yes I remember reading this a while back. no comment.
"Times, they are a-changin" <g>.
Bob
hey Bob !!! How da heck are Ya !! ???? How’s that pup ?
David
Thank you it is a brilliant article but I suspect it will not be favoured by the Digitheads.
Grant
Hello, Jodi. Doing very well, as a matter of fact. And the pup is growing as they are apt to do<g>.
Bob
Bob
Good as always to see you. While you were missed I am sure you have been keeping a watchful eye on your forum brats from a distance π
Grant – Brat #1
Grant,
Now I’m sure you are not a Brat … π … me? … well I may be!
Wendy
Pretty good article, but he goes wrong when comparing digital cameras to large format cameras. One should only compare similar cameras and then digital and 35 mm can offer about the same quality.
"I shoot about 1,000 images every week on my D1H or D70 and I’ll go out and shoot $1,000 worth of film on another week. It all depends on the subject. Sometimes I shoot on both formats if I need film for quality and am too lazy to want to wait and scan my chromes for immediate distribution."
He may be an extremely gifted photographer, but shooting about 1000 images weekly and still produce quality shots is impossible. That isnot shooting, that is snapshooting. That is not the way a concerned photographer works. Just like shooting $1000 worth of film, obviously 8×10, is almost impossible if you care for any quality.
And when does he select his own images? A selection process can be quite time consuming when you try to produce quality.
I sometimes produce 1000 shots a week too, but I know, when doing portraiture I often shoot 15 or 20 times the same image, just only to be able to select the one with the best expression.
Completely wrong is the Arizona Highways magazine. This is ridiculous: "If youΒre planning to switch to a digital camera soon, donΒt give up on film just yet. Remember always to back up your digital photographs on film. Even if you have already made the move to digital, consider that todayΒs best cameras record digital files at a little more than 11 megapixels. But what if, in the near future, the standard moves up to 20 megapixels or higher? If you have backup on film, you can scan your images at a higher resolution."
Yes indeed, 10 years later you will be able to scan the film grain in a better way than today.
This debate will probably go on for years. Digital an film are two different things and as long as some people keep on thinking their own opinion -like the Arizona Highways- is the absolute gospel..Pfffff.
This discussion is a dead end street.
Leen
Oh Leen you old Ditithead you had to jumped for the bate. Didn’t you read the link to the FBI website on the use of photography for law enforcement?
But you are right 1000 images seems a tad excessive. Lets see if he works a 40 hour week that is on average only allows 2.4 minutes per photograph. Now we must consider what he has to do, expose, compose, focus, up load, examine, adjust print and store and catalogue … hmmm I suspect his camera needs a shutter speed of 1/8000 to meet this pace. Now one wonders how he manages to scrape enough time to meet clients, travel to shoots, purchase new equipment and developed a web site.
Wisdom from Grant always take what is written on the web with a very large grain of salt. And often the salt required is Epsom salts.
Grant
Grant,
First: Epsom is a race track in the UK. No salt but very fast horses, beautiful ladies and extravagant hats. π
Second: who will still trust opinions from the FBI or CIA? I know just only one person by name – saw him on television today. (never met him personally – bad luck for him) π
Would they be angry with me now? It seems they check all my e-mail.
To be serious again: let us stop debating the pros and cons of each medium. They are just different, that’s all!
Leen
Leen
I do have to educate you in the North American fashion. While it is true that Epsom Downs is a place for fast horses on that little island across the pond it is know in North America to bring even faster results.
Be careful when linking the FBI and the CIA first you can take pot shots at the FBI from the Netherlands as they are internal to my brothers and sisters in the south but the CIA know now boundaries.
But when the serious sides of Leen and Grant arise we do most often agree …. They are just different, that’s all is a truism!
Grant
<rollin>
…..still no comment….as i may get myself in trouble.
Jodi
Just open up! We all know how broad minded you are about film and being amongst friends we will not pick on you …. much.
