. YEAH, that's what I thought. You use the digital camera, and I'll
find the guy/gal with the Hasselblad and Porta 160 for my wedding thank you.
Albert
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Shiell
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 7:30 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: Digital v real photography - slightly OT and long
Hi,
Just got back to the list after a VERY restful (but not very photographic)
couple of weeks and caught the tail-end of the discussion that appeared to be
convincing people that digital still has some way to go before us dinosaurs
finally become extinct. Here's my 2 pence worth. Forgive if I'm repeating
anything that's already been discussed.
My friend bought himself a N*k*n digital and I was vaguely captured, mainly
by the immediacy of the pics.
BUT
In my view, even ignoring the quality issues that you've all talked about
there are still too many downsides:- This camera even on "low resolution"
whatever that means can only store 8 frames, and a digital wallet is the cost
of perhaps 100 - 150 rolls of film. But that doesn't get over the fact that you
can buy film anywhere in the world that has a shop/tea-room/kiosk/ticket
booth/etc, so although I like to buy known good quality, well stored film it
isn't a big deal if I'm away and use up my stocks... It'll be a looong time
before electronic storage gets cheap enough to compete on that count.
Also currently inkjet ink fades after a couple of years (even "photographic
quality" paper manufacturers only say the prints wont fade for 10 years... i.e.
6 years if your lucky) So the option is to keep the jpeg or whatever for
ever... once again we're talking big bucks for storage
The other ignored bit is longevity. Yes with digital you only print the ones
you want, how much does your family treasure the naff image of
great-great-great grandma 150 years ago, normally an image that would have been
ditched. I've got boxes and boxes or "2nd-rate" images in my loft that even
after 20 years fascinate my kids -> "Did you really think you looked cool with
that haircut?"; "What on earth did Mum see in you?", etc... If I'd not bothered
printing these my kids would have though I was good looking.
Have I convinced you, or did no-one get this far
Sam
This e-mail and any attached files are intended solely for the named
addressee only. It may contain information that is confidential, legally
privileged and protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or
authorised to receive on behalf of the addressee) you may not copy, use or
disclose its contents to anyone else. If you received this e-mail in error
please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. We
make every effort to keep our network free from viruses although we can take no
responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this
e-mail.
|