The problem I have with digital is, you want to start out with the most dense
medium (film). You can always move to a less dense medium (computer monitor)
anytime. Computer monitors are 72dpi! Ouch. So when people talk about
"quality", I sure hope they aren't talking about the end results on a monitor,
and (hopefully) someone on a decent printer, on decent photopaper. It's nice,
I have film, I want to scan, make a VCD to give as a gift. BUT, I want to
start with good medium, and digital is not it..
Also, I don't know, reproduction costs are not that cheap. Costco will do
reprints at like 4 cents each. If you want me to crank them out on a color
printer, I don't think it's cost effective. I can probably stick a stamp on
the back of a 4x6, and the postoffice will probably mail it. That means, a
nice family picture, I can use as postcard, at 4 cents each from Costco.
Cranking out 100 of them costs me $4.00. I can guarantee you that the cost of
printing out 100 4x6's on your Epson will cost much much more.
But when you start with film, and get a film scanner, you CAN have the best of
both worlds. Want to shoot slide film? you can. Want it scanned and then
emailed? You can too. People bitch about the fact that it's another step from
print film to scanner to computer, but you still have to hook up the digital
camera, so, the arguement is bad. Plus, you can have stuff to hold in your
hand, good bad or otherwise... Most people won't print out any of the bad
shots, and thus they have little reference to learn from. They will generally
only print out the good shots, so people think they are "great" photographers,
when it's all BS.. The bad shots teach you as much if not more, than the good
ones. But if you see a bad shot on the screen, you probably delete it or move
on, and give it all but 3 seconds. Is that glare? Is that a rogue light
streak? Bad shot, "delete". But next time you are in the same situation, you
won't remember the light streak, and so your next set of pictures will have the
same problem. Somewhere, digital cameras have taken the "learning" out of most
of photography.
They have their place, but just know their place. (Am I harsh or what??)
Albert
----- Original Message -----
From: DAVDOU9211@xxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Digital camera downfalls (Long)
In a message dated 1/4/02 11:10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
It is later than you think.
While I am not yet to give up my OM-4t and Zuikos, I have to agree with
Windsor. Having just come through the Thanksgiving - Christmas holiday season
with lots of family involvement and lots of photos I have to say that the 4.1
Mega Pixel C4040 I used produced some beautiful results. My wife has made
albums for some family members. The photos are rich in detail, sharp and the
skin tones are lovely. We use an Epson 780 Ink Jet printer on Epson paper.
She has made prints up to 8 X 10 and they are more than acceptable. If one
looks at 4 x 6 prints made from the digital effort they blow the results of the
1 hr labs out of the water.
I am getting a slide scanner. I have had it with print film because I can't
get quality finishing and I sure as heck can't afford to do color photo
finishing myself. I want to be able to convert 35mm slides to digital medium
and use my at home facilities to make photos. I think this will be the best of
both worlds.
I feel that digital will supplant film for many of us in the near future. I
also feel that the march of technology in digital cameras and their pixel
count/ sharpness will be similar to that of computers. I am writing this on a
computer with a 400mhz processor. I just ordered a computer with a 1.7ghz
processor and that isn't as fast as one could get. My current computer is only
2 1/2 years old and at that time 1.7ghz was unheard of. My point: technology
is moving forward at an ever accelerating rate.
I know this is a long rant, but hey, I seldom do this so ...
Dave Dougherty
|