Re: Slides vs. digital
Aaron Reynolds writes: Gordon Willis talks about underexposing The Godfather Part II by six stops and sometimes more to make it washed out and colourless in the Vegas sequences, and also talks about underexposing by a couple of stops as a rule to defeat helpful lab people who try to brighten up your too dark film. I recently ran an 800 colour print film (PJ800; it was on sale) at 3200. It gives a super-grainy, soft washed-out appearance which looks positively terrible. Lends a nice atmosphere to the right photos though. On the down side, the lab didn't print some of the shots due to the underexposure :) I'll put up a couple of scans if anyone's interested. Pushing Delta 3200 to 12,800 was fun, too. But I was shooting mountain bikers under floodlights that night. No flash, of course :) Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
A scroll of mail from Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:11:39 -0400 Read it? y Skofteland, Christian wrote: Can you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video? George Lucas is filming Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones with digital. I sure hope the movie is better than the title. Contrast range. Digital has no latitude. You shoot it, it's done. Interesting. Is standard movie film closer to print film or slide film for latitude? dave - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
dave o'brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron Reynolds wrote: Skofteland, Christian wrote: Can you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video? George Lucas is filming Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones with digital. I sure hope the movie is better than the title. How could it not be? ;) Contrast range. Digital has no latitude. You shoot it, it's done. Interesting. And untrue. - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Feature motion pictures are shot with negative film. The final release is on what is called print film it gives a positive tranparency. --graywolf dave o'brien wrote: Interesting. Is standard movie film closer to print film or slide film for latitude? -- Tom Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo Charlotte, NC, USA - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
If you'd like to try motion picture film in your still camera, you can buy it wound onto 35mm reels and packed in canisters from RGB studios in Hollywood, California, USA. (You can get their phone number. They're in the 323 area code.) They'll process it and print it as a positive film or on paper. It scans rather nicely as well, which is no surprise since a lot of movie film is transferred to tape for commercials and other similar undertakings. I submitted at least one PUG photo that was shot on this stuff. I think it was called Mono Lake, and you can probably find it in the gallery. Paul Tom Rittenhouse wrote: Feature motion pictures are shot with negative film. The final release is on what is called print film it gives a positive tranparency. --graywolf dave o'brien wrote: Interesting. Is standard movie film closer to print film or slide film for latitude? -- Tom Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo Charlotte, NC, USA - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Mark D. wrote: Are you gonna use the Peizography software and inks or are you gonna work with the MIS Hextone inks? I hadn't decided yet. Lyson also sell a set of quadtone inks, again, no software. The Cone stuff is expensive, because of the software. I hear it's good, though. My exploration into digital BW has not been very satisfactory. I worked with the MIS inks and both systems really seem more ideally suited to produce platinum type prints. Prints on the fine art type paper come out good. But when glossy type papers are used, there are lots of weird reflections and color shifts (yes, with a dedicated BW inkset). But in terms of making prints that look like fibre base, it doesn't seem like it's there. I haven't seen any samples that have wowed me; I had thought that maybe it was just because the people making the samples didn't know how to fully take advantage of the materials yet. I did notice a colour shift in the midtones of one of the Lyson prints the rep showed me...I thought I was hallucinating! But I guess the quadtone bw are just like the colour inks: each paper reacts completely differently and gives a different shift to different colours. Bah. I've had reasonable results making duotones with deep chocolatey browns and then printing them just with our colour inkset (after some tweaking). So far, for regular materials, this seems to be the best way. I guess I'll have to drop the money on a Cone set to find out for sure, huh? -Aaron - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've had reasonable results making duotones with deep chocolatey browns and then printing them just with our colour inkset (after some tweaking). So far, for regular materials, this seems to be the best way. I guess I'll have to drop the money on a Cone set to find out for sure, huh? Dropping that money on the Peizo materials seems like a leap of faith...If you go that route, I'd really like to hear about your results. Heck, I may send you a neg or two... Mark - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Mark D. wrote: My exploration into digital BW has not been very satisfactory. and Aaron responded: I haven't seen any samples that have wowed me; I had thought that maybe it was just because the people making the samples didn't know how to fully take advantage of the materials yet. Aaron and Mark, Check out: http://leicam2.home.texas.net/ You'll notice that George offers his prints for free. I requested some and he sent them to me. Although small, they're generally really excellent--the best look as good as 4x5 contacts. --Mike - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Trying to chase the future is futile. Holding back a little gives you room to breathe, and consider where the future is actually heading. :-) Best, Jostein who takes pride that he hasn't lusted for the MZ-s yet either...(but it's getting harder...) :-) - Original Message - From: Tom Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] [snip] If you don't feel you have to be one of the first to jump into anything new, watching the digital camera de-jur market is great fun. I you have to have the newest, you are going to be saying, I just paid a thousand bucks for this camera and now it's obsolete already, over and over again. Trying to hold back the future is futile! - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aaron and Mark, Check out: http://leicam2.home.texas.net/ You'll notice that George offers his prints for free. I requested some and he sent them to me. Although small, they're generally really excellent--the best look as good as 4x5 contacts. Very intriguing! I will have to request a couple. What kind of paper does he use for his prints (if you know)? Mark - 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 .
Re: Spelling games (was RE: Slides vs digital)
Hey, someone had to clean up the language G Norm John Coyle wrote: snip It was only the somewhat demented Mr. Webster who decided, quite unilaterally, to alter the spelling of some words in his famous dictionary, which was then adopted as standard American spelling. - 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 .
RE: Spelling games (was RE: Slides vs digital)
-Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Hey Christian, don't start this one again - we had a long series on this just recently! However, I might just remind you that the English language originated in England (not the Americas), and that part of it's vocabulary comes from the French. Therefore, French 'couleur' = English 'colour', and we don't really see why we should change. It was only the somewhat demented Mr. Webster who decided, quite unilaterally, to alter the spelling of some words in his famous dictionary, which was then adopted as standard American spelling. I knew you guys would say that! I was just having some fun! Christian Skofteland - 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 .
RE: Spelling games (was RE: Slides vs. digital)
Somebody should have pointed them out to him at the time, instead of waiting until now to do so. :^) Len --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David A. Mann Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Spelling games (was RE: Slides vs digital) John Coyle writes: It was only the somewhat demented Mr. Webster who decided, quite unilaterally, to alter the spelling of some words in his famous dictionary, which was then adopted as standard American spelling. Yeah he made a few typos in that edition ;) Cheers, - Dave - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Mark Roberts wrote: What Mike spent on his setup is a lot less than some people spend for one camera or one lens. One should also take note of the fact that a lot of his gear can be used for printing scans of negatives or slides. I have a similar setup only with a film scanner instead of the digital camera and I now print all my own stuff except when I need prints bigger than 11 x 14 (12 x 18 or larger, in other words). Here is the rundown on the costs of our current all-digital colour darkroom: Apple Macintosh G3 400 w/512 megs of RAM Apple 21 Studio Display with ColorSync LaCie CD-R burner iomega Jaz drive and Zip drive Agfa Duoscan T1200 (for scans from prints and large format transparencies) Two years ago, that pile of equipment cost us just under $10,000 (all prices Canadian). We've added the following pieces: Epson Stylus Pro 7500 (basically a 2000P that prints 24 inches wide, so we can make 24x36 prints): $7500 Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 (for scans from 35mm neg/transparency): $1750 Just arrived yesterday: Polaroid Sprintscan 120 (same resolution as the SS4000 but with much better depth -- 4.2 vs. 3.0 -- and can handle up to 6x9 negs/transparencies, so we're not using the SS4000 any more): $4000 So, the total, not counting the SS4000 that we are no longer using, is $21,500 Canadian. Seems like a lot, doesn't it? Here's what my conventional darkrooms have in them: Two Super Chromega 4x5 enlargers (one in the bw darkroom, one in the colour) One set of carriers Two Gralab digital timers 150, 80 and 50mm enlarging lenses (nice ones) Fujimoto CP-51 colour paper processor with stabilizer/dryer unit sets of trays from 5x7 to 20x24 Two 11x17 four-bladed easels One 16x20 single size easel One 20x24 single size easel safelights (in bw only) clock with a sweep second hand (in bw only) We paid just under $15,000 for everything, with the most expensive pieces (the two enlargers and timers, the CP-51 and the lenses) being used. If we had bought the equipment new, the enlargers list at BH for $3,500 US each, and the CP-51 and Stabilizer/Dryer unit are $5,900 US and $4,300 US respectively, for a total of $17,200 US (or about $26,800 Canadian), not counting lenses or any of the accessories. Of course, that's not totally valid, since one can't go out and find any of the digital equipment I'm using used (not for any kind of bargain, anyways). Additionally, the digital darkroom setup is more flexible: I can print 24x36s vs. 20x30s. I can print 16x45s if I want or need to (to a maximum print size of 24x1200). I can print borderless 16x20s cleanly and easily. I can print from slides without making an interneg, and with more accurate colour. I can print from 8x10 negs or transparencies (vs. 4x5s in my darkroom). And then there's the issue of waste. The digital darkroom has no chemical disposal issues. Yay! My colour darkroom has been shut down. My black and white darkroom is still quite active, for two reasons: 1) it's a pain in the ass to do a contact sheet digitally, 2) without a printer that has been converted for monochrome printing, digital black and white isn't acceptable to me. Yet. I'm converting an old Epson Stylus Photo 1200 over for bw printing, and we'll see how it goes...but I have a feeling that it won't replace fibre based paper for me. Anyhow, just some numbers 'n' stuff. -Aaron - 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 .
Re: Re: Slides vs. digital
I use a program called ACDC and print out my thumbnails (from the D1)from this.I can manipulate the size and print them out on hi res Epson paper for viewing at shows.So far reactions have been positive Dave Begin Original Message My colour darkroom has been shut down. My black and white darkroom is still quite active, for two reasons: 1) it's a pain in the ass to do a contact sheet digitally, Pentax User Stouffville Ont Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Aaron, Which inks are you using in the Epson printers? The 7500 uses the same pigment set as the 2000P. I haven't decided which monochrome inkset to go with yet for the 1200. -Aaron - 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 .
