Re: Re[2]: The old digital/film debate
On Sunday, April 28, 2002, at 09:06 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Because of the ease of duplication > (scanning) and the acceptance of crap by the customer, once they get > their prints, you will rarely see any more orders. So it might be > better to charge an hourly rate or at least charge for your time > separate from the print prices. Ask me how many requests for reprints from wedding proofs we get in a week. And they get so pissed when you ask for a letter from the photographer and even more pissed when you tell them what the fines are to the lab for each infraction. Then they try to plead. One guy yelled at me over it yesterday. Sheesh. -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[2]: The old digital/film debate
Oh, I think it is a good idea. After all, taxes are what make smuggling profitable, and I am looking for a job. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: The old digital/film debate > - Original Message - > From: Mishka > Subject: Re: Re[2]: The old digital/film debate > > > > You think so? really? > > No, I was being sardonic. This is a tax on digital storage media > that will be directed towards the music industry. It seems they > are being hurt by people pirating their music. The problem is, > people who don't pirate music, but use their CDs for data > storage, backups and in our case, image files will be penalized > as well. - 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[2]: The old digital/film debate
- Original Message - From: Mishka Subject: Re: Re[2]: The old digital/film debate > You think so? really? No, I was being sardonic. This is a tax on digital storage media that will be directed towards the music industry. It seems they are being hurt by people pirating their music. The problem is, people who don't pirate music, but use their CDs for data storage, backups and in our case, image files will be penalized as well. I am filing my concerns, but the Canadian government has a bad habit of taxing first, asking questions later, and not listening to the answers anyway. William Robb > I have actually went into all this trouble and read the document (at > least parts of it). Among other things, it proposes adding $0.69 to the > price of each CD. > Now, each CD can store quite a few (say, 69 as a for instance) digital > images. Do you really value your work at penny a photo? Seriously? > OTOH, you probably backing up your PC from time to time (and if you > don't, you should start doing it NOW!). If you do it on CDs, that's > added $70 for 65GB (one medium sizd HDD). Now, who exactly wins? I am > not sure that I know either. > I think it's time to stop the chit-chat and run to the nearest Best Buy > to grab a couple of DVD-RW packs (or, CDR spindles) while it's cheap > > > > I think the government of Canada is on the right track. The link > > pertains to the music industry, but could as easily apply to > > another lobby group, such as the PPAC. > > http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032002-b.pdf > > FWIW, for those in Canada, this tariff is set to go into effect > > fairly soon. Objectors must submit their case by May 8, 2002, > > and abide by the provisions set out on the first 6 or so pages > > of the document. > > Objection is futile, however. > > 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: Re[2]: The old digital/film debate
You think so? really? I have actually went into all this trouble and read the document (at least parts of it). Among other things, it proposes adding $0.69 to the price of each CD. Now, each CD can store quite a few (say, 69 as a for instance) digital images. Do you really value your work at penny a photo? Seriously? OTOH, you probably backing up your PC from time to time (and if you don't, you should start doing it NOW!). If you do it on CDs, that's added $70 for 65GB (one medium sizd HDD). Now, who exactly wins? I am not sure that I know either. I think it's time to stop the chit-chat and run to the nearest Best Buy to grab a couple of DVD-RW packs (or, CDR spindles) while it's cheap > I think the government of Canada is on the right track. The link > pertains to the music industry, but could as easily apply to > another lobby group, such as the PPAC. > http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032002-b.pdf > FWIW, for those in Canada, this tariff is set to go into effect > fairly soon. Objectors must submit their case by May 8, 2002, > and abide by the provisions set out on the first 6 or so pages > of the document. > Objection is futile, however. > William Robb -- http://fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html - 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: The old digital/film debate
- Original Message - From: Pat White Subject: Re: The old digital/film debate > I thought that with wedding photos, the customer has the copyright, unless he signs an agreement granting the right to the photographer. That seems to depend on what country you are in. 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: The old digital/film debate
