Hey, I am going to butt in and reply to this. No, Dave's 8x10s ain't no where near as good as a good chemical print from 35mm. They are about as good as the 'make an 8x10 from your 4x6 print' prints that most people are going to compare them to. But then he sells them right then and there and pockets the money. His other choice is to go have prints made and approach the customer a few days latter as I have done in the past, or at the next event if the customer is at the next event. So his choice is salon grade prints, or a pocket full of money. To me that is not a hard choice to make. His prints are acceptable to his clients and that is really all that matters.
This list like most of the photography lists has this elitist bent that has nothing to do with reality. This lens in not sharp, that lens is really, good, when 99% of the people who look at the photographs can not tell the difference. The depth of field on this print is not acceptable they say, leaving nose prints on the print. Not only does Pentax not know anything about supplying gear to professional photographers, neither do their customers know anything about what is a useful and therefore valuable piece of equipment to someone trying to make a living from photography, or at least make it pay for itself. And, as an aside, while photojournalism is the most visible type of professional photography it is only a small part of the professional market Now I know that most of the people on the list who looked at my web page, thought, "what lousy pictures", but many of those snap shots, and I unabashedly admit I do snap shots, put money in my pocket. I know pros who do make money from pretty pictures, but I doubt if very many of them make a profit. Let's see a 30x40 Cibachrome, matting, framing. My cost $300 or $400. I need to haul around a 50 or so of them so my potential customers can paw through them. Ah, I sold 3 8x10s this week for $50 each. I have sold 20 or so of my $20 snap shots in a weekend. I imagine that is about what Dave does also. His digital solves the problem that defeated me in the past, how to get prints to the customer before they go home from the event. Why not buy a toy digicam? Because of the stupid problems that go with them like the one you mentioned. What use is a camera that keeps shutting itself off in the middle of a shoot to a professional. That feature is for idiot that takes two shots of their daughter on the teeter-totter then put the camera away until next weekend without shutting it off. Also the bigger sensor gives higher quality images than the small sensor in the toy camera does at the same resolution. I guess what I want to say is, get real. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:05 PM Subject: RE: Pentax digital SLR - Not now! > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Brooks > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:13 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Pentax digital SLR - Not now! > > > > > > Hi JCO.I have to agree,even thought i plunged > > and bought a D1 last year.I still like to > > shoot/fiddle ,how ever you like to put it,with > > film.Part of the reason is i still have yet to > > master difficultlighting/flash with the digital > > cameras. > > Yes, I've heard the digitals are unable to capture > extremely wide contrast scene. Also they have an > exposure latitude more like slide film which is > not exactly a good thing. > > > I don't have a problem with shutter lag,as the > > D1 acts like a proper SLR in that respect, > > Well thats good. But doesnt the camera "go to > sleep" if you go a while without taking a picture? > My digicam does and I hate that. > > > > >and > > my main reason to purchase was to get into the > > higher level digital(used)and take and sell > > pictures at events. > > What do you do, shoot AND print on location? > > > > Graywolf has inspected some prints from the D1 > > and S800 printer and gave me/it a good review. > > Have you done direct comparisons with well made optical > prints using slow film? Less than 3 Mp seems to > me to be too low for 8X10 compared to film.? > > > > I like digital,but i had to spend a lot of > > extra money to buy lenses for Ni**.If Pentax > > comes out with something like the D1 i'll give > > it my 100% focus. > > Why not just buy a 5MP digicam ( non slr), they > are only about $1K? > > > Right now,2.74 megpix is helping me pay for an > > expensive hobby/weekend businessbut i'm happy > > with the results. > > Well, thats the main thing! > > > BUT I still like film.Old habbits???Two months > > after i bought a state of the art digital,i buy > > a used S3,go fiqure > > > > Dave > > Best thing about them oldies is they arent > obsolete (yet) even after 40 years. I dont > think we'll be able to say that about ANY > digital SLR for a long time if ever. Can you > imagine where digital cameras will be in 10 years > from now let alone fourty? > JCO > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