Re: Re: Slides vs. digital
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:23:00 -0400, David J Brooks wrote: I use a program called ACDC and print out my thumbnails (from the D1)from this.I can manipulate the size and print them out on hi res Epson paper for viewing at shows.So far reactions have been positive I think that's ACDSee, Dave. At least that's what it calls itself on my machine. :-) It's a great little program and cheap to register (US$20 IIRC). TTYL, DougF - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] My colour darkroom has been shut down. My black and white darkroom is still quite active, for two reasons: 1) it's a pain in the ass to do a contact sheet digitally, 2) without a printer that has been converted for monochrome printing, digital black and white isn't acceptable to me. Yet. I'm converting an old Epson Stylus Photo 1200 over for bw printing, and we'll see how it goes...but I have a feeling that it won't replace fibre based paper for me. Hey Aaron, Are you gonna use the Peizography software and inks or are you gonna work with the MIS Hextone inks? My exploration into digital BW has not been very satisfactory. I worked with the MIS inks and both systems really seem more ideally suited to produce platinum type prints. Prints on the fine art type paper come out good. But when glossy type papers are used, there are lots of weird reflections and color shifts (yes, with a dedicated BW inkset). But in terms of making prints that look like fibre base, it doesn't seem like it's there. Of course, there may be papers that I haven't tried yet. So, I hope you'll keep us updated... Thanks, Mark Mark - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
I do my BW contact sheets digitally. I scan them on an Agfa Duoscan 2500 T we have at work and print them on an Epson 1200. Just fine for contacts. But my experiments with printing digital BW photos have been just so-so. The darkroom is still the best place for that. I have had good success scanning BW from negatives for web images. My PUG submission for this month is just such an animal. Paul Mark D. wrote: From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] My colour darkroom has been shut down. My black and white darkroom is still quite active, for two reasons: 1) it's a pain in the ass to do a contact sheet digitally, 2) without a printer that has been converted for monochrome printing, digital black and white isn't acceptable to me. Yet. I'm converting an old Epson Stylus Photo 1200 over for bw printing, and we'll see how it goes...but I have a feeling that it won't replace fibre based paper for me. Hey Aaron, Are you gonna use the Peizography software and inks or are you gonna work with the MIS Hextone inks? My exploration into digital BW has not been very satisfactory. I worked with the MIS inks and both systems really seem more ideally suited to produce platinum type prints. Prints on the fine art type paper come out good. But when glossy type papers are used, there are lots of weird reflections and color shifts (yes, with a dedicated BW inkset). But in terms of making prints that look like fibre base, it doesn't seem like it's there. Of course, there may be papers that I haven't tried yet. So, I hope you'll keep us updated... Thanks, Mark Mark - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital / Archiving?
-Original Message- From: Cory or Brenda Waters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more than ten years ago in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from that timeframe in a week. The CDs work no problem but the negatives will have been sitting in a shoebox in the attic and some basements for all that time Leaving negatives in shoeboxes in attics or basements is your choice. If you carefully store them in cabinets you won't have any issues. Speaking of which I came across negatives that my father took in the fifties and went through a flood in 1973 and are still viable. Being in the IT field I have seen CD's damaged beyond use by simply leaving them stacked together without protection between each one. I'm only suggesting that digital media and chemical media are both able to be stored and accessed for long periods if you take the time to do it right. Why store your CDs one way and not give the same care to your negatives? Christian Skofteland - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
I have, and one day I might actually get one. BUT, I would only use it for snaps to email, etc. I only shoot color now just for snapshots, the real joy in photography to me is Plus-X in my 6x7 followed up with a darkroom experience. I really enjoy the craft side of the art. So, yes, I might buy one but you would never see anything on PUG from me taken with one (or for that matter something on my wall). Just my personal preference. Norm Mike Johnston wrote: ...And now I have a slightly different tack to take than in my last message. How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED digital? I mean recently, and in a way that gives it a fair chance? - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
-Original Message- From: Robert Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^) They are so young, so lacking in experience. They become much more interesting a few year later -- naked or clothed. Bob good point Christian Skofteland - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Humm. Does the term neoluddite come to mind. Yepper, it surely does. You think things are going too fast? When I feel that way I think of my dad. When he was born automobiles (you could hardly call them cars) were a curiosity, the first airplane had not yet flown. Before he knew it the world turned from steam for mass transportation to jet engines, men had walked on the moon, he had a pc on his desk. And, we are worried about what media our pics are recorded on? Look at it this way, as more and more people turn to digital photography the old film cameras they are trading in will get cheaper and cheaper (while film itself gets more and more dear). Eventually, those cameras may become useless relicts but that is going to take awhile. No, one is twisting your are to go digital (though, how you are going to submit to the pug without digitizing your photos is beyond me). Film will not disappear completely for a long long while. The big corporations will surely quit making it (they don't think a market of less than a billion dollars or so is worth catering to), but small entrepreneurs will fill the niche markets, and with the internet you will be able to find them and their products which has been the problem in the past. There is a company called Film for Classics that repackages film in old formats so people can use their old Kodak 116 Tourist cameras. If you don't feel you have to be one of the first to jump into anything new, watching the digital camera de-jur market is great fun. I you have to have the newest, you are going to be saying, I just paid a thousand bucks for this camera and now it's obsolete already, over and over again. Trying to hold back the future is futile! --graywolf Jostein Xksne wrote: David, That's exactly what I think too. Just didn't manage to put it so well. Thanks :-) Jostein -- Original Message -- From: David A. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] [about the inevitable digital future] We're not trying to run away from it but I do sometimes wish that the world wasn't running head-first into it. -- Tom Graywolf Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA -- - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Mike Johnston wrote: by 2012 the river would be twelve feet long In January the temperature was 2 degrees C. In August it was 25 degrees C. If the temperature continues to rise at this rate then I would give the polar ice caps no more than 5 months. We're all doomed, doomed I say! Regards Jim Brooks E-MAILS are susceptible to interference. You should not assume that the contents originated from the sender or the Zetex Group or that they have been accurately reproduced from their original form. Zetex accepts no responsibility for information, errors or omissions in this e-mail nor for its use or misuse nor for any act committed or omitted in connection with this communication. If in doubt, please verify the authenticity with the sender. Visit our new look website at http://www.zetex.com Bigger and better with improved functionality - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Reminds me of a guy I met in business about 12 years ago. His specialty was twilight industries, those dying out. He ended up buying all the machines to press vinyl (albums) that he could, he was at that time the only company doing it in the US and cornered the (then small) market. Now he is rocking (pardon the pun)... Norm Tom Rittenhouse wrote: snip Film will not disappear completely for a long long while. The big corporations will surely quit making it (they don't think a market of less than a billion dollars or so is worth catering to), but small entrepreneurs will fill the niche marketssnip - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital / Archiving?
Christian Skofteland writes: -Original Message- From: Cory or Brenda Waters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more than ten years ago in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from that timeframe in a week. The CDs work no problem but the negatives will have been sitting in a shoebox in the attic and some basements for all that time Leaving negatives in shoeboxes in attics or basements is your choice. If you carefully store them in cabinets you won't have any issues. Speaking of which I came across negatives that my father took in the fifties and went through a flood in 1973 and are still viable. Being in the IT field I have seen CD's damaged beyond use by simply leaving them stacked together without protection between each one. I'm only suggesting that digital media and chemical media are both able to be stored and accessed for long periods if you take the time to do it right. Why store your CDs one way and not give the same care to your negatives? To prevent inaccessible data, keep the pictures on your hard disk and copy them to the new disk when you upgrade. Keep backups, preferably offsite (safe deposit box). Why? Here's a few reasons: 8 in. floppy; single sided, single density 5.25 floppy; casette tape; MFM (ST506?) hard disks; magtape; double-density CD-Rs. To prevent inaccessible data formats, first pick one that has a good chance of lasting a while (I like JPEG because of how common browsers that can read that format are). Assume once in a while you'll need to translate all the images into a new format. Here's a good reason: Amiga HAM format. Do I do this myself? Not a chance -- I can't afford the disk space either :-) I save my images on CD-R media in TIFF and JPEG format, _and_ save the original slides, and still I hope for the best. I recently found that not even CD-Rs are safe.. that is when I went looking for an image I wanted to submit for PUG, only to find a corrupt TIFF and unreadable JPEG (the original TIFF and JPEG on my disk were not corrupt when I made the CD). Seems somewhere the data that was being written to the CD got corrupted (I think, before it was actually written as there were no read errors, just corrupt files). I need to rescan the slide. That, and find a bulk diff program that can compare the data on the CD with the original files before I delete them off my disk. later, patbob ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Dave wrote: If you know of something suitable let me know :) Dave, Check out: http://www.steves-digicams.com/e10.html That's not exactly it, but it's a pretty nice camera. BTW it's smaller than it looks in pictures, and it's almost affordable. --Mike - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
The e-10 works great, too. I traded four bodies and three lenses for the one I have. None of the stuff I traded was Pentax, though, so I didn't lose anything critical. Len --- -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital Dave wrote: If you know of something suitable let me know :) Dave, Check out: http://www.steves-digicams.com/e10.html That's not exactly it, but it's a pretty nice camera. BTW it's smaller than it looks in pictures, and it's almost affordable. --Mike - 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 .
