It is currently Mon 25 May 2020 21:18 GMT
Change font size

Photographers and Artists

Digital or Conventional

Looks like we have a few photographers and artists in our midst so here's a place to talk about all photography, art, and related subjects.

Digital or Conventional

Postby Mike » Tue 22 Jul 2003 19:35 GMT

Horses for Courses

Waheeeey! Affordable digital cameras are cool; take party snaps, and they're on the monitor before you can say "Leica".

Affordable Digis are the now equivalent of disposable cameras.

I reckon in about three years time, digi cameras of a serious persuasion will be affordable for semi-pros. I'm saving up.

A couple of months ago, in his lead feature, John Tracy, Editor of the BFP (Bureau of Freelance Photographers) Market Newsletter, did an about-turn. Until then, an anti-digi man, he recognised that digi was the way forward in the pro market.

But he still reckoned the pendulum would take several years to swing, mainly due to the high cost of (good) digital technology.

BTW, Mike, in a recent BFP Newsletter, reference was made to an agency in Botswana. Anything to do with your goodself, perchance?

Mike
(stirring it on several fronts :) )
Glaikit. Bit nae sae glaikit as a gollach wi a blin ee.
Posted by:
Mike
Supporter
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu 23 Jan 2003 01:05 GMT
Location: Thurso, Scotland

Re: Digital or Conventional

Postby días-idílicos » Wed 23 Jul 2003 03:34 GMT

Mike wrote:Waheeeey! Affordable digital cameras are cool; take party snaps, and they're on the monitor before you can say "Leica".(stirring it on several fronts :) )


Hi Mike,

I don't know, I not a digi fan (yet), but isn't there a bit of a problem here.

As is normal, everyone wants the latest/best product, but once you have the digital camera at 5 mega pixels (or whatever the latest may be) can a normal PC monitor do it justice. Most PC images seem quiet adequate at much lower resolutions and I wonder where the benefit lies. Do we needd new technology video cards/monitors.... phew the price is rising!

Then what happens when you want a hard copy, is the printer up to the job?... more money!. If you do get a decent hard copy, will the ink run if I put aunt Mauds photo in my wallet... and what about the price of good photo paper and inks?. I do use a cheap (relatively) digi, but I'm not converted yet.

It may be old hat in your neck of the woods, I noticed a TV add recently for Kodak (I think)... hand in your 35mm film and get the option of having not only the standard photos, but a CD with the piccies on... not a bad idea, I thought.

d-i
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
días-idílicos
Free member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun 6 Jul 2003 01:53 GMT
Location: L'Afaz y Busot, Alicant, España

Postby CustomStrat » Wed 23 Jul 2003 05:20 GMT

días-idílicos makes some excellant points here about the escalating costs of going digital. Since digital cameras are meant to be such an integral part of one's computer setup how much more will have to be invested in upgrading to keep up with the benefits? I, personally, think it's a long way from being worth it for us ordinary mortals...

The big photographic supply companies, Kodak, Agfa, Ilford, Fuji, etc, don't make their money from professionals; they make it from the snap-shooters so they'll all be on the bandwagon. And a lot of pros will go digital because it's easier to proof and then to upload to the ad agency or magazine. The company that I was working for, before they decided that Arkansas wasn't a profitable market and made me redundant, are headed in that direction. Right now they're using a combo system; the camera (based on a TV camera) shoots directly onto 70mm film and digital simultaneously. The digi part makes for instant proofing before the film is FedEx'd to the lab. But they're also working, with Kodak, on developing a 32 megapixel camera system. The lab will then download the results and print using what amounts to a digital enlarger.

Personally, I'm quite happy with film and real cameras. Ever tried to read an LCD viewfinder in bright daylight? Or take low light pictures without flash? I like the artistic challange of conventional photography. Someday we'll all be driving cars that will take us to our destination while we play Tomb Raider on the Playstation that's imbedded in the dashboard. I, for one, would rather drive myself...
I'm not afraid to die; I just don't want to be there when it happens - Woody Allen
Posted by:
CustomStrat
Supporter
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon 30 Jun 2003 04:56 GMT
Location: Arkansas; originally from Reading

Postby días-idílicos » Wed 23 Jul 2003 05:38 GMT

CustomStrat wrote:Someday we'll all be driving cars that will take us to our destination while we play Tomb Raider on the Playstation that's imbedded in the dashboard....


I think my missus already is, judging by the dents in my car :? :lol:


Hi CustomStrat,

Good info. I agree with you, digi doesn't quiet work for me yet and I can't get decent B&W (converted) results from digital.

d-i
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
días-idílicos
Free member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun 6 Jul 2003 01:53 GMT
Location: L'Afaz y Busot, Alicant, España

Postby CustomStrat » Wed 23 Jul 2003 05:53 GMT

You're right about that! B&W just doesn't get there. But, I guess, it's not an industry priority since they probably assume that no one wants B&W anymore...
I'm not afraid to die; I just don't want to be there when it happens - Woody Allen
Posted by:
CustomStrat
Supporter
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon 30 Jun 2003 04:56 GMT
Location: Arkansas; originally from Reading

Postby Savannah_Alan » Wed 23 Jul 2003 15:25 GMT

I don't know what you guys think, but I could do with the digi manufacturers stopping chasing the mega-pixels and worry more about the hardware surrounding the CCD.

