I am no fan, yet, of digital cameras, but I have to add a few things.
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.
Your subjects may not always be thrilled as you check the results and
ask them to pose again and again and again.
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.
Not really. You can get an iPod now with a Firewire connection and a
5 gigabyte hard drive for $399 that will slip into your pocket and
which will store lots of images. That is down to about 50 rolls of
film. So the cost of portable storage is changing rapidly.
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
I have photographic color prints that have faded after 5 or 6 years
stored in the dark. Black and white prints were what we looked at
when we were children.
I thought the Epson 2000P inks were pretty well established at 25 plus years.
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.
You are absolutely right. That is the best argument for me. The
whole digital process is really tentative and the image may not ever
make it to print that someone can see years later. You have to
invest so much energy into completing the photographic process that
there is never a final image, the thing Ansel Adams so valued. And
somehow the kids or grandchildren popping the CDrom archive into a 30
year old PC with a still functioning CDrom drive and wrestling with
networking it to the current system to extract the images, just
doesn't warm the cockles of your heart like seeing kids rummage
through a box of old prints.
Have I convinced you, or did no-one get this far
Sam
Winsor
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|