Spelling games (was RE: Slides vs digital)
Hey Christian, don't start this one again - we had a long series on this just recently! However, I might just remind you that the English language originated in England (not the Americas), and that part of it's vocabulary comes from the French. Therefore, French 'couleur' = English 'colour', and we don't really see why we should change. It was only the somewhat demented Mr. Webster who decided, quite unilaterally, to alter the spelling of some words in his famous dictionary, which was then adopted as standard American spelling. On Friday, September 07, 2001 6:55 AM, Skofteland, Christian [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Hmmm, being new to digitizing my photos/slides, I'm not sure what you mean by colour (why can't every English speaking country spell it color?) management. I use Gimp for editing and it is one of the best image manipulation packages out there. Let me know how I can help. Christian Skofteland P.S. My wife is an aussie and spells everything wrong too! - John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip That's really not all that much, given that you'd be discovering a whole new way of making images and starting to learn about the most revolutionary development in photography since Godowsky and Mannes invented Kodachrome in 1936. Let's face it, this is the major paradigm shift in imagemaking in our _lifetimes_. At the very least, it's worth getting one's feet wet. What Mike spent on his setup is a lot less than some people spend for one camera or one lens. One should also take note of the fact that a lot of his gear can be used for printing scans of negatives or slides. I have a similar setup only with a film scanner instead of the digital camera and I now print all my own stuff except when I need prints bigger than 11 x 14 (12 x 18 or larger, in other words). - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
I don't think I'm alone on this one. If it were to get prohibitively expensive due to decreased demand then I guess I, along with just about every Nature/Wildlife photographer out there, would be SOL. Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital So just how rich are you? Much of what stays and goes is driven by cost. When film is less utilized, the price to produce will go up and the price to develop will go up. After a while, manufacturers will quit making most of the emulsions because it doesn't make them enough money. We are already seeing that with our precious slow films (Ektar 25, Ultra 50, etc.). When the cost per frame is prohibitive, then we'll see how well you can single handedly keep it alive. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: Skofteland, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:17 PM Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital Maybe my problem with this thread is that some people are saying words like go the way of lasts or survives. I don't like digital photography. I don't like the way it looks. For that matter I don't like video tape either. I think film has a quality that cannot be reproduced in any medium. This quality is hard for me to put into words but when I see a documentary by Howard Hall, for example, or photographs by David Doubilet, the image quality moves me unlike videotaped or digitally photographed images. Can you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video? This is why I say you cannot use words like go the way of lasts or survives because there will be people like me who won't allow it to go away. Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital Only until digital becomes tenable from a cost standpoint (which will be a few--very few--years). I'll bet still chemical photography survives much longer than motion picture film. As Bill Casselberry pointed out, the resolution needed for motion pictures is lower than for stills. The material costs (film, processing, etc.) are much higher. As soon as digital video equipment reaches the quality of 35mm or 16mm film and equipment costs are similar (and independent filmmakers can edit everything on their home PCs) the shift is going to happen fast. -- Original Message -- or stick with film! :-) And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say that video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture and documentary industry. And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never *will* happen: the motion picture and documentary makers will skip right over videotape and go to digital when it's cost effective (a few more years). -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 . - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
If it's not Jar-Jar it will be some other lame character Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: David A. Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slides vs digital [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even if the digital images are transferred to film, if the resulting color saturation and contrast looks like film, then the digital image must have been that good in the first place for film to capture it. Of course it was. A computer-rendered digital original is as good as you'll get provided you've put enough information into it. The limitations we see are the results of not enough raw information (resolution, bit-depth), and converting between the analogue digital domains at the image capture and output stages. Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment) displayed it digitally, so what the viewers saw at the theatre were images that had never been on film at all anywhere in the process. I've heard that Lucas wasn't all that impressed with the cameras he used but they did save big bucks on film stock. Digtal theatre projection systems are definitely a good thing because they'll be a major improvement over the multi- generation prints we see at the moment. To compare film and digital for their ability to produce pure picture quality you should be looking at the master print. I just hope he didn't bring Jar Jar back. There's a lot more of this kind of thing coming... I hope so. The theatres down here suck. Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
I'd consider buying a Pentax K-mount (as long as it takes my manual focus lenses!) digital camera. But only as a snap-shooter. It would never replace my LX and Velvia for nature photography. Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: John Mustarde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:12 +1000, you wrote: I really do not understand the comparison. Slides offer the highest resolution available in colour film. Start comparing digital to say 3200 negative film. Don't read it here - go try it yourself. Digital is as good as 35mm film - right now - for the smaller enlargements which are the forte of 35mm film. Forget the technical arguments about pixel count vs resolution vs everything else. Just take a few images with a mid-range digital (with a good lens) and check it out. Several months ago, Minolta introduced a 5 megapixel digicam with 28-200 zoom lens and hot shoe, priced at $1500. Not a great camera, but not lacking in resolution and image quality. How many Pentax buyers would spend $1000 - $1500 for a nicely featured 5 mp digital camera, in KAF mount with no lens? Lots, I imagine. Count me in for sure. -- Happy Trails, Texdance http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance http://members1.clubphoto.com/john8202 - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
My feeling is that film will always have the edge in resolution, since CCDs and other light sensors are electrical components with a certain minimum size, while film works on a molecular scale. I'm sure everyone has noticed that film continues to improve. The cost/availability factor is another story. Keep buying film, folks! Pat White - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
- Original Message - From: Lewis, Gerald [EMAIL PROTECTED] (snip) Movie film is on positive transparency film... (snip) Not so. As a general rule only amateurs and pre-video news gatherers used transparency films. Feature films are shot on colour negative and printed on another type of negative film that is maskless and is called print film, eg Eastmancolor Print Film. Vericolor Print Film is a still photography version of this and is used to make slides from negatives. These should not be confused with the dumbed down labelling of colour negative film as print film because manufacturers think most customers don't know that prints are made from negatives (probably true). BTW the product names I quoted could be obsolete as my knowledge is some years in the past, so my apologies if that is the case. Regards, Anthony Farr - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
I agree, I would also buy that 6 Mpix MZ-S lookalike, we have all seen the prototype of, for a reasonable price :-) But it will take a long while before it can come level with the good old slide emulsions, if ever in our lifetime. Not within our lifetime??? Try within a few years. Sooner if price is no object ;-) The real question isn't when digital image capture will exceed the quality of film, but when such technology will be affordable to real people. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
Pat, I'll keep buying film as long it's there. :-) And I don't think film will die easily. Even if everybody wants their images to go digital in some way. Placing a CCD in a tabletop scanner is dead cheap compared to fitting one to a camera. Tech developments are bound to improve both type of products, so the combination of film and scanner will stay competitive for a long while. (Haven't followed this thread very closely, so please excuse me if this is out of line...) Jostein -- Original Message -- From: Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 07:45:58 -0400 My feeling is that film will always have the edge in resolution, since CCDs and other light sensors are electrical components with a certain minimum size, while film works on a molecular scale. I'm sure everyone has noticed that film continues to improve. The cost/availability factor is another story. Keep buying film, folks! Pat White - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Skofteland, Christian wrote: Can you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video? Actually, with the very best we've got today, if he had shot with DV after doing the same testing he would with film stocks, I'd bet we couldn't tell the difference. Funny story from a grip friend of mine: Out here in Toronto, a TV pilot was being shot on a new 24-frame digital video camera. He says that while the final result (on TV) is indistinguishable from what they'd get by shooting 16mm and while the film costs are significantly lower, the rate of filming is much slower and consequently they are getting fewer shots done per day and spending MORE money than they would if they were shooting on film. Why? Contrast range. Digital has no latitude. You shoot it, it's done. Consequently, the director of photography has found that he has to light the heck out of every shot and fill in every last shadow with small lights and reflectors if he wants to have any detail at all in the shadows, and as a result, he's spending close to triple the time he normally would to light each shot. -Aaron - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to happen is an indicator. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: Skofteland, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 3:20 AM Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital I don't think I'm alone on this one. If it were to get prohibitively expensive due to decreased demand then I guess I, along with just about every Nature/Wildlife photographer out there, would be SOL. Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital So just how rich are you? Much of what stays and goes is driven by cost. When film is less utilized, the price to produce will go up and the price to develop will go up. After a while, manufacturers will quit making most of the emulsions because it doesn't make them enough money. We are already seeing that with our precious slow films (Ektar 25, Ultra 50, etc.). When the cost per frame is prohibitive, then we'll see how well you can single handedly keep it alive. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: Skofteland, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:17 PM Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital Maybe my problem with this thread is that some people are saying words like go the way of lasts or survives. I don't like digital photography. I don't like the way it looks. For that matter I don't like video tape either. I think film has a quality that cannot be reproduced in any medium. This quality is hard for me to put into words but when I see a documentary by Howard Hall, for example, or photographs by David Doubilet, the image quality moves me unlike videotaped or digitally photographed images. Can you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video? This is why I say you cannot use words like go the way of lasts or survives because there will be people like me who won't allow it to go away. Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital Only until digital becomes tenable from a cost standpoint (which will be a few--very few--years). I'll bet still chemical photography survives much longer than motion picture film. As Bill Casselberry pointed out, the resolution needed for motion pictures is lower than for stills. The material costs (film, processing, etc.) are much higher. As soon as digital video equipment reaches the quality of 35mm or 16mm film and equipment costs are similar (and independent filmmakers can edit everything on their home PCs) the shift is going to happen fast. -- Original Message -- or stick with film! :-) And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say that video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture and documentary industry. And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never *will* happen: the motion picture and documentary makers will skip right over videotape and go to digital when it's cost effective (a few more years). -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 . - 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 . - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