On 28 Apr 2002 at 23:01, Mishka wrote: > Rob, > See, you are assuming that there's an a priori knowledge of who is the owner an > who infringes. Although it is often true in case of software, books and music, I > think it is more vague in case of photographs. There're no negatives, just two > (almost) identical image files. If I am an abuser, I may argue just as well that > *you* have tampered with *my* identification Oh well, I am not a lawyer. > Lucky for me. As you may have seen in my initial response to Bill, if there were any argument I would simply present the series of images into which the pilfered image fits, I rarely shoot a single image of any one scene fortunately. Otherwise I agree it's difficult to prove who the owner is but there is always a way :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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[2]: The old digital/film debate
- Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re[2]: The old digital/film debate > I'm starting to feel like the days of charging by the print are > changing. It used to be that the labor cost was buried inside of the > cost of the resulting prints. Because of the ease of duplication > (scanning) and the acceptance of crap by the customer, once they get > their prints, you will rarely see any more orders. So it might be > better to charge an hourly rate or at least charge for your time > separate from the print prices. > > What do you guys think? I think the government of Canada is on the right track. The link pertains to the music industry, but could as easily apply to another lobby group, such as the PPAC. http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032002-b.pdf FWIW, for those in Canada, this tariff is set to go into effect fairly soon. Objectors must submit their case by May 8, 2002, and abide by the provisions set out on the first 6 or so pages of the document. Objection is futile, however. 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: The old digital/film debate
I thought that with wedding photos, the customer has the copyright, unless he signs an agreement granting the right to the photographer. As for copying, wedding and sports photographers here in Victoria stress that they don't give out proofs anymore. They either print up a digital 'contact sheet' with 20 or so images on it, or project the images on a large TV with a Fotovix when the customer comes. 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: The old digital/film debate
Rob, See, you are assuming that there's an a priori knowledge of who is the owner an who infringes. Although it is often true in case of software, books and music, I think it is more vague in case of photographs. There're no negatives, just two (almost) identical image files. If I am an abuser, I may argue just as well that *you* have tampered with *my* identification Oh well, I am not a lawyer. Lucky for me. - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 10:30 PM Subject: Re: The old digital/film debate > On 28 Apr 2002 at 22:11, Mishka wrote: > > > Whatever you "hide" into your image, unless it is showing on the print, it > > can be removed simply by re-JPEG-ing it. And if it does show on a print, it is > > not hidden. As far as the image tags are concerned, *anyone* can overwrite them. > > If your customers are honest, a simple agreement (or an inobtrusive watermark) > > will do. If they are not, there's not much that can be done. Take a look at > > music and software copyright protection -- it exists only in people's minds. > > Everyone knows that there is no absolutely effective anti-piracy solution > however once a copyright abuser is caught the proof that any form of > identification applied by the copyright holder has been tampered with or > removed gives more clout to the copyright owner in the case of pursuance of > damages. > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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: The old digital/film debate
On 28 Apr 2002 at 22:11, Mishka wrote: > Whatever you "hide" into your image, unless it is showing on the print, it > can be removed simply by re-JPEG-ing it. And if it does show on a print, it is > not hidden. As far as the image tags are concerned, *anyone* can overwrite them. > If your customers are honest, a simple agreement (or an inobtrusive watermark) > will do. If they are not, there's not much that can be done. Take a look at > music and software copyright protection -- it exists only in people's minds. Everyone knows that there is no absolutely effective anti-piracy solution however once a copyright abuser is caught the proof that any form of identification applied by the copyright holder has been tampered with or removed gives more clout to the copyright owner in the case of pursuance of damages. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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: The old digital/film debate
On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 10:11:59PM -0400, Mishka wrote: > Whatever you "hide" into your image, unless it is showing on the print, it > can be removed simply by re-JPEG-ing it. Digital watermarking is more involved then that. Simple re-JPEG-ing (like the sound of it :)) wont work without degrading image quality. But still, its relatively easy to remove it. - 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: The old digital/film debate
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:28:28AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: > > One interesting exclusion in the current crop of digital cameras is that even > though they write all manner of information into the file at the time of > capture none provide an option for the camera owner/authors name to be embedded > in the file. I wonder when this will become an option? I guess this is easier done in post-processing instead of by the camera. - 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: The old digital/film debate
