Chuck wrote:
> Amateurs have been stampeding to digital because... I'm
> not sure why. Certainly not based on a considered cost
> comparison. I think wedding and portrait photographers have
> been on a stampede to digital at least, in part, because of
> the simplicity of retouching.
I can't explain the amateur stampede either. Other than the
"new and improved" and "keeping up with the Jones" mentality.
95% of of amateurs would be well served with a pocket digicam
and a SLR/MF for serious hobby work.
As to the wedding/portrait stampede, well, as you know, it's
more than just retouching. I can scan a roll of 160NC
reasonably fast and I only do those shots needing retouching,
not every frame. The biggest advantage I see to digital now for
the wedding/portrait photographer is workflow/timeflow. I can
now have the proof book in the hands of the customer within 48
hours. I've gone through the print-it-myself routine and have
migrated back to lab printing for anything that has human skin
in the photo.
I absolutely love digital for wedding work for one primary
reason: No half exposed rolls of film. Prior to the ceremony
start, I always loaded fresh rolls of film so I wouldn't have to
change rolls during the worst possible moments. Oh, and the
total flexibility of ISO selection. No need to try and guess
how many rolls of 160, 400 and 800 you might need for any given
wedding. I highly doubt I'll ever shoot another film wedding
again. As much as I like the color characteristics of film, the
inconveniences outweigh the advantages. Frankly, 2006 will
probably be my last wedding season anyway, except for the odd
family/friend wedding.
> I don't know if landscape, architectural and other types of
> photographers have been so anxious to move there.
Reluctantly. I think the semiaffordableness of used 1Ds cameras
has finally tilted a lot of people over. The 5D is possibly
going to draw a ton of people too. My E-6 lab in Des Moines has
seen an increase in business as the publishing industry there is
undergoing a digital backlash right now. "Everybody shoots
digital", so the standout photographers are doing something
different and they're shooting film.
> But maybe it doesn't make much difference. It may be that the
> medium and large format types who can't move so readily to
> digital only constitute 10% of the business. And who knows?
> They may not be far behind given the technology path of the
> next few years.
I don't think so. I believe that we are still in the early days
of the digital photography industry. Canon has a lead right now,
but historically, the early leaders tend not to be the long-term
survivors. Whoever sells the most digicams to joe consumer
today is not an indication of who will be the mover and shaker
ten years down the road. Call me a romantic, but I believe that
Kodak will still rule. They may only have a PO Box in
Rochester, but as long as they own the patents to everything,
they'll be relevant.
AG
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|