Good post. Here in Ottawa (Canada's capital for international posters who
are unsure about Canadians) I think no wedding photographers use a digital
camera. When my wife and I got married 4 years ago, we asked around for fun
if any used dig cams. None did. We still keep in touch with our
photographer (used Hasselbad BTW). When I saw this post, I immediately
called him. He is aware of no one who shoots weddings or any other
professional function with a digital camera here in Ottawa. He has one
though, like I, but it is "just for fun." The immediacy of the digital
camera is cool, but the quality is not a substitute for film as of yet.
Everyone has been saying for the past 3 or 4 years that dig cams will take
over. They haven't yet; they are accessories, not a photographing system.
DVDs were supposed to takeover from VHS. Just before Christmas CNN had a
tech show on. VHS still outsells in terms of rentals, VCR vs DVD purchases,
you name it. The DVD industry is forecasting that it will takeover during
2002; but such forecasts have been made for the past 4 years.
Digital will eventually take over, but I bet it will take at least as long
as DVDs have taken. Just my 0.02 Canadian cents.
-Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Olympus [mailto:olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 12:41 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Digital camera downfalls
A 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 <mailto:sam.shiell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.
|