Grant
<still rollin>
OK, I’ll give ya a little taste….
Arizon highways is just too cheap to expand there equipment to satisfy the digital photograpers…who i might add…move on…
Arizon highways is just too cheap to expand there equipment
Well, I can’t comment on the magazine today, but in its heyday it was one gorgeous production. I still hang on to my parents’ old copies. Spectacular photography by gifted photographers printed on top-quality paper on what was one of the finest web presses in the US.
I was really bummed when they began increasing the article copy.
oh don’t misunderstand me…I understand and agree…tho i haven’t seen an AH magazine since i was a kid ( dad bought them ) but the whole idea that they completely turn their backs on digital photography kind of bugs me…to a limited extent. At some point in the near future I’m hoping there will be many other magazine publications devoted to digital ‘ AND ‘ film photography.
Jodi
Don’t be too harsh on them as even digital publications can have very silly demands. I was asked to submit some images for the WEB and when I asked what size this is what I got back. They require the same size as they do for the printed page.
************************************************************ *********
Digital: Images should be 300 dpi for a final print size of 9 x 12 inches. Submit uncompressed TIFF files, RGB or CMYK, on universal format CD. All texts should be on Microsoft Word. All images and texts should be included on the CD. A printed copy of the text and all images must be supplied along with the CD. Conventional: Transparencies or 8 x 10-inch prints.
************************************************************ *********
Now this works out to 3600 x 2700 pixels and that is even more than an 8 meg camera can deliver.
Grant
Ooh, drat you all! Now I’m sooo homesick. I’ve been googling all evening for photos of Sierra Blanca ranch where I used to live, which is now part of the parks system. Here’s a photo of the lake my cousin built. It was our water supply and he stocked it with trout. Now it’s a public campground/fishing area. Sigh.
<
http://www.voaz.org/reports/nonprofit/tnc/sbp/SierraBlancaLa ke.htm>
For those wondering what the connection is, that part of AZ was one of the stars of AZ Highways. We were 9 miles from the nearest paved road, but I often ran across determined photographers trekking along when I was out doing cow count. Then I’d watch the magazine to see how the photos turned out.
Nice place to stay! I wished I had some time to explore areas like this with my camera.
Leen
Barbara,
It looks so beautiful …
Wendy
Folks…
My prediction….Digital will take over eventually, except for those die hards that still think:-
Wax Cylinders are better than CDs
The Sedan Chair is better than the automobile
Log Tables are better than Calculators
Analogue TV gives you more choice than Digital (Even I question that) Sending Letters is better than email
Digital Watches are for nerds (agreed)
Tin cans and string are better than mobile phones
Paper money is better than Plastic (except if you use Ebay but then you wont have a computer)
Why will Digital take over? Because technology companies and their bean counters will see it as a way of making more and more money and they will only do that if the technolgy gets better.
Colin the cynic.
BTW: I’ve been a digit head all my life and still think it’s the best think since vacuum tubes
Barb, that is beautiful ! I haven’t been to AZ in many many years but it was definietly a special place to be. A place that can awaken the deadest of spirits.
Grant,
I read much of what he wrote. While it might be hard to argue with his conclusions I wasn’t terribly impressed by his condescending attitude towards the "consumer" photog and the equipment choices.
Wouldn’t all of us just love to have a "consumer quality" $3k scanner! Not to mention a $7k lanscape camera.
Dick
BUT, to add just a little additional twist to the subject, remember that industry is dependent upon sales and this is why Kodak is backing away from film and also heading to digit land. That doesn’t mean they won’t have film for some time to come, but R&D will be other than film unless it’s specific for a special (and expensive) purpose. Thus with the popularity of digital over film, film cameras will become less and less available and more and more expensive. Chicken and egg principle. So no matter how hard the "purists" argue, it’ll be strictly the purist who does film due to this. Anyone remember the BETA tape machines (or for that matter, "what’s tape"<g>).