How real do people turn...? Silly question, sorry...:-) IMHO, the advance of digital photography is related to other issues than _just_ the advance of affordable technology. [enter rambling mode...] A great number of people will have a lot of pleasure in producing images digitally, view them digitally, and print them out to put on the wall or in a family album. Or maybe get a digital projector and produce digital slide shows. But a greater number of people will, for more than a lifetime from now, will have more pleasure in _not_ having to do all the job themselves to view images. Or having to use a computer to do so (Sidewinder argument on an e- mail list, I know, but nontheless true). The options for these people will be film until the digital technology is so transparent that they don't have to _think_ about the process from they push the button until they have a nice little pile of printed images to flip through. Those people would also like their images to be viewable by their great-grandchildren when that time comes. Now how do these people store their originals for the future? CD-rom? Diskettes? Memory cards? There's no digital medium (or print) with a lifetime expectancy longer than a negative. And it seems that technology developers aren't interested in this issue. Since the first days of digital storage, incompatible formats have replaced each other with less than 10 year intervals. I can't see any signs at all that this will change (but I would love it if it happened). Ops. Maybe a bit too aggressive? I'll go and get my medication at once... Jostein -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The real question isn't when digital image capture will exceed the quality of film, but when such technology will be affordable to real people. -- Mark Roberts . - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
- Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to happen is an indicator. I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR user is not who is driving the film market right now. Compacts have outsold SLRs by about 10:1 over the past 15 years, and this is the market that is driving film sales. This market keeps getting bigger. The compact market is also very price conscious. The base cost of a point and shoot is about 1/5th of a comparably featured digital camera. I can certainly see a diminishment in the number of emulsions. The loss of Ektar 25, Ultra and APX 25 is a blow to the SLR user, but went completely unnoticed by the other 95% of the marketplace. We forget that we are already an extreme minority in the photo marketplace. Our numbers (that would be the film based SLR photographer) may get smaller, but as a whole, film sales continue to expand. What does worry me is the politics of photofinishing. What may well kill silver based imaging is governments regulating effluent discharge to the point it is not viable to run a photo lab. In California, silver effluent discharge is already regulated to below the level of naturally occurring silver in many water systems (which is REALLY ridiculous). While labs now do practice silver recovery, we still discharge a lot of chemistry down the drain. At some point, the bureaucrats are going to realize that they need to regulate this, if for no other reason than to make room for more bureaucrats in the work force. This will make photo processing more expensive, as complying with government regulations always costs more than it is worth. As the price goes up, the volume will go down. This will make the entire industry less profitable, and will probably be the beginning of the end for silver imaging. William Robb - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
At 05:15 PM 9/4/01 +0800, you wrote: Trouble is I've never played a (vinyl) record that didn't have the odd crackle or snap. If you can ignore that - then yes, it sounds surprisingly good. Film on the hand has no such artefacts (to my amateur eyes ;-)) so it should be able to put up a good fight against digital. Color film - and chromogenic bw - fades over time. I'd say that equates to scratching on vinyl. Maybe even worse. Gary J. Sibio - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Mike Johnston wrote: Christian wrote: I don't think I'm alone on this one. If it were to get prohibitively expensive due to decreased demand then I guess I, along with just about every Nature/Wildlife photographer out there, would be SOL. I just don't believe it will. It doesn't make sense to me how it would happen. Even if there's only a few coating lines producing it and a small market a fraction the size of today's, it's still not going to be appreciably more expensive to produce. It might get to be double today's price but it's not like it's going to go up by a factor of ten. I just don't believe that. Maybe we can have an idea. I don't know the prices but how much expensive is a super-8 film today when compared to 30 years ago. We should remember to take into account the inflaction of this period. Maybe the price will be almost the same, if we consider the inflaction. If so, we can hope that the film price will not increase becasue of the reduced production, but, who knows? Alex - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
Hi, Alexandre. You missed my point... It's easy for computer literals to convert between media. We eagerly await the future for another chance to convert our images to brave new technology...:-) My point was that the conversion task, and even the task of sitting down before one of them silly PC-boxes just to get an image on a piece of paper, that's not convenient technology in _most_ people's eyes. Best, Jostein -- Original Message -- From: Alexandre A. P. Suaide [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Hello, I partialy agree in this point. The digital media changed a lot in the past years and will continue changing... We came from 5'1/4 disks to 3'1/2 disks, to cdrom to dvd rom, memory cards, etc. Where are we going (to be very science fiction, maybe holographic crystals). But we should remember that the transition from one media to the other is pretty straight forward and, more important, with NO loses. I had no problems to convert from one media to another in the past years. I don't think it will be a big issue in the future. We have been always changing computer media in the last years Another point is if now we can save 100 high resolution pictures on CD, maybe in the next 5 years we will save 1 in the new media. About 99.99% of the population does not take more than that in a lifetime. For these people, copy from only one XXX- ROM to the new YYY-ROM using the 2000 speed YYY-ROM burner in less than 10 minutes will not be a big problem. The world if going digital. We can't run away from it. Alex On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Jostein [ISO-8859-1] Xksne wrote: How real do people turn...? Silly question, sorry...:-) Those people would also like their images to be viewable by their great-grandchildren when that time comes. Now how do these people store their originals for the future? CD-rom? Diskettes? Memory cards? There's no digital medium (or print) with a lifetime expectancy longer than a negative. And it seems that technology developers aren't interested in this issue. Since the first days of digital storage, incompatible formats have replaced each other with less than 10 year intervals. I can't see any signs at all that this will change (but I would love it if it happened). - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
I think we are violently agreeing, just from different directions. As we compare digital to film, we are generally doing so with our favorite emulsions (the ones that will slowly be discontinued). If all that was left was Gold 200 and Superia 400, digital might be more appealing. I do agree, that photofinishing being widespread and relatively inexpensive, has had a major positive impact on film sales. The changes you describe could be devastating. One of the local Ritz shops here has a system where you pop in your memory card (all types supported), pick the images you want to print from the screen. They are then printed on a dye sub printer with a protective overcoating applied (looks glossy) in about 1 minute each. Current price is 69 cents each/qty 1. If photofinishing becomes regulated as you say, I could see this being the thing that turns the masses to digital. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 8:50 AM Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to happen is an indicator. I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR user is not who is driving the film market right now. Compacts have outsold SLRs by about 10:1 over the past 15 years, and this is the market that is driving film sales. This market keeps getting bigger. The compact market is also very price conscious. The base cost of a point and shoot is about 1/5th of a comparably featured digital camera. I can certainly see a diminishment in the number of emulsions. The loss of Ektar 25, Ultra and APX 25 is a blow to the SLR user, but went completely unnoticed by the other 95% of the marketplace. We forget that we are already an extreme minority in the photo marketplace. Our numbers (that would be the film based SLR photographer) may get smaller, but as a whole, film sales continue to expand. What does worry me is the politics of photofinishing. What may well kill silver based imaging is governments regulating effluent discharge to the point it is not viable to run a photo lab. In California, silver effluent discharge is already regulated to below the level of naturally occurring silver in many water systems (which is REALLY ridiculous). While labs now do practice silver recovery, we still discharge a lot of chemistry down the drain. At some point, the bureaucrats are going to realize that they need to regulate this, if for no other reason than to make room for more bureaucrats in the work force. This will make photo processing more expensive, as complying with government regulations always costs more than it is worth. As the price goes up, the volume will go down. This will make the entire industry less profitable, and will probably be the beginning of the end for silver imaging. William Robb - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
- Original Message - From: Alexandre A. P. Suaide Maybe we can have an idea. I don't know the prices but how much expensive is a super-8 film today when compared to 30 years ago. We should remember to take into account the inflaction of this period. Maybe the price will be almost the same, if we consider the inflaction. If so, we can hope that the film price will not increase becasue of the reduced production, but, who knows? This almost makes sense, until you analyze the technology behind the statement. Super-8 was supplanted by much more convenient technology. Home movies on an 8mm video camera are much easier to produce and view than on an 8mm film camera. This is not to imply that either one is worth viewing. OTOH, still imaging, whether on film or digital is about equally easy. Digital does not have an advantage in this regard. Film imaging does have a huge price advantage every step of the way, and this is something not likely to change, and will keep film imaging in the marketplace for a long time. !--rant mode on-- What I find really stupid is all the talk about film being replaced by digital. I think this is a moronic and completely specious arguement. Surely digital imaging is here to stay, but what makes anyone think it will supplant conventional film? Computer techno idiots seem to think that if it comes from a computer it must be better, and seem to be on the forefront of this particular debate. I don't know if it serves their self interest or their ego or what. Digital imaging is a different market segment from film. Some film users (and I think this is a minority) are going to look at this technology and say this is what I have been waiting for, and will make the switch. Some film users will say I can make use of this technology in some situations, so it makes sense to involve myself in it. Some film users will make the switch because they are addicted to new technology. Many of all of these people will switch back to film at some poi nt, the same way that most of the video consumers of the 80's switched back to still (film) shortly after buying their video cameras. The imaging marketplace is huge. No technology is going to supplant another one completely enough to make it disappear. The advantage lies with the incumbent technology, as it has a long and well proven track record of reliablilty. !--rant mode off-- William Robb - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
- Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:24 AM Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital . If photofinishing becomes regulated as you say, I could see this being the thing that turns the masses to digital. If photofinishing becomes regulated as I think it will be, there will be no choice but to turn to digital. William Robb - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
So, where do we obtain books on creating our own paper emulsions for paper glass? That seems about the only way the craft will survive the next 2 decades. (and I'm serious!) Here's the future that I dread: Clubs of people in their 50s learning to mix chemicals for paper and plates. They shoot a few shots. Make a couple of enlargements. Show them off to their friends and grandchildren. Then drop it because now they've fully experienced chemical photography. The grandchildren ask why it took so long to print. Is their computer/printer that slow? Then he shows the kids a negative, perhaps also a roll of unshot film. They wonder why anyone would want to wait for pictures or do all that work? And it smells bad, too. Every two or three years the club membership turns over. All they do is a bunch still-life shots of fruit baskets and a few nudes of that college girl. Nothing really intersting. Just prolonging the craft's life. Sort of like those oil painting groups of old ladies. jmnsho, Collin -original-- This will make photo processing more expensive, as complying with government regulations always costs more than it is worth. As the price goes up, the volume will go down. This will make the entire industry less profitable, and will probably be the beginning of the end for silver imaging. William Robb - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
William Robb wrote: I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR user is not who is driving the film market right now. Compacts have outsold SLRs by about 10:1 over the past 15 years, and this is the market that is driving film sales. This market keeps getting bigger. ...except that for the first time in what seems like forever, Kodak has announced that film sales are down, significantly. Could be the bad economy, could be increased competition, or it could be the dreaded oogy-boogy spectre of digital looming over the great yellow father. -Aaron - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