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: The old digital/film debate > On 28 Apr 2002 at 17:20, William Robb wrote: > > > One issue that comes to mind for me is copyright. If the > > photographer cannot produce an original negative to prove > > ownership, can he enforce copyright on the image? > > Hi Bill, > > Interesting question. I figure that firstly information including the time and > date that the shot was taken is embedded in the digital file. It can be edited > with some share ware tools however there are plenty of ways that you can be > dishonest with film too. I suppose that if you provided a set of sequential > thumb-nail images from the remainder of the shoot that would clinch it in a > legal battle? Hmm, Is time and date enough? Do any of them imbed something like the cameras's serial number, or some other identifier that is unique to the camera? This could make for an interesting legal debate. Fortunately, I am not a lawyer. William Robb > > One interesting exclusion in the current crop of digital cameras is that even > though they write all manner of information into the file at the time of > capture none provide an option for the camera owner/authors name to be embedded > in the file. I wonder when this will become an option? > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > - > 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: The old digital/film debate
Bruce, you're right, the dogs are eating it - I'd really like to see what sort of 30 x 40 this couple is getting (mainly because I wouldn't want a 30 x 40 hanging anywhere in my place... but I'm sure this may be the preferrence for some folk) because, unless they're using Genuine Fractals and 6mp sensors - 30" x 40" from some digitals would look only "so so" compared to a 6x7 or 6x9 neg that was blown up to the same size. This being said, there have been many folks recently dumping their MF cams for D-SLRs. As recently as a month and a half ago I was in a local camera store that asked me if I would ever shoot a wedding digitally - while I don't have much experience with wedding photography (only done 2 of them) - I told them flat out "no". The way I look at it is this way - With the cost of a new D-SLR body and lenses (because we all know Pentax doesn't have a D-SLR right now) and extra battery pack - I could buy a decent NEW 645 system and maybe even a new 67 system - or - I could buy any number of used systems and lenses and still have a chunk of change leftover for film etc. If the couple still wants digital images - I'd grab the negs, run out to Aaron's lab and have him scan, burn and print. The options are available. Don't get me wrong - digital is great - I've used digital cameras since 1997 - but seeing as how the options and costs would allow a photographer to go about digital so many ways - I would hold off on the D-SLR purchasing until the dust settles a bit. Just my 2 cents (FWIW - in the U.S. about 1.35 cents) Cheers, Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The old digital/film debate I just got off the phone talking to my wife who is out to Utah attending a couple of weddings. She told me that the one she went to last night was shot by a husband/wife team. They have gone fully digital and are selling off their film gear. They told her that they have blown up to 30 X 40 and get better quality than MF. They asked her if I had any interest in buying their 35mm gear. My hunch is that they haven't really seen the quality of MF for comparison. Be that as it may, "the dogs seem to be eating it." That is, their clients are satisfied with what is coming off the digital equipment. Me, I'll stick with 6X7 for awhile. I am amazed out how detailed things are - nothing like my coolpix 990 images. Texture and tonality are amazing. The digital just looks clean and non-jaggy but no subtle tones and detail is missing. If you never saw the detail, you don't realize it. Anyway, it sounds like the revolution is going on in the wedding arena, which will make for some inexpensive MF equipment being offered up soon. Bruce Dayton - 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: The old digital/film debate
On 28 Apr 2002 at 17:20, William Robb wrote: > One issue that comes to mind for me is copyright. If the > photographer cannot produce an original negative to prove > ownership, can he enforce copyright on the image? Hi Bill, Interesting question. I figure that firstly information including the time and date that the shot was taken is embedded in the digital file. It can be edited with some share ware tools however there are plenty of ways that you can be dishonest with film too. I suppose that if you provided a set of sequential thumb-nail images from the remainder of the shoot that would clinch it in a legal battle? One interesting exclusion in the current crop of digital cameras is that even though they write all manner of information into the file at the time of capture none provide an option for the camera owner/authors name to be embedded in the file. I wonder when this will become an option? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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: The old digital/film debate