Bob
Bob… yes I do remember Beta…. still have a ole Top Loader… dang thing weighs about 500 pounds.. LOL.. but if you look closely.. most Televison Field Camera’s are Beta…. for good reason…. its just superior… bet SONY wishes they had seen that one comming huh?? I’ve read this article a couple of times…… watched the debate.. my only thoughts are this…. digital is without a doubt going to stay… will it completely replace film? Not at this point…. there are some who will announce that Electrochrome 64 is the best ever…I think at this time its too early to tell if digital will take over…. the surface of technology is just now excellerating…. remember about 20 yrs ago… most ppl did not have home computers, or knew key commands (and that was to type a simple letter in Word Perfect 5.0)…. even PONG was advanced in its time… a lot of this is that there are those who have never held a camera of any ability other than to take simple snap shots until now… we all know that Adobe has gotten into a market by slipping Elements into D_cam packages making it easier for the masses to dabble in things some of us used to live like moles in a darkroom exposed to all kinds of chemicals to accomplish….so what will we see 10 years from now???? Let’s just wait and see…..
david
David,
When you can buy throw away film cameras, then print your photos (we’re talking the average person here) at the local drug store and get them back while you wait, there will be a certain amount of film doers in the young set. But how long will that last? The younger the population, the more they will buy digital. Go to a good camera store (not Ritz) and see how many excellent "used" film camera boxes they have and how fast are they selling vs digital today. Sad for us older film guys, but then I have a couple high quality Nikons (with many lens) and haven’t used one in over three years. I won’t get rid of them, but then I can’t interest my step son in using it either (he’s 27 now)<g>.
Bob
Hi, everyone. Jodi, the Hopi Wind God lived just over the hill on the right side of the lake picture. Here’s a link to a bunch more photos, including the wildlife and even some pix of the inside of the house (on the "more event photos" page), although it looks weird to me without the right furniture and with all those electric lamps(!).
<
http://www.voaz.org/reports/nonprofit/tnc/sbp/SB2001Report.h tm>
Alas, they had a big fire in that area in June, so now I don’t knowΒ
Many of you that have been around for a while will know that I have a very strong opinions about film vs. digital. In my own heart I do believe that my views are balance and devoid of the hysteria that have embraced both warring camps. I use film for what I feel film does the best job and like wise do the same thing with digital. I must admit that I enjoyed Ken Rockwell’s article on "Film vs. Digital Cameras". I suspect I enjoyed it because I was sure that it would ruffle feathers. Ken has too many truths in this article that can’t be sloughed off. Unfortunately for me it has missed the point it has taken the argument and divided it along mechanical lines and that is not what is limiting digital for me.
Digital photography couples with a great program like Elements is a siren, a siren that attracts me with a promises of freedom of creativity, of more control over what I do and instantaneous gratification. So what is wrong with that? The flip side is that I don’t value the images I create in digital there is no permanency to them! I don’t have albums of images, trays filled with slides or a great number of prints hanging on walls. I now have sterile CD that don’t have the same tactility of prints and once burned are seldom looked at. When I labour over a silver print I end up living with it for hours and hours from the initial mixing of chemicals that proceess the film right up till the time I mount, mat and frame it. With digital they often don’t get past the digital form as it is from camera to web so quickly that no relationship is developed. If it wasn’t for my POD no one would see my digital photographs; in fact maybe no one does π I fear that in 20 years I will have no memories of now.
The up side is I now take digital photographs in the same fashion as I do film and my ratio of keepers to "not quite what I want" is exactly the same in both medium. Who know maybe there is hope that post processing will become more valued as I get use to the new art form?
Grant
I can relate to what Grant’s saying about all his photos stuck away on disks but I think once digital printing catches up with digital imaging it won’t be such a problem.I know I don’t print very much due to the fact that the technology in my price range doesn’t meet the standards that I’d like to to see. When I do have prints that need it I’ll send the files to a lab and have them printed – which, except for the B&W purists, is what the majority of the color film photogs probably do.