Absolutely! That was my point. According to Bruce Dayton (elsewhere in this thread) this is already happening. So if the memorycards of today's digital cameras fits tomorrow's digital labs, all will be well...? ...or? Bit sceptical still... Jostein -- Original Message -- From: Alexandre A. P. Suaide [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry if I missed the point. But even in this case, I think, there will be digital labs in the future. Instead of drop your film to be developed in K-Mart, or drop the negatives to make new copies, you will drop your CD in the k-mart, go shopping and get the prints. I don't see any problem on that. Instead of negatives we will use CD's or anything else. For the consumer, there will be no difference and he also will have the possibility to have the copies made at home, if he desires. cheers, Alex - . - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
William Robb wrote : What I find really stupid is all the talk about film being replaced by digital. Which was the point I was making in the first place! Granted I did not use the words stupid or moronic because I'm new to this forum and didn't want to offend anyone. ;^) Christian Skofteland - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Every two or three years the club membership turns over. All they do is a bunch still-life shots of fruit baskets and a few nudes of that college girl. Nothing really intersting. What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^) Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital So, where do we obtain books on creating our own paper emulsions for paper glass? That seems about the only way the craft will survive the next 2 decades. (and I'm serious!) Here's the future that I dread: Clubs of people in their 50s learning to mix chemicals for paper and plates. They shoot a few shots. Make a couple of enlargements. Show them off to their friends and grandchildren. Then drop it because now they've fully experienced chemical photography. The grandchildren ask why it took so long to print. Is their computer/printer that slow? Then he shows the kids a negative, perhaps also a roll of unshot film. They wonder why anyone would want to wait for pictures or do all that work? And it smells bad, too. Every two or three years the club membership turns over. All they do is a bunch still-life shots of fruit baskets and a few nudes of that college girl. Nothing really intersting. Just prolonging the craft's life. Sort of like those oil painting groups of old ladies. jmnsho, Collin -original-- This will make photo processing more expensive, as complying with government regulations always costs more than it is worth. As the price goes up, the volume will go down. This will make the entire industry less profitable, and will probably be the beginning of the end for silver imaging. William Robb - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
You know folks, the fact that you can walk into a Wal-Mart (and others), pull the SmartMedia card, or CompactFlash card out of your digital camera and plug it into the appropriate slot of a digital print maker, select your choices for print size, color balance, sharpness, cropping, etc. and get just the prints that you want, when you want them, has a certain amount of appeal to the general public. These machines make it a lot simpler than learning PhotoShop or the software that comes with scanners. The public is looking for prints for their photo albums and, more and more, pictures they can e-mail to family members throughout the world. Will digital cameras ever surpass film cameras in picture quality? The answer is YES!. It is inevitable. The technology to do so is already here. It's just a matter of getting the prices down to where most people can afford them. Len --- -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to happen is an indicator. I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR user is not who is driving the film market right now. Compacts have outsold SLRs by about 10:1 over the past 15 years, and this is the market that is driving film sales. This market keeps getting bigger. The compact market is also very price conscious. The base cost of a point and shoot is about 1/5th of a comparably featured digital camera. I can certainly see a diminishment in the number of emulsions. The loss of Ektar 25, Ultra and APX 25 is a blow to the SLR user, but went completely unnoticed by the other 95% of the marketplace. We forget that we are already an extreme minority in the photo marketplace. Our numbers (that would be the film based SLR photographer) may get smaller, but as a whole, film sales continue to expand. What does worry me is the politics of photofinishing. What may well kill silver based imaging is governments regulating effluent discharge to the point it is not viable to run a photo lab. In California, silver effluent discharge is already regulated to below the level of naturally occurring silver in many water systems (which is REALLY ridiculous). While labs now do practice silver recovery, we still discharge a lot of chemistry down the drain. At some point, the bureaucrats are going to realize that they need to regulate this, if for no other reason than to make room for more bureaucrats in the work force. This will make photo processing more expensive, as complying with government regulations always costs more than it is worth. As the price goes up, the volume will go down. This will make the entire industry less profitable, and will probably be the beginning of the end for silver imaging. William Robb - - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital (sorry, long - and probably OT)
There is one other aspect which may, for just a few folks, impede the total triumph of digital over slide film - even after the resolution, cost, and all other functional limitations are removed (which will of course happen very soon indeed): namely, the questionable authenticity of a digital image. Whether we realize it or not, all of us are enjoying photos because they are photos - that is, they are representational objects. They are not purely aesthetic in nature, but always reference something. This something is our reality. A photo of a mountain is not just a two-dimensional green hump, but also by its nature constitutes a psychic connection to our appreciation of real mountains. Even where a photo is distorted, a filter used, exposure manipulated, etc., the filmic negative still represents what was there. (Keep in mind that our eyes themselves distort things, and when a photo is exposed differently, or infrared film used, we are not simply changing the image but revealing a different - sometimes, to our eyes, latent - aspect of what was there.) The mechanical process of filmic photography is an authentic process which contains a comprehensible connection to reality. Consider whether a different emotional effect is produced by a photo of a person being savaged, or, for instance, by an iconographic drawing or pictogram of the same. We understand the photo's connection to reality and are usually horrified by such a scene, whereas we understand the fiction of a drawing and are far less so. This is not simply to do with the greater accuracy of the photo, but also with our knowledge that the photo is describing an actuality (and that therefore a person was probably actually savaged). That the photo may have been faked isn't terribly significant to our emotional reaction, though soon afterwards many of our intellectual reactions might be Is this for real? - did this really happen? Photos can of course deceive, but so can our eyes - and we don't as a rule distrust our eyes. The existence of optical illusions doesn't call into question the veracity of seeing as a rule. We can heap up the instances of photos being manipulated without calling into question the authenticity of the process of photography just as we can heap up the instances of optical illusions without calling into question human sight. In the case of digital, what we are seeing is a computer's instantaneous re-creation of a scene. This may or may not have an appearance similar to reality. (Usually it does appear similar to reality, at least initially.) In any case, the best relationship it can possibly have to reality is precisely appearance - which is to say, a by definition superficial relationship to reality. It is constituted not by the optical residue of reality, but by entirely anonymous complexes of data. It is a computer's original generation (really, a code execution), with reality merely as its guide. (Even this may be saying too much.) It loses nothing in successive iterations (keep in mind that each time a file is copied a new file is created with similar data) because it never had anything to begin with! We make no pains to distinguish original from copy because neither possesses any authenticity, and the word original in this context is therefore meaningless. The digital camera shares the same relationship with the mechanical camera that a synthesizer does with an acoustic instrument it imitates - which is to say, no real relationship at all. However, because collective culture understands the growing power of manipulation in the digital milieu, we will soon enough take it for granted that any and all images (digital or analog) are simply pretty (or ugly) pictures with no definite connection to reality (just as real original paintings must be scrutinized before being believed authentic): this says nothing about the filmic negative, but only about how the digital age has conditioned our misunderstanding of it. This undermining of our belief in film is a relatively small problem, however, when set against the larger problems a society will face when based upon the entirely ephemeral, with nothing behind to adjudicate reality. The argument will surface, as it always does: pixels, grains - what's the difference? This is similar to comparing Picasso's Guernica with a visually indistinguishable copy: what's the difference? - just chemical properties of pigments? The difference is not in the appearance but in our understanding of how each was created. One is authentic and the other not, regardless of the superficially similar appearance. Philosopher Rudolph Arnheim has compared the negative to a bearprint. It may or may not resemble our expectations (a-priori pictogram image) of a print, but it is a print because an animal made it. And something that resembles a bearprint (for instance, a depression made by a fake plastic bear paw) is not a
RE: Slides vs. digital
Why is it that it has to be something you/someone approve of to be interesting to the photographer, or to the other members of the club. There are others on this NG that also seem to think that they are the ultimate judge of what is a good/bad photo/technique/crop/subjectetc... Just smacks of elitism and makes this group just that much less interesting. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:24 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Every two or three years the club membership turns over. All they do is a bunch still-life shots of fruit baskets and a few nudes of that college girl. Nothing really intersting. What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^) Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital So, where do we obtain books on creating our own paper emulsions for paper glass? That seems about the only way the craft will survive the next 2 decades. (and I'm serious!) Here's the future that I dread: Clubs of people in their 50s learning to mix chemicals for paper and plates. They shoot a few shots. Make a couple of enlargements. Show them off to their friends and grandchildren. Then drop it because now they've fully experienced chemical photography. The grandchildren ask why it took so long to print. Is their computer/printer that slow? Then he shows the kids a negative, perhaps also a roll of unshot film. They wonder why anyone would want to wait for pictures or do all that work? And it smells bad, too. Every two or three years the club membership turns over. All they do is a bunch still-life shots of fruit baskets and a few nudes of that college girl. Nothing really intersting. Just prolonging the craft's life. Sort of like those oil painting groups of old ladies. jmnsho, Collin -original-- This will make photo processing more expensive, as complying with government regulations always costs more than it is worth. As the price goes up, the volume will go down. This will make the entire industry less profitable, and will probably be the beginning of the end for silver imaging. William Robb - 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 . - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital (sorry,=2 0long - and probably OT)
Robert Wetmore wrote: snip Very interesting and thoughtful views. I'll not buy a digital camera any time soon - I have no interest in simply the outward appearances of images. I think the notion that film/chemical images are more than just outward appearances of images in a way that digital images are not is, well...bizarre. It's all just quantum mechanics when you get down to it, whether the photons are striking the silicon in a CCD or the silver molecules in a film emulsion. It's a kind of instinctive to believe that something that's easier to manipulate and distort is *necessarily* less valid, but there's no sound basis for the notion. I expect to get a digital camera within a year or so and my images will be no more or less outward appearances than they are now. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