- Original Message - From: Mark Erickson Subject: Re: The old digital/film debate > I think the wedding photographer comments below say a lot about their > previous MF workflow. I've seen showcase Lightjet prints that originated > as 35mm chromes, medium format chromes, large format chromes, and > Nikon D1x direct digital captures. If they're done right, images sourced > from medium format and large format chromes will completely blow away > digital > sources in smooth tonality, detail, and lack of artifacts. > > That said, I bet that it's a lot easier for a wedding photo business > to put together a good digital workflow than an equally-good chemical > workflow. > > I'll look forward to picking up some good, cheap 67 or 645 gear when > I have the spare bucks Key words though are "wedding photographer". Fine detail is the enemy of the wedding photographer. I know when I was in the game, I didn't take a picture without a Softar on the lens, ever. If digital capture allows them to get better results (such as built in softening via lack of captured fine detail), more power to em. One issue that comes to mind for me is copyright. If the photographer cannot produce an original negative to prove ownership, can he enforce copyright on the image? William Robb > > --Mark > > -Bruce Wrote- > > I just got off the phone talking to my wife who is out to Utah > attending a couple of weddings. She told me that the one she went to > last night was shot by a husband/wife team. They have gone fully > digital and are selling off their film gear. They told her that they > have blown up to 30 X 40 and get better quality than MF. They asked > her if I had any interest in buying their 35mm gear. My hunch is that > they haven't really seen the quality of MF for comparison. Be that as > it may, "the dogs seem to be eating it." That is, their clients are > satisfied with what is coming off the digital equipment. > > Me, I'll stick with 6X7 for awhile. I am amazed out how detailed > things are - nothing like my coolpix 990 images. Texture and tonality > are amazing. The digital just looks clean and non-jaggy but no subtle > tones and detail is missing. If you never saw the detail, you don't > realize it. > > Anyway, it sounds like the revolution is going on in the wedding > arena, which will make for some inexpensive MF equipment being offered > up soon. > > > Bruce Dayton - 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: The old digital/film debate
I think the wedding photographer comments below say a lot about their previous MF workflow. I've seen showcase Lightjet prints that originated as 35mm chromes, medium format chromes, large format chromes, and Nikon D1x direct digital captures. If they're done right, images sourced from medium format and large format chromes will completely blow away digital sources in smooth tonality, detail, and lack of artifacts. That said, I bet that it's a lot easier for a wedding photo business to put together a good digital workflow than an equally-good chemical workflow. I'll look forward to picking up some good, cheap 67 or 645 gear when I have the spare bucks --Mark -Bruce Wrote- I just got off the phone talking to my wife who is out to Utah attending a couple of weddings. She told me that the one she went to last night was shot by a husband/wife team. They have gone fully digital and are selling off their film gear. They told her that they have blown up to 30 X 40 and get better quality than MF. They asked her if I had any interest in buying their 35mm gear. My hunch is that they haven't really seen the quality of MF for comparison. Be that as it may, "the dogs seem to be eating it." That is, their clients are satisfied with what is coming off the digital equipment. Me, I'll stick with 6X7 for awhile. I am amazed out how detailed things are - nothing like my coolpix 990 images. Texture and tonality are amazing. The digital just looks clean and non-jaggy but no subtle tones and detail is missing. If you never saw the detail, you don't realize it. Anyway, it sounds like the revolution is going on in the wedding arena, which will make for some inexpensive MF equipment being offered up soon. Bruce Dayton - 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 .
The old digital/film debate
I just got off the phone talking to my wife who is out to Utah attending a couple of weddings. She told me that the one she went to last night was shot by a husband/wife team. They have gone fully digital and are selling off their film gear. They told her that they have blown up to 30 X 40 and get better quality than MF. They asked her if I had any interest in buying their 35mm gear. My hunch is that they haven't really seen the quality of MF for comparison. Be that as it may, "the dogs seem to be eating it." That is, their clients are satisfied with what is coming off the digital equipment. Me, I'll stick with 6X7 for awhile. I am amazed out how detailed things are - nothing like my coolpix 990 images. Texture and tonality are amazing. The digital just looks clean and non-jaggy but no subtle tones and detail is missing. If you never saw the detail, you don't realize it. Anyway, it sounds like the revolution is going on in the wedding arena, which will make for some inexpensive MF equipment being offered up soon. Bruce Dayton - 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 .