The one drawback to digital is the fact that you do tend to take more photos and the quantity of keepers will naturally increase also. That’s where a good archiving system will come into play so that you can find those ‘memories’ – whether they are on a disk or hanging in a negative sheet.
CR
I saw a program on PBS one evening several years ago that showed Ansel Adams taking photographs and then producing his enlargements. We all know that he worked with large format cameras, and when he did an enlargement it had to be projected on a wall and he would walk around with a big piece of cardboard to dodge the appropriate areas. I’m sure he would scoff at even medium format cameras like Hasselblad or Mamiya.
What is there to debate here? I think there will be film cameras around for a long time yet, but I also think (no, I know) digital is here to stay and will do nothing but get better. But it seems to me that we are forgetting about the subject. It really irritates me when we have a family get together and I show some pictures or a video, wanting people to appreciate the grandchildren, or the scenery, or the flowers, or whatever. But all they can do is ask what camera did I use, what software did I edit with, how fast is my computer, etc. Isn’t photography about the image rather than how the image was created?
"Isn’t photography about the image rather than how the image was created? "
Jim, it is just like people discussing cars. They want to know how fast it is instead of realising there are speed limits and they will never be able to drive at its maximum speed. A car is just a chair on wheels, designed to bring you pretty comfortable from A to B.
A camera, the software or the film is just only a tool.
A fast car doesnot make me drive like Michael Schuhmacher just as an expensive camera doesnot make me a top photographer. Unfortunately the less talented people think the opposite; they think a quality camera automatically produces quality images just like some people suppose a fast car makes them better drivers.
Just answer their questions and, when they are looking at your images, ask them if they noticed what direction the light is coming from. π
Leen
wrote in message
: "Isn’t photography about the image rather than how the image was created? "
: A fast car doesnot make me drive like Michael Schuhmacher just as an expensive camera doesnot make me a top photographer.
It doesn’t?!
:they think a quality camera automatically produces quality images
If one steps back through Ken Rockwell site they will come across this very good quote,
" ( … ) You are far better off worrying about how to use what you already own to make great photos than trying to purchase your way out of bad photos. Here’s a secret: buying new gear probably will NOT improve your photography."
Grant
"Jim Hess" posted:
"…
Ansel Adams … I’m sure he would scoff at even medium format cameras like Hasselblad or Mamiya.
…."
He had, and used, at least one Hasselblad.
wrote in message
I saw a program on PBS one evening several years ago that showed Ansel Adams taking
photographs and then producing his enlargements. We all know that he worked with large format cameras, and when he did an enlargement it had to be projected on a wall and he would walk around with a big piece of cardboard to dodge the appropriate areas. I’m sure he would scoff at even medium format cameras like Hasselblad or Mamiya.
What is there to debate here? I think there will be film cameras around for a long time
yet, but I also think (no, I know) digital is here to stay and will do nothing but get better. But it seems to me that we are forgetting about the subject. It really irritates me when we have a family get together and I show some pictures or a video, wanting people to appreciate the grandchildren, or the scenery, or the flowers, or whatever. But all they can do is ask what camera did I use, what software did I edit with, how fast is my computer, etc. Isn’t photography about the image rather than how the image was created?
Leen/Grant and all…..
I agree somewhat with what you and the article are saying. Being a good photographer is more than about have the very best equipment…..but it sure helps.
When I joined my local camera club, over 30 years ago, all I could afford was a low end Practika and Durst Enlarger with a lens for Β£5 from a company I’d never heard of. At the regular club competitions is soon became apparent to a lot of us that the regular winners where all the guys with the Nikons, Liecas and Hasselblads. We were also rans. Admittedly they had talent as well. But with my budget equipment I could not get the technical quality images they did. It became disheartening. Judging was not just artistic abilities but also technical quality. Sharp well exposed images AND good composition.
When I could upgrage to my first Olympus I produced better quality images, which gave me the encouragement to become (in my opinion) a better photographer.