My point was that the conversion task, and even the task of sitting down before one of them silly PC-boxes just to get an image on a piece of paper, that's not convenient technology in _most_ people's eyes. Jostein, I couldn't agree more! That's why I make it a lot easier on myself and sit down in front of a Mac. Cotty 'Macintosh - finally a computer for the photgrapher in us' ;-) - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The really ironic part of this scenario is that computers themselves are among the worst polluters now. They are a manufactured object, which eats up natural resources and energy resources to produce, then they eat up more energy resources in use, and then after a couple of years, they are discarded en masse for a new generation of computers, the old ones relegated to a shelf in the basement or a landfill somewhere. William Robb Yep. And computer motherboards, hard drives, etc. have lots of nasty pollutants in them. I'd actually be interested in comparing the pollution created by the computer industry with that of the photographic industry. I think photography would be the loser in this comparison, but then I do live within spitting distance of Kodak Park ;) I also think the life cycle of computers and associated equipment is geting longer, if fractionally so: Not only are people getting truly fed up with upgrading but the performance benefits of doing so are getting smaller with each round. - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to happen is an indicator. Maybe, maybe not, because you can't extrapolate saturation. Mark Twain wrote a funny essay in which he calculated the rate at which the Mississippi river was getting shorter, as the result of engineers shortening S loops by cutting more direct channels. He ends by marveling that at that rate, by 2012 the river would be twelve feet long. (I may have the numbers misquoted, but you get the point.) Similarly, you can prove that right now, digital is growing. At some lesser rate than its total growth, it's taking customers from film. But what if only 80% of current film users will EVER switch to digital? That would leave some market for film. Similar example: when point-and-shoots were taking over the camera market, SLR sales dropped precipitously. It was tempting to say that at this rate, SLRs will be extinct by 20XX. In fact, there are somewhere between 300,000 and 1,000,000 SLR buyers who haven't switched over to point and shoots, and that number has stayed relatively stable for a number of years now (even during years when the p/s market has grown). It's true that SLRs no longer sell in the millions, but it's not true that the SLR has died entirely. As we all know. And it hasn't exactly affected the development of the SLR adversely. So it's possible that some core of film users may continue to prefer film, no matter how good digital gets. It's possible that some percentage of photographers may use both. As the film market shrinks, it may be good to remember that we really don't know how MUCH it will shrink. The other point to remember is that people have been predicting that film will be dead in five years for at least twenty years. It's a very common predicition--everybody seems to like to repeat it. But it's a canard. --Mike - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Very interesting observations, Mike. I just hope that the films that survive are not just the common consumer ones. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to happen is an indicator. Maybe, maybe not, because you can't extrapolate saturation. Mark Twain wrote a funny essay in which he calculated the rate at which the Mississippi river was getting shorter, as the result of engineers shortening S loops by cutting more direct channels. He ends by marveling that at that rate, by 2012 the river would be twelve feet long. (I may have the numbers misquoted, but you get the point.) Similarly, you can prove that right now, digital is growing. At some lesser rate than its total growth, it's taking customers from film. But what if only 80% of current film users will EVER switch to digital? That would leave some market for film. Similar example: when point-and-shoots were taking over the camera market, SLR sales dropped precipitously. It was tempting to say that at this rate, SLRs will be extinct by 20XX. In fact, there are somewhere between 300,000 and 1,000,000 SLR buyers who haven't switched over to point and shoots, and that number has stayed relatively stable for a number of years now (even during years when the p/s market has grown). It's true that SLRs no longer sell in the millions, but it's not true that the SLR has died entirely. As we all know. And it hasn't exactly affected the development of the SLR adversely. So it's possible that some core of film users may continue to prefer film, no matter how good digital gets. It's possible that some percentage of photographers may use both. As the film market shrinks, it may be good to remember that we really don't know how MUCH it will shrink. The other point to remember is that people have been predicting that film will be dead in five years for at least twenty years. It's a very common predicition--everybody seems to like to repeat it. But it's a canard. --Mike - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
...And now I have a slightly different tack to take than in my last message. How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED digital? I mean recently, and in a way that gives it a fair chance? One of the common themes I encounter ceaselessly on the digicam forums is a great sense of liberation, of excitement, and of commitment. Once people try digital, many of them seem to really like it, really get enthusiastic about it, and, often, they fairly abruptly leave film or the wet darkroom behind. I'm not saying this always happens, but it's a repeating pattern. I recently decided (after yet another setback to the completion of my long-awaited and much-missed darkroom) to get a digital camera. Nothing fancy, nothing cutting-edge, just a decent one of the deluxe point-and-shoot variety. I started to read reviews. I even bought a few of the newly-sprouted digicam magazines, which are pretty universally awful (even worse than photography magazines, if that's possible). Instead of completely ignoring the digital counters at photo stores, as is my habit, I started to take a look. I went to three different digicam review sites: www.steves-digicams.com www.imaging-resource.com www.dpreview.com As I narrowed down my choices, I began to visit discussion forums and speak to users. Then, a few weeks ago, I bought an Olympus C-3040z. This isn't the latest thing; it's a relatively simple, very small and lightweight 3-megapixel camera with a non-interchangeable zoom lens. It operates essentially like a point-and-shoot. Now, I'm probably as pigheaded a film-snob as you could hope to find. I've been shooting Tri-X through thick and thin. But I've got to say, folks, that for anybody who likes pictures and taking pictures and looking at pictures, this digital stuff is as close to a kid in a candy shop as photography gets. It's an absolute BLAST. To say the least, my own reaction to the experience surprised me greatly. I thought that I was just buying a glorified, overpriced toy, to enable me to see a few pictures until my darkroom is finished, sell things on the web, and get a bit of first-hand experience as to what all this digital garbage is all about. And I've got proof that digital is REAL photography: I've been hemorrhaging money ever since I got this thing g. First I had to buy the best rechargeable batteries I could find (www.greenbatteries.com). Then I had to get a card-reader for the computer (a ZiO!). Then I had to get a better photo printer (the Canon S800, which I just adore--what a *great* machine). I had to get a better image-management program than the ones that came with the camera and the printer (Photoshop Elements, a wonderful, powerful program that has everything you need for digiprinting and then some, and costs only $99). Now I'm looking at a new computer and monitor. Saving money on film and processing is costing me an arm and a leg. But I'll tell you, this stuff is great. It's a total blast. You can look at what you just shot instants after you shot it. You can delete whatever you don't like. You don't have to proof--stick the card in the card reader, hit two keys, and you get full-screen images on your computer that let you see as much detail as you want. Yatta yatta yatta. You know all that. But the kicker? T my great surprise, the prints are *gorgeous*. No, I'm not qualifying that. I'm not saying gorgeous...for digital. Gorgeous. Really nice. The colors are so beautifully pure, soft yet vivid; the control you have over printing is simply awesome; the ink on the matte paper is just lovely...there are some tricks to it, sure, and there's a learning curve, no question, and if it's prints you want then there are some sacrifices you've got to make. But this stuff is not only for real, y'all, it's also darned nice, and a total kick. I recommend the experience highly. I'm *not* abandoning film. I love darkroom work, and my darkroom is going to get finished, and I'll keep exposing Tri-X. You can take that to the bank. But for those of you who have simply never given digital a chance, take my advice...don't get _too_ anti in your stance just yet. Don't go painting yourself into any corners. There just may come a time when you're going to want to hop on this bandwagon too. And your attitude might change in a hurry. Take this old film snob's word for it. s --Mike - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
First, let me state that I'm not a railer. I've owned a few digital cameras. Let me list them by their max resolution of the pictures produced. That way I don't have to get into brand names. 1. 640 x 480 2. 1024 x 768 3. 2048 x 1536 4. 2240 x 1680 - this last one will put out TIFF images of 11MB file size. I love them! Each camera has its own set of strengths. That last one will allow me to crop quite a bit and still print stunning 8 x 10 prints. Just pop the compact flash card, or the smartmedia card into a Kodak printer at Wal-Mart, adjust a few parameters of choice and print out anything from wallet-sized to 8 x 10 prints. I can do pretty good at home too, using PhotoShop and my Epson printer, though I think it will take a while longer for me to master PhotoShop. :) Len --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Johnston Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital ...And now I have a slightly different tack to take than in my last message. How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED digital? I mean recently, and in a way that gives it a fair chance? - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
I have to second that. For my anniversary last December, my wife got me a Nikon Coolpix 990. When I opened it I looked at her and said Do you know what this is? In my mind I was thinking, Why did you get me one of these? I have no interest in it. After playing around for a bit, I discovered, much like Mike, that I can take great shots with this thing. The quality is not like a typical PS - soft. It is sharp and the colors are pretty accurate. Well, 2000 images later I can attest to the fact that it is a very useful medium. My wife almost never uses her ZX-10 now. It has not replaced my film cameras at all, but it certainly has supplemented them. It has all the basic problems of a PS (Slow AF, delay on shutter firing, single lens), but the image quality is far better than all our previous PS's. We can also tell instantly if the shot was screwed up or not and get another. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:30 PM Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital Snip How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED digital? I mean recently, and in a way that gives it a fair chance? Snip Now, I'm probably as pigheaded a film-snob as you could hope to find. I've been shooting Tri-X through thick and thin. But I've got to say, folks, that for anybody who likes pictures and taking pictures and looking at pictures, this digital stuff is as close to a kid in a candy shop as photography gets. It's an absolute BLAST. Snip - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Bruce Dayton wrote: It has all the basic problems of a PS (Slow AF, delay on shutter firing, single lens) Just as a FYI, in case you didn't know, you can get screw-on adapters that expand the capabilities of the lens. Nikon makes a fisheye, wide-angle, and two telephoto (2x and 3x) adapters for the 990's built-in lens. And if slow AF on a ps is a huge issue, a couple of Canon's ps's have a RT (Real Time) mode that physically focuses the lens when you press the shutter button halfway, much like an SLR does. It also locks the focus in, of course, but when you press it the rest of the way the shot is instantaneous. I'm not back online yet, as my phone won't be connected until Friday or Monday, but I'm just checking mail from the university. chris - 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 .
Re: Grainless at 3200 was: Re: Slides vs digital
some portraits shot with konica 3200 are beautiful. Received: from smtpin-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.96) by storefull-165.iap.bryant.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtpin-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (WebTV_Postfix+sws) id 960F01CA; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from noc002.aitg.com (noc002.aitg.com [216.32.91.72]) by smtpin-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (WebTV_Postfix+sws) with ESMTP id 5E2681A5 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by noc002.aitg.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id BAA07427 for pentax-discuss-pdml-list; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vector.intergate.ca (vector.intergate.ca [207.34.179.20]) by noc002.aitg.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id BAA07422 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:20:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 26805 invoked by uid 1007); 5 Sep 2001 05:40:46 - Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by vector.intergate.ca with qmail-scanner-0.93 (uvscan: v4.0.50/v4156. . Clean. Processed in 0.292383 secs); 04/09/2001 22:40:46 Received: from 00-90-27-36-f1-ac.bconnected.net (HELO bc-home) (209.53.43.234) by vector.intergate.ca with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 05:40:46 - From: bc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:24:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Grainless at 3200 was: Re: Slides vs digital Message-ID: 3B95548E.22924.A74341@localhost In-reply-to: 004401c135b8$e0db2f40$d7bbfea9@markd X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 4 Sep 2001, at 20:14, Mark D. wrote: From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a completely grainless 11x14 shot at 3200... Hey Tom, Can you explain this to me. I have a hard time understanding why one would want a grainless 11X14 shot at 3200. When I think of of ISO 3200, I think nightime and grainy. What shooting condition are you thinking of when you conceptualize a grainless 11X14 at 3200? Low light, action shots (i.e. theatrical performances, which I do quite frequently).. LVE that 6x7 neg Brian (needing big-time enabling for 67 lenses) - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital / Archiving?
Jostein wrote: There's no digital medium (or print) with a lifetime expectancy longer than a negative. Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more than ten years ago in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from that timeframe in a week. The CDs work no problem but the negatives will have been sitting in a shoebox in the attic and some basements for all that time Assuming that the file formats are still accessible (not an easy premise to grant) and that I don't have a fire or anything, care to guess where I'll find pictures from this summer in ten years time? This CD ROM right here or the negatives that I've not even shoeboxed yet, what do you think? Cory Waters Atlanta, GA - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
Skofteland, Christian wrote: What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^) They are so young, so lacking in experience. They become much more interesting a few year later -- naked or clothed. Bob - 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 .
