>From: Stephen Troy <sctroy@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>I was expecting responses like this. They somewhat miss my point.
>
>>From: Jan Steinman
>>Two words: "Adobe Photoshop."
>>
>>I even have an action I built called "Velveeta" that will do a credible
>job of turning a normal image into something that looks like it came from
>Velvia.
>
>So why spend valuable time and effort trying to make something sort of look
>like it came from Velvia instead of just using Velvia? (See below).
"Valuable time and effort?" With actions and batch automation, you simply point
Photoshop to a directory containing images, and tell it to make them all look
like Velvia.
Compared to the "time and effort" of driving to your local E-6 processor and
waiting at least 3 hours for results, this seems minimal.
>Another point of digital that many people miss is the hidden expense. For
>example, assume you shot a 36-exposure "roll" of film on your digital
>camera. To vary the "look" you will need to download the camera to your
>computer, open each image in Photoshop, do your tweaking, and save the
>file. If this process takes 15 minutes for each photo...
If this process takes you 15 minutes per photo, you need to attend a good
Photoshop class! Using batch mode, I'd call it 30 seconds of non-human time,
tops.
Now if you're talking about doing a bunch of manipulations at the same time, 15
minutes may be right, but now you're comparing apples with oranges -- this is
better compared with the time it would take to do similar tweaks in the
darkroom, and digital wins again. (At least strictly on a time basis -- I'm not
willing to get into any qualitative arguments from darkroom fans! :-)
>I'm serious about this - let's take a real-life example from my brother's
>studio work. He has more and more clients requesting that he shoot digital
>for catalog use to cut costs. In each case, the post-production costs have
>made the total cost of the photoshoot SIGNIFICANTLY greater than when using
>film.
I suspect he is very familiar with film, and only a beginner with digital.
There is absolutely no excuse for a digital workflow being slower and/or more
expensive if you know what you're doing! I would typically estimate a digital
shoot at less than half of an equivalent film shoot.
Digital is no panacea. For some reason, people who have studied photochemistry
for decades get disappointed when they discover digital is not a push-button
operation. You need to understand what is going on in order to optimize a
workflow, or you'll stumble around and blame your lack of efficiency on the
tools, rather than on the carpenter.
>each image has to be post-processed for color
>matching. OK, sounds easy to do on Photoshop. But each video card/monitor
>used will give a slightly different color rendition...
I'm afraid your brother doesn't know what he's doing. He needs to be using a
color-managed workflow. (Which is different from "calibrating a monitor.")
Monitors do vary, but cards should not -- in fact, the first thing to do when
profiling is to reset your card to factory defaults.
>I'm not going to kid myself about
>digital's capabilities. It has its good points, but at the same time it is
>nowhere as flexible (nor cost effective) as an OM-1 with film.
That's today. To a some extent, I agree. But tomorrow's another matter
entirely. And for many situations, digital is more cost effective and flexible
today.
>This is
>also why I think digital will never completely replace film.
Well, "completely" is rather all-inclusive, isn't it? That's like saying
instant teleportation will "never completely" replace walking!
There's horse country near here, and I do actually know people who buy buggy
whips. But I wouldn't exactly call it a thriving industry!
The same with film. Sure, there will always be aficionados puttering around in
closet and basement darkrooms, just as there are artists who mix their own
pigments, based on ancient formula. But you're just kidding yourself if you
believe that photochemistry is not near its peak, and is currently headed into
decline.
>I have been
>using Photoshop since the dark ages...
>it isn't a cost-effective way to mimic the results you get from film.
>Last week, my brother and I shot 2,196 frames of Velvia in five days. I
>sure as heck don't want to process each one of those on my computer - I
>won't live long enough.
I suspect that, though you've been using Photoshop for a long time, perhaps you
have not played with some of the later versions' more advanced features.
My experience in both commercial photography AND personal fine-art photography
seem to be very different than yours.
*IF* (and that's a big "if" :-) there is any need for moderate-size digital
output -- which is increasingly a requirement -- my estimate for a digital
shoot generally runs less than half that of a film shoot. Your brother is in
the business, I'm in the business, but we seem to have very different economic
models.
*IF* (and that's a big "if" :-) the sole work product is something
traditionally associated with photochemistry, such as "8x10 glossies", THEN
film MAY be a better choice.
And if I shoot 2,196 digital frames (which, depending on quality settings, I
can do on my E-20's 640 MB of RAM without downloading or changing cards), and
the client wants them all to look like Velvia, it can happen overnight, with no
manual intervention.
What happens if you shoot 2,196 frames of Velvia, and the customer decides they
want them all to look like Kodachrome? You schedule a re-shoot... of course,
that may be a billable job, but give me a chance, and I'll take your customer's
business away from you the next time. :-)
This is NOT to say there is no need for film today. About 300f my work involves
film, for jury slides and large reproductions, but except for the jury slides,
it is just a step before scanning. And I think my drum scanner will be useful
for only about 5-10 years before digicams will compete with 4"x5" Velvia
scanned at 5,400 spi.
>And this doesn't even touch the area of creating mural-sized prints...
...which digital is SUPERB at! My largest work to date is 114" x 48". Shot in
1999 on 11 frames of 35mm film, then digitized, then combined, but if
affordable 12 megapixel imagers existed at the time, I can assure you the whole
thing would have been quicker and less expensive with a digicam.
I don't mean to make this into some big fight. I'm only saying that digital is
inevitable. One can whine and moan that it's "nowhere as flexible nor cost
effective" as film, or one can work to discover new ways of making it flexible
and cost effective.
All the news services are now digital-only -- including news magazines, like
Newsweek. About 800f magazine production is digital-only. About 900f event
photography (with weddings being the significant laggard) is digital. It's
coming. You can fight it for perhaps a few more years, but wouldn't it be
better to embrace it and make it work for you?
There are three types of people in this world: those who make things happen,
those who watch things happen, and those who look up from what they're doing
and exclaim, "Damn, what happened?" Which do you want to be?
(Of course, if you want to be a fine-art photochemistry print maker forever,
there are going to be some DYNAMITE prices on used darkroom equipment in the
next few years! :-)
--
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
< 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 >
|