I don’t think you can seperate out camera and photographer in producing quality Photographs. It may just be a tool but why is it we all have top end cameras instead of still using our old Box Brownies?
It also seems to me (present company excluded) that those who propose the arguement that it’s the guy behind the camera and not the camera that’s important are nearly all those with top end equipment. Mr Rockwell included.
And on the topic of shooting 1000 images a week. At what point does it become….if I shoot enough, I’ll at least get one good one. Shooting more than one frame is ok if you know the last one wasn’t up to spec. Wouldn’t it be more challenging to be given and assignment and just one frame to shoot it with. But then Mr Rockwell is in a commercial environment and needs to earn a crust.
One final point…lets see how well Michael and Ralph would do in a Ford Escort and budget of significantly less than $1B.
Colin
Colin
I am one of those with the high end equipment that propose this argument. π I would never argue that a top end camera isn’t one of the factors in taking a good technical photograph but that is not the point. The point is that buy better equipment will not assure you of taking better photographs. If you need to spend money and you want to improve your photography you will be far better off enrolling in a photography course, joining a camera club, or spend time shooting *film* than buying that new lens.
Now here are two anecdotes. I have a friend that has purchased a Canon 10D with the battery grip, and two high end zooms and a top end flash. He has had this camera for a year and hasn’t used another mode than fully automatic. His photographs are pedestrian at best. The fault is not in the camera but his lack of understanding of photography and how to use his equipment. Now to another friend who is in the business. Her everyday equipment are Nikons and Hasselblads. She has gained critical acclaim for her work and has images hanging in the Smithsonian, these images we taken using a home made Pin-hole camera. Obviously her skills are not limited by her equipment.
I have no doubt that a person that joins a camera club with a low end Practika and then upgrade to an Olympus produced better quality images. I contend that it was not that the Olympus that produced a better photographer but that a better photographer that produced a need for a better camera.
Once a person becomes a good photographer they will know the value of a higher end camera. They will appreciate the ease of us, the reliability, and the end quality. Will the high end camera guarantee them of taking better photographs? Probably not but it will take away some of the limits that a lower end camera possesses.
The point is should tail wag the dog or the dog wag the tail? Does buying better equipment lead to taking better photographs or does taking better photographs lead to a need for better equipment?
To flip you analogy of the Schumacher boys, would putting me in a red F1 with a budget of $1B make me a world contender?
Grant
To flip you analogy of the Schumacher boys, would putting me in a red F1 with a budget of $1B make me a world contender?
No, but you’d sure be able to dust the Schumacher boys if they were in an Escort!
The point is, of course, that no amount of skill and talent can overcome inferior tools. Some tools are simply indispensable.
I think it’s quite apparent that it’s better to be limited by one’s ability than one’s tools. Practice can solve the former, but not the latter.
Speaking of which, I DO wish that Canon would hurry up and announce their latest and greatest DSLR so I can no longer be limited by my equipment. π
Colin,
"When I joined my local camera club, over 30 years ago, all I could afford was a low end Practika….."
31 Years ago I entered the local camera club. All I had was a Practika LTL and a 50mm lens. That year and the next year I won the yearly print competition. The year after, I was a starting professional photographer, I often used a Hasselblad, I owned a Pentax ESll, some fine Takumar lenses and nevertheless I never won anything again in that club competition.
Judging mainly on technical quality disqualifies the judges. Images should be judged on impact, impact and impact. The "WOW"-factor is the main deciding factor, provided the technical qualities do not degrade the images.
I too remember those seiously looking judges with a magnifying glass; they had an impressive theoretical knowledge, based on successes in a time long ago. IMHO this way they disqualify themselves and their verdict is of no value.
Oh yes, and I agree with Grant of course – as usual. π
Leen
And no doubt Ansel Adams would be just as well regarded if he’d used a Brownie with 127 roll film that he took to the drugstore for developing.