Re: Slides vs. digital
William Robb wrote: ...advantage lies with the incumbent technology, as it has a long and well proven track record of reliablilty. I guess that is true, that must be why the good old reliable horse and buggy still dominates transportation, and the new-fangled and imperfect automobile has never caught on. :) Bob - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Either you have a fantastic lab or you don't scan enough and use digital yet. I scan all my negs and the huge difference is that my Coolpix digital images don't have all the dust cleanup and scratch problems my film negatives have. Much like CD's and vinyl records. Right now I think sensitivity (speed) is where film is vastly superior to digital. Most consumer digital cameras are really equivalent to 100 iso. You can turn the gain up, but it gets ugly quickly. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:15 AM Subject: Re: Slides vs digital Gary J. Sibio wrote: Vinyl actually produces better sound than CDs assuming it isn't damaged. You get overtones with vinyl that you don't get with CDs. Film will continue as long as it remains superior to digital. If and when digital surpasses film, film will disappear. Trouble is I've never played a (vinyl) record that didn't have the odd crackle or snap. If you can ignore that - then yes, it sounds surprisingly good. Film on the hand has no such artefacts (to my amateur eyes ;-)) so it should be able to put up a good fight against digital. Regards Nenad - - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Bob R. wrote: In order for digital to match conventional processes, the dynamic range must be increased and then the linear range must be translated to the standard S curve to give the gradations available to conventional film and print material. Think here of a d-max of greater that 6.0 and 32 to 48 meg/colour full frame image sensor for a start. It will happen in our life time and, at that point, true art will be available to the digital photography. Frankly, I think digital is as good as film right now. Maybe better, at smaller print sizes, because of all its many advantages. The standard 'S' curve has nothing to do with it; you needn't have that to give the gradations of conventional materials. The flexibility offered by digital post processing simply _dwarfs_ anything that film is capable of, and that includes changing the shape of the curve at will, although there are better and faster ways of controlling both color and dynamic range. While it may be true that the very slowest, best 35mm film has the equivalent of 6 megapixels of resolution, digital resolution doesn't really resemble film resolution. You can't make a better 5x7 with a 5-mp camera than you can make with a 2-mp camera; what you can do is make a print of the exact same quality as the 5x7 much larger if you have the bigger sensor. --Mike - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Skofteland, Christian wrote: I (and I'm sure most people on this list) do not agree. Print film, slide film, any film will not go away. He didn't say that. Digital imaging will never replace a photograph. This statement makes no sense. There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. Maybe for projection, but I would disagree wrt prints. tv - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer level. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Nenad Djurdjevic writes: As far as I know digital technology has no answer to slides. Does anyone know if digital technology can produce high resolution slides that can be projected? (and I don't mean via one of those projection TV systems). Hi, yesterday I was with a lab guy, and he told me that they were offering him to scan a photo and make a negative. I didn't think about slides at that time, but I supposed that if you have a digital image and can print it in a negative, you can do it in slide film. I don't have a technical explanation of how you do this, but he showed me a restoration of an old photo, the original and the negative of the restored photo. He told that they print the scanned and retouched image in the film of your choice. We are talking of very expensive machines, IMO. Perhaps you guys in US have more information about this. HTH Martin - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Hey! You misquoted, I didn't say that. tv Lewis, Gerald wrote: Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer level. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at the theater Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs digital Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer level. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
Sorry, it was in the original post you responded to...sorry Jerry -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital Hey! You misquoted, I didn't say that. tv Lewis, Gerald wrote: Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer level. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. - 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 . - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
Even if the digital images are transferred to film, if the resulting color saturation and contrast looks like film, then the digital image must have been that good in the first place for film to capture it. Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment) displayed it digitally, so what the viewers saw at the theatre were images that had never been on film at all anywhere in the process. There's a lot more of this kind of thing coming... -- Original Message -- I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at the theater Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs digital Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer level. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
That was the original question, putting digital images on transparencies for projection Movie film is on positive transparency film... -Original Message- From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:14 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs digital I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at the theater Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs digital Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer level. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. - 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 . - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
It doesn't mean I have to like it I will be the last holdout, many, many, years from now with my manual focus LX and slide film while EVERYONE around me is shooting digital My original point was that digital photography is not and never will be a REPLACEMENT for film. It is just another medium as videotape is to motion picture film. I think this statement gives a better sense of what I was trying to say before. And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say that video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture and documentary industry. Christian Skofteland System Administrator ServerVault Inc. Securing the Internet (703)652-5971 (Direct) (703)333-5900 (Main) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slides vs digital Even if the digital images are transferred to film, if the resulting color saturation and contrast looks like film, then the digital image must have been that good in the first place for film to capture it. Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment) displayed it digitally, so what the viewers saw at the theatre were images that had never been on film at all anywhere in the process. There's a lot more of this kind of thing coming... -- Original Message -- I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at the theater Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs digital Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer level. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
Crikey, dont start them on this one, we have already had vinyl/CD and cinema film/digital - lets not do video/DVD/film too! -Original Message- From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 04 September 2001 17:12 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital It doesn't mean I have to like it I will be the last holdout, many, many, years from now with my manual focus LX and slide film while EVERYONE around me is shooting digital My original point was that digital photography is not and never will be a REPLACEMENT for film. It is just another medium as videotape is to motion picture film. I think this statement gives a better sense of what I was trying to say before. And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say that video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture and documentary industry. Christian Skofteland System Administrator ServerVault Inc. Securing the Internet (703)652-5971 (Direct) (703)333-5900 (Main) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slides vs digital Even if the digital images are transferred to film, if the resulting color saturation and contrast looks like film, then the digital image must have been that good in the first place for film to capture it. Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment) displayed it digitally, so what the viewers saw at the theatre were images that had never been on film at all anywhere in the process. There's a lot more of this kind of thing coming... -- Original Message -- I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at the theater Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs digital Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer level. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 . - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
or stick with film! :-) Christian Skofteland System Administrator ServerVault Inc. Securing the Internet (703)652-5971 (Direct) (703)333-5900 (Main) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say that video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture and documentary industry. And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never *will* happen: the motion picture and documentary makers will skip right over videotape and go to digital when it's cost effective (a few more years). -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 .
RE: Slides vs. digital
Only until digital becomes tenable from a cost standpoint (which will be a few--very few--years). I'll bet still chemical photography survives much longer than motion picture film. As Bill Casselberry pointed out, the resolution needed for motion pictures is lower than for stills. The material costs (film, processing, etc.) are much higher. As soon as digital video equipment reaches the quality of 35mm or 16mm film and equipment costs are similar (and independent filmmakers can edit everything on their home PCs) the shift is going to happen fast. -- Original Message -- or stick with film! :-) And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say that video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture and documentary industry. And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never *will* happen: the motion picture and documentary makers will skip right over videotape and go to digital when it's cost effective (a few more years). -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
I think that there may be some confusion here. May I add to it? And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say that video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture and documentary industry. And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never *will* happen: the motion picture and documentary makers will skip right over videotape and go to digital when it's cost effective (a few more years). Motion picure makers will have to output their productions onto film for a while to come: the images have to be projected onto a screen, using traditional projectors. That is, until LCD or LEP (Light Emitting Plastics) etc etc technology becomes good enough and cheap enough to use in every cinema on the planet. Also, note that any film with sequences - or indeed their entire content - created digitally (Toy Story, Final Fantasy, Godzilla etc) has had to be transferred to film in order to be shown in cinemas. I'm afraid the digital revolution, far from making an inroads into feature film, has not only taken a foothold, but less and less is being shot traditionally. As for broadcast television, there is very little film shot these days. Only productions that demand the lightest possible weight, the most robust, and user-serviceable-in-the-field equipment shoot film. Up Everest, the Amazon, those hard-to-get places - or, because the director wants real film. Or commercials. As for shooting digital, I'm afraid you're in for a surprise. Currently, shooting digital broadcast tv still involves videotape. The difference over old analogue tape is this: the images and sound are recorded digitally, and so picture degredation is minimized, and generation-loss is non-existant. The medium is still tape because it's the most cost-effective *at the moment*. This will change over the next decade or two. Solid state recording (effectively recording straight onto mini hard disks) will be next, and hardware already exists, but like all industries, it's expensive to re-equip everyone in your company at the drop of a hat. It costs millions to buy new kit (not simply buying just cameras either - all the editing, image manipulation, image management gizmos - the list is endless). As a rule, if a tv company invests in a technology, it's good for ten years. Our newsgathering operation 'went digital' about 12 months ago... To come back on topic, I think the advent of the so-called digital revolution regarding consumer cameras has plenty of mileage left in it before that revolution becomes the norm. The plain fact is that most people will still use film because it's what they know, what they feel safe with. As a new generation grows up with digital imaging, that's where I think we'll see it become the norm. One PDML contributor hit the nail on the head when he or she said that if Pentax came up with a no-frills 3 or 4 MP digital K mount SLR for a grand (bucks) or so, they'd sell bucketloads and instantly become a hit. That's right, but I don't think it will happen within 5 years, because Pentax and others have plenty of interest in selling either dead-end P and S digitals, or high-end Nikon-style D1Xs. Look at the Canon digital - that's not unreasonably priced, but it's not exactly selling like pancakes? Because it's not *quite* there. 2/3 CCD or whatever, not *quite* affordable enough, nope, most Canon shooters will stick with Rebels or EOSs etc. When Pentax does eventually release the MZ-D (or whatever) we will salivate and plan, but the price will be gut-wrenching. And instead of selling a hundred a day, they will sell only a hundred a month. And that will suit Pentax just fine - there's big danger in high-volume output in consumer items like cameras. Well, I'm starting to lose the plot now - the Fullers London Pride has finally conquered me and it's time for bed. Hope I haven't bored you to death. I'm going to shoot a pretty girl tomorrow with my LX and 85mil, so I'm as happy as a pig in the shmustn't wake the lad, it's his first day back at school tomorrow... A good evening to you wherever you are on the Earth. Cotty *-) ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads www.macads.co.uk - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
At 12:50 AM 9/4/2001 -0500, you wrote: At 10:18 AM 9/3/01 +0100, you wrote: For your information, vinyl sales grew at a faster rate than CDs last year! There are now upgraded versions of CD with higher sampling rates to try and emulate vinyl more closely. If CDs were so perfect then SACD and DVD-A would not be needed! Vinyl is still hanging in threre and so will film. There is also some debate over the 'photo quality' of current digital cameras. Vinyl actually produces better sound than CDs assuming it isn't damaged. You get overtones with vinyl that you don't get with CDs. Film will continue as long as it remains superior to digital. If and when digital surpasses film, film will disappear. Personally, I think that point will be when CCD's become more sensitive. You can get very nice prints at ISO 100 with a digital camera. When you can get the same output at ISO 3200, film will be dead in the water. Imagine a completely grainless 11x14 shot at 3200... tv - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:12 +1000, you wrote: I really do not understand the comparison. Slides offer the highest resolution available in colour film. Start comparing digital to say 3200 negative film. Don't read it here - go try it yourself. Digital is as good as 35mm film - right now - for the smaller enlargements which are the forte of 35mm film. Forget the technical arguments about pixel count vs resolution vs everything else. Just take a few images with a mid-range digital (with a good lens) and check it out. Several months ago, Minolta introduced a 5 megapixel digicam with 28-200 zoom lens and hot shoe, priced at $1500. Not a great camera, but not lacking in resolution and image quality. How many Pentax buyers would spend $1000 - $1500 for a nicely featured 5 mp digital camera, in KAF mount with no lens? Lots, I imagine. Count me in for sure. -- Happy Trails, Texdance http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance http://members1.clubphoto.com/john8202 - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Mike Johnston wrote: Hehee! Who said this? Somebody who hasn't printed digital yet, obviously. You can control the contrast and saturation of a digiprint to degrees not even conceivable on film. (snip) And it's even better when you start with film and digitize it on a high-end scanner. Heehee! Paul - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment) displayed it digitally, so what the viewers saw at the theatre were images that had never been on film at all anywhere in the process. I saw Star Wars Episode 1 projected using film and digital (at the AMC Burbank). Overall, the image quality of the digital display was not that great. Quite often, one could see pixelization and the tonal transitions weren't as smooth as film. I would imagine there will have been some improvement since then and look forward to making the comparison again with Episode II . Mark - 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 .