Stu,
You are 100% correct. Moreover:
— Ansel Adams did use Hasselblads sometimes
— Ansel Adams even took color pictures (see Amazon.com for his book)
Great photographers are great no matter what cameras they use, though equipment that takes noticeably technically inferior photographs can distract viewers from noticing that talent as clearly as they might otherwise. Within those bounds, talent always takes the day.
Regards,
Robert
Regarding digital vs. film, Colin Woodbridge’s excellent examples in his first note really say it all. Until I saw amazing-quality 20" inkjet prints made from 4MP files in a local pro photo shop a year or so ago I was a determined skeptic. Now that’s all changed.
Though it is not quite true yet, in the long term digital will dominate film just like CDs dominated vinyl records and DVDs are dominating VHS tapes (not to mention Betamaxes!).
The reasons are pretty straightforward:
1) Superior physical durability of the medium (no image degradation from copying negatives, no problems w/ fingerprints, moisture, film disintegration, no need to refrigerate, no picky storage requirements, etc.)
2) Equal or superior quality for ever-increasing enlargement sizes(sharpness, color range and saturation, etc.).
3) Convenience and speed (do everything at home, no need for labs, can see images right away and email them in seconds instead of hours/days)
4) Fewer variables to worry about for getting quality results (no light-tight darkroom, no sloppy chemicals, no worry that developer/fixer isn’t mixed right or that their temperatures will ruin an otherwise perfectly exposed shot, etc.)
5) Superior feature sets enabling capabilities that never existed in film cameras (e.g. being able to see the final exposure + lighting in the LCD without guessing, bracketing, etc.)
Over time digital will mathematically dominate film as quality/megapixels rise and prices fall. Right now film, especially larger format film, is still ahead of digital for larger-sized enlargements at prices that make sense for most photographers.
But as far as quality, even nowadays 30MP Leaf backs for Hasselblads produce poster-sized advertisement photos that are visually indistinguishable from medium-format film, not just 35mm. Moreover, that author is wrong when he says 10MP is today’s limit — there are digital large-format backs for 4×5 cameras that are 150-200 MP.
The problem is these backs cost $20,000-50,000. They also have very slow write speeds. But the photo quality is at least equal to medium and even large format film for any remotely sane enlargement (at least up to 30"x40" if not larger for the top-end backs).
Long-term that will no longer be the case. When digital backs for my Mamiya RZ67 come down to $5,000 I’m buying one (they’re $25,000 now). And when 30MP+ consumer cameras are under $1000 with superior feature sets compared to film cameras there will be no technical or output-quality reason for anyone to buy film cameras. People probably with for some time (just like vinyl records still sell) but overall most people especially younger people will forget there ever were film cameras.
Sincere cheers to all the film-heads anyway,
Robert
Oh Robert you do look for fights …. lol
Grant
Not really but they seem to find me anyway lol
In my opinion digital is allready superior to film (provided the use of similar cameras) in the hands of a skilled worker. Due to the lack of grain images are cleaner than ever before.
There is one exception: black and white. Nothing beats a traditionally handcrafted silver halide print.
On the other hand: if printed, the majority of prints will be worse than ever before. In "the old days" prints from films were automatically corrected for colour and density in the printing process. Now, to obtain a similar quality, people have to do these things themselves and most of them are too lazy or uninterested to do anything else than to take their card, put it into the machine and wait for the results. Even worse, if they print at home on cheap paper with cheap ink (the majority does) and will see their images fade within days. Nothing left for future generations.
It all depends on the skills of the photographer. As usual.
Leen
Digital is still unacceptable as evidence in a court of law due to its ability to be easily manipulated in apps such as Photoshop.
Negatives are still required as assurance that photos weren’t doctored to win a case.
When digital camera technology advances to a stage where at the moment of capture some kind of code can be tagged into the file that makes it permanently read only, then digital might be trusted in a court of law. But anybody who can take a screen capture on their monitor can override that.
I imagine they’re working on a solution on this issue.
let’s not start a war here. It’s obvious many of us went digital because we enjoy taking advantage of the new technologies available to us. It’s been a really fun and exciting ride so far….we are sooooo lucky! Film will always be available for obvious reasons …like the one Tim mentioned and for Arizona Highway magazines π There is no doubt that digital photography will expand in ways we can only imagine at this point and I’ll try and be there every step of the way.
wrote in message
: let’s not start a war here. ( … )
Spoil Sport!
Grant
wrote in message
: In my opinion digital is allready superior to film
Et tu, Brute?
Grant
Tim
No no no … you mustn’t use facts when talking about digital vs. film but only emotions. I believe it is the law!
wrote in message
: let’s not start a war here. ( … )
hmm, i’m confused. Seems like a pretty reasonable, intelligent and peaceful discussion so far (to me, anyway) but maybe i’m missing something….
Tim is right, certainly. It’s potentially scary, too, because digital media is inherently capable of being tampered with given the right technology. That’s not true for analogy media. For those purposes, long live celluloid!
But as for normal photography, it will move on to the new paradigm. Which is fine with me. Digital literally opened up a new photographic world for me, rejuvenated my enthusiasm for the art and craft of photography, empowered me to a new level as a photographer and freed me from restrictions, inconveniences and problems that I do not miss at all.
Creatively yours,
Robert
Right Robert, this is just a friendly discussion. So whatever the medium the art is in extracting the best from it. Pictures are very subjective..after all I’m sure we all drive different colour cars.
As for not corrupting analogue film… I would think again. It wouldn’t be the first time people have ‘drawn’ on negatives. Even removing scratches with the old ‘nose grease’ trick is doctoring an image.
Colin
Colin,
You’re right. Thanks for pointing that out. Still, for analog it’s generally easier to detect tampering, so guess we’d better keep it around for those situations.
Grant: No no no … you mustn’t use facts when talking about digital
vs. film but only emotions. I believe it is the law!
Hey, Grant Β I still believe 35mm film is better than digital. But ONLY when a Leica is used! π π
John
Obviously you have never owned a Leica. I was owned by one for a very short time …
Grant
do you mean you mortgaged your house for a short time to buy one, they are expensive you know hehehe π There are good reasons for their high prices for those who care about such things more than I do — extra-high quality manufacturing, and maybe also because the old-time greats used to use them before Nikon, Canon, etc. got popular with pros.
on the positive side, there is also innovation. At least one model of Leica digital has a 2.5" LCDs which is great. Hopefully other mfrs will follow suit soon, that would be great.
Seen the Leica digitals?
Nifty. And would you believe it, rather pricey π
Mac
Robert
Yes they are expensive and there are people willing to pay for them, mine was second hand. The cost is, I assume, because of the meticulously well constructed nature of the camera. It was about as quiet as any camera could honestly expect to be so it was idea for shooting most unobtrusively. It was brilliant in dim lighting situations. Changing a roll of film was an adventure with a Leica, but once loaded it could return peerless results. Unfortunaly I had become very use to the ease, the convenience, and the versatility of a SLR. A very good camera for a photo journalist covering state events or a street photographer.
Grant
Grant,
Was yours a rangefinder then? Leica does make SLRs.
Robert
I didn’t mean we were actually starting a war…just off the top of my head is all….not much left there ya know…most of it got outsourced.
A Leica is an extremely well built camera with absolute top glass. Probably that’s the reason hardly anyone uses a Leica and if so, usually handheld without the support of a tripod to really take advantage of these superior optics. π
I have used a Leica rangefinder and a Leica SLR for a few years. These were excellent cameras, wonderful optics and the best exemple of bad ergonomics ever invented and each new improved model had new developments about twenty years later than the Japanese camera industry.