RE: Slides vs digital
Not true. Movie film is on negative and a positive Print is created later. At 09:36 AM 9/4/2001 -0600, you wrote: That was the original question, putting digital images on transparencies for projection Movie film is on positive transparency film... -Original Message- From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:14 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs digital I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at the theater Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Slides vs digital Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer level. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high quality color transparency film. - 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 . - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
At 06:18 PM 9/4/2001 -0500, you wrote: On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:12 +1000, you wrote: Forget the technical arguments about pixel count vs resolution vs everything else. Yes, please...I have to laugh a bit when I read or hear people using suspect mathematics to prove that digital can't produce good images. The proof is in the prints. tv - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
Mark D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment) displayed it digitally, so what the viewers saw at the theatre were images that had never been on film at all anywhere in the process. I saw Star Wars Episode 1 projected using film and digital (at the AMC Burbank). Overall, the image quality of the digital display was not that great. Quite often, one could see pixelization and the tonal transitions weren't as smooth as film. I would imagine there will have been some improvement since then and look forward to making the comparison again with Episode II . The report I heard on Public Radio was decidedly mixed. They saw some big advantages in the digital version and other things that were clearly superior in the traditional film version. Still very impressive sounding for first-generation technology. The film makers really liked being able to view the scenes they shot immediately afterwards, too. When this technology gets all the bugs ironed out it's going to absolutely *kill* film for movie making. - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
yes, motion picture industry is a very valid point somehow we all have been missing so far. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slides vs digital Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:52:33 +0100 I think that there may be some confusion here. May I add to it? And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say that video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture and documentary industry. And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never *will* happen: the motion picture and documentary makers will skip right over videotape and go to digital when it's cost effective (a few more years). Motion picure makers will have to output their productions onto film for a while to come: the images have to be projected onto a screen, using traditional projectors. That is, until LCD or LEP (Light Emitting Plastics) etc etc technology becomes good enough and cheap enough to use in every cinema on the planet. Also, note that any film with sequences - or indeed their entire content - created digitally (Toy Story, Final Fantasy, Godzilla etc) has had to be transferred to film in order to be shown in cinemas. I'm afraid the digital revolution, far from making an inroads into feature film, has not only taken a foothold, but less and less is being shot traditionally. As for broadcast television, there is very little film shot these days. Only productions that demand the lightest possible weight, the most robust, and user-serviceable-in-the-field equipment shoot film. Up Everest, the Amazon, those hard-to-get places - or, because the director wants real film. Or commercials. As for shooting digital, I'm afraid you're in for a surprise. Currently, shooting digital broadcast tv still involves videotape. The difference over old analogue tape is this: the images and sound are recorded digitally, and so picture degredation is minimized, and generation-loss is non-existant. The medium is still tape because it's the most cost-effective *at the moment*. This will change over the next decade or two. Solid state recording (effectively recording straight onto mini hard disks) will be next, and hardware already exists, but like all industries, it's expensive to re-equip everyone in your company at the drop of a hat. It costs millions to buy new kit (not simply buying just cameras either - all the editing, image manipulation, image management gizmos - the list is endless). As a rule, if a tv company invests in a technology, it's good for ten years. Our newsgathering operation 'went digital' about 12 months ago... To come back on topic, I think the advent of the so-called digital revolution regarding consumer cameras has plenty of mileage left in it before that revolution becomes the norm. The plain fact is that most people will still use film because it's what they know, what they feel safe with. As a new generation grows up with digital imaging, that's where I think we'll see it become the norm. One PDML contributor hit the nail on the head when he or she said that if Pentax came up with a no-frills 3 or 4 MP digital K mount SLR for a grand (bucks) or so, they'd sell bucketloads and instantly become a hit. That's right, but I don't think it will happen within 5 years, because Pentax and others have plenty of interest in selling either dead-end P and S digitals, or high-end Nikon-style D1Xs. Look at the Canon digital - that's not unreasonably priced, but it's not exactly selling like pancakes? Because it's not *quite* there. 2/3 CCD or whatever, not *quite* affordable enough, nope, most Canon shooters will stick with Rebels or EOSs etc. When Pentax does eventually release the MZ-D (or whatever) we will salivate and plan, but the price will be gut-wrenching. And instead of selling a hundred a day, they will sell only a hundred a month. And that will suit Pentax just fine - there's big danger in high-volume output in consumer items like cameras. Well, I'm starting to lose the plot now - the Fullers London Pride has finally conquered me and it's time for bed. Hope I haven't bored you to death. I'm going to shoot a pretty girl tomorrow with my LX and 85mil, so I'm as happy as a pig in the shmustn't wake the lad, it's his first day back at school tomorrow... A good evening to you wherever you are on the Earth. Cotty *-) ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads www.macads.co.uk - 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 . _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go
Grainless at 3200 was: Re: Slides vs digital
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a completely grainless 11x14 shot at 3200... Hey Tom, Can you explain this to me. I have a hard time understanding why one would want a grainless 11X14 shot at 3200. When I think of of ISO 3200, I think nightime and grainy. What shooting condition are you thinking of when you conceptualize a grainless 11X14 at 3200? Mark - 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 .
Re: Grainless at 3200 was: Re: Slides vs digital
At 08:14 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, you wrote: From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a completely grainless 11x14 shot at 3200... Hey Tom, Can you explain this to me. I have a hard time understanding why one would want a grainless 11X14 shot at 3200. For the same reasons you'd ever want a grainless 11x14actually I'm not thinking about grain per se, but the look of a film like Delta 100 or Provia. Imagine shooting Provia at 3200 and having it look like you shot it at 100. When I think of of ISO 3200, I think nightime and grainy. Me too. Just think nightime, grainless, and sharp. Or maybe they'll get crazy and jack it up to ISO 12500...who knows? My only point, assuming I have one, is that we only talk about digital capture in terms of it being as good as film. If they could jack up the sensitivity 5 or 6 stops, then, in some objective sense, it would be better. Right now digital can't compete with film at higher ISO's, and that's why I'm not buying into it yet. That and the fact that being laid off screws up the camera budget. tv - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
- Original Message - From: David A. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 2:34 PM Subject: RE: Slides vs digital Rob Brigham writes: non sequiter snipped Most of the population use a plastic point shoot which they use for nothing other than 6x4 prints from K-mart. They aren't prepared to spend the money on better gear; they have other interests. You don't need a huge sensor with mega-sharp optics to match that stuff. All you need is a minilab with a compact flash/USB/memory stick interface so people don't have to own/use a PC to get their pictures. What is what is going to keep silver imaging around for a long time to come is that it is relatively cheap. Consumer digital cameras seem to have bottomed out in my area at around Can$500.00. If we look at the cost of consumer electronics over the past 15 years or so, what has happened is that the low end price has remained fairly stable, but the feature set gets improvements. Where I am, Video cameras start at $599.00 (1 about 50 bucks), and have done so for 15 years. Same thing with computers. A basic computer costs a couple of grand, and has done so for the past decade. What has happened is that basic has gotten better, the price has not come down. So, the question is, how many people who care so little about the quality of their pictures that they use cheap plastic point and shoot or disposable cameras are going to invest half a thousand dollars on a digital camera? My guess is not many. My guess is that they will continue to buy cheap plastic point and shoots and use film. William Robb - 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 .
Slides vs digital
Ithink we all agree that print film will soon go the way of vinyl records as digital prints are now 'photo quality'. The average snap-shooter will be more than happy to make the change especially as they will immediately be able to view and manipulate their photos on a computer. Slide film, on the other hand, will hang in there a little longer. As far as I know digital technology has no answer to slides. Does anyone know if digital technology can produce high resolution slides that can be projected? (and I don't mean via one of those projection TV systems). Slides are my main source of pleasure in photography and a pleasure I reserve for travel and adventure photography. Then when I'm home I can re-live and share the experience with others. In principle I guess I would be happy to change to digital if: 1) I could use my old lenses and attachments and 2) digital slides of equal quality became available. Regards Nenad Western Australia
Slides vs digital
Nenad Djurdjevic writes: I think we all agree that print film will soon go the way of vinyl records as digital prints are now 'photo quality'. The average snap-shooter will be more than happy to make the change especially as they will immediately be able to view and manipulate their photos on a computer. Slide film, on the other hand, will hang in there a little longer. As far as I know digital technology has no answer to slides. Does anyone know if digital technology can produce high resolution slides that can be projected? (and I don't mean via one of those projection TV systems). Slides are my main source of pleasure in photography and a pleasure I reserve for travel and adventure photography. Then when I'm home I can re-live and share the experience with others. In principle I guess I would be happy to change to digital if: 1) I could use my old lenses and attachments and 2) digital slides of equal quality became available. It is possible to have 35mm slides made from digital images (business presentations to large audiences used to do that all the time), it just costs. However, the projectors are where digital is really going. I agree that right now the image quality is not really there, but the projector companies are very aware of that and constantly making better products to close the gap. I expect that within a few years (say, 5) digital projectors will make visible inroads as projection TV systems. When that happens, it will mean that the consumer accepts the quality. Shortly after that, nondiscriminating customers will start using them for projecting digital images. The rest will follow. As for that digital changeover and reusing lenses, that's primarily what I'm waiting for. Rumor is that Pentax will come out with a full-35mm-frame 6 megapixel body that uses K-mount lenses soonish. I think the rumors say this fall, but personally I expect 2005 if Pentax's latest flagship camera body is anything to go by (how many years were the rumors about that one floating around before it shipped?). later, patbob ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 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 .
Re: Slides vs digital
I don't think we all agree. Slides are hanging on, but by percentage it is much smaller than prints. I routinely produce slide shows using one of those LCD projectors. The average viewer is more than happy with the quality. I believe that projection of slides is near the end of it's life, because of the ability to project through the computer. I think that film in general, whether slide or print will be given a run for it's money and will eventually not be as widespread or cheap because of the digital revolution. Bruce Dayton Sacramento CA - Original Message - From: Nenad Djurdjevic To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:32 AM Subject: Slides vs digital I think we all agree that print film will soon go the way of vinyl records as digital prints are now 'photo quality'. The average snap-shooter will be more than happy to make the change especially as they will immediately be able to view and manipulate their photos on a computer. Slide film, on the other hand, will hang in there a little longer. As far as I know digital technology has no answer to slides. Does anyone know if digital technology can produce high resolution slides that can be projected? (and I don't mean via one of those projection TV systems). Slides are my main source of pleasure in photography and a pleasure I reserve for travel and adventure photography. Then when I'm home I can re-live and share the experience with others. In principle I guess I would be happy to change to digital if: 1) I could use my old lenses and attachments and 2) digital slides of equal quality became available. Regards Nenad Western Australia - 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 .