It is a great brand and the brand sells extremely well. If any other manufacturer would have built a camera this way they would have been out of business for many years. But it is a Leica…
Leen
Robert
In Leica’s camera division they make or market SLRs, compacts, digital cameras and the famous rangefinders. But it the rangefinder, presently M series, that is the only camera that deserves the much touted Leica reputation. Once you get to the 35 mm SLR market there are many, many good cameras to choose form but the two best one are the Nikon F5 and the Canon EOS 1v. When it comes to digital the camera has yet to be built.
– Of course this is this is only my opinion so no need to tell me I am wrong.
Grant
"Digital is still unacceptable as evidence in a court of law due to its ability to be easily manipulated in apps such as Photoshop."
Tim, you probably know, law usually has a 20 years time lag to changes in society. π Recently, if I remember well, last week, in the UK was announced that every image that had been altered digitally could be traced.
Of course digital manipulation can be abused. Just like recently the people from the Bush campaign tried to "prove" John Kerry had been involved in a anti war demonstration he had never attended. I still cannot understand a newspaper image editor accepting this controversial image as anyone with some experience on this forum could notice the light wasnot coming from the right direction at all. If I owned this newspaper this editor would have been fired on the spot! We all remember the same foul play by the Russians when removing people from historical images.
The abuse of digital imaging by some objectionable campaign leaders doesnot imply it should be banned or people would turn their back on digital photography. It is here and it is here to stay.
Leen
Heck, I picked up the law reference from a previous (mind you lengthy) digital vs film thread many months ago. Nothing much else was said that backed up the claim, but it made a lot of sense.
I wonder how you’ld track digital manipulation through the production chain? That’s new to me.
I’m currently grappling finding the scanner space that the closed loop calibrated Fuji Frontier uses to scan my negatives. I get such dull pics from them using Kodak HiDef 400 claiming brilliant colors. Yeah, right. It looks like sRGB.
I’ve got to get me a digital camera.
Leen: We all remember the same foul play by the Russians when removing
people from historical images.
Done with Gulag 1.0, wasn’t it?
Digital is still unacceptable as evidence in a court of law due to its ability to be easily manipulated in apps such as Photoshop.
Negatives are still required as assurance that photos weren’t doctored to win a case.
In what jurisdiction? Not here in Illinois.
An attorney can introduce digital images as evidence if he/she wants to. The other side can try to impeach the evidence on the basis of them being digital photographs, and thus easily manipulated. It is then up to the jury to decide how much weight to give those opinions.
This is not theoretical. I covered a trial this June in which a man was convicted on four counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse largely on the basis of some naughty digital pictures he’d taken of himself together with his underage victim. The only other evidence the prosecution presented was the victim’s testimony. His lawyer did make the argument that they were digital pictures and could have been altered. One juror I interviewed after the trial referred to the pictures as "the smoking gun." He gets sentenced Friday, and he’s looking at 16 to 60 years.
Tim,
Have you tried calling Fuji tech support? Tech support folks are usually helpful, though not always. Make sure to ask for an advanced analyst if you don’t get answers you need right away, you can get one if you ask. Otherwise you’re stuck with whomever you get for a minimum of 30-60 minutes, possibly with no helpful results.
That’s what I had to do with Epson tech support re: persistent color casts on my Epson printer. The advanced analyst (a supervisor) got me a lot further than the person who first answered the phone.
Robert
John, the most famous images were the ones of the Sojet leaders on the Red Square at the October revolution Parade. One after one, like Trotsky, disappeared on the official images.
It reminds me of the George Orwell book "1984". He wrote it in 1948 with the former Sovjet Union in mind, but unfortunately today this seems to have been widely accepted.
Leen
Leen: Yes, I’m acquainted with the photos and the ‘disappearances’. In the mid 1970’s I read most of Solzhenitsyn’s works, including the massive "Gulag Archipelago". More recent works, including Martin Amis’s book "Koba the Dread: Laughter and the twenty-million" shed further light on the madness. It was a sad chapter in our history that continues to be repeated (perhaps on a smaller scale, but with no less savagery) in other areas of the world.