I would be quite happy if they would put out a camera with even just 1024 X 768 resolution, but would be just like a traditional SLR. I realise that Nikon do a digital back for their cameras, but it's too rich for my blood :shock:

Surely it would't be the end of the world for other manufacturers to put out a digital version of their body so that we can continue to use our existing investment in lenses, filters etc...

Alan.

P.S. Mike - sorry I haven't replied to your last mail yet. It's in the workings...
There's loads more to see and do on British Expat— why not check out our home page?
Posted by:
User avatar
Savannah_Alan
Supporter
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu 23 Jan 2003 00:46 GMT
Location: Dahlonega, Georgia, USA - Originally from Southend-On-Sea, Essex.

Postby chabrenas » Thu 24 Jul 2003 20:22 GMT

BTW, Mike, in a recent BFP Newsletter, reference was made to an agency in Botswana. Anything to do with your goodself, perchance?



Sort of. Terry & John Sadie are the BFP members, and Terry is the backbone of a new photolibrary syndicate. It has three other founder members.

James Oldfield is the most experienced photographer (old school - mostly shoots Kodak ISO 25 slidefilm which has to be sent to Europe fro processing, but he's slowly coming round. He even boght a PC a few months ago) but is planning to leave the country soon, probably for the Bahamas, where his wife has been offered a teaching job which won't include the assistant principal as the Neighbour from Hell.

Ulf Nermark is a Swedish fishery consultant who has been a competent and enthusiastic photographer most of his life. He has connections with village life and the art world, as well as most of the local reprsentatives of UN, EU, etc., so he's our most successful salesman.

Me. Returning to photography after a couple of long breaks, this time aiming to turn it into the source of one of the revenue streams I'll need to support me in the manner to which I am determined to become accustomed during my ruggie years. My most prolific previous period was from late teens to early 30s, cooking black & white films in lukewarm Ergol and taking candids people didn't believe could possibly come out.

Then 20 years ago I bought a Canon AE-1 in a famous New York secondhand camera shop and took a few colour pics beforeoing into limbo again. A year and a half ago, I had the AE-1 overhauled and started to learn the proper way to use colour film.

John & Terry are South African IT folk both looking for a parachute when affirmative action puts them out of the running. They started off by photgraphing wildlife, but realised that this is a limited, expensive and highly competitive market, so they're broadening their scope. Terry no longer works, so she's the fulltime slide developer, scanner and digital editor. She's also the one who uses the Fuji2Pro digital body, although they still have two Nikon professional bodies. Their collection of Nikon-compatible lenses also works with the Fuji2Pro.

The syndicate's website is still under development, but I have built a holding page which just shows one of the pics I took for a local Chamber of Commerce annual report. This one wasn't used, but I sold 4 others.They all ended up about the size of a Coke bottle top, in a logo-like decoration in the top left corner of each page (Terry, James & Ulf also cotributed to this report).

http://www.seba-botswana.com
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
chabrenas
Free member
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed 22 Jan 2003 17:41 GMT
Location: France

Postby Martin Pickering » Sun 28 Sep 2003 18:38 GMT

I've been using digital cameras for a few years. Started with a big, klunky Kodak and upgraded to a tiny Minolta Dimage E203. This is "only" 2 Megapixels resolution but perfectly adequate for our:

1. Wedding photos in Cyprus - printed out 4 to an A4 sheet of glossy inkjet paper from "Partners" stationers at £6 per pack of 20 sheets. I haven't tested this particular paper for longevity but I have a photo of my wife in my wallet (purely as a test, you understand). In bright sunlight (UK) stuck in a south-facing window, previous tests prints lasted less than 6 months. But who does that to a real photo anyway? I use an Epson Stylus Color 760 with "compatible" ink cartridges. Cost about £120 new and I needed it anyway.

2. Internal magazine photos. The resolution isn't good enough for a full A4 magazine cover shot but it's perfectly adequate for a quarter page inside page on "typical" matt paper. I write magazine articles and email these, with the images, to the publishers.

3. Web page images. No problem at all with these.

The camera cost about £200 last year on special offer from an internet mail order supplier. This year I bought two more exactly the same for £100 each as "refurbished". These were actually "dead on arrival" manufacturer's returns which were tested then resold at half price because this model is now obsolete. But grab one if you can!

I put a review here:

http://www.satcure.co.uk/mac/minolta.htm

An additional cost came in replacing the aged 4Gb Hard Drive in my computer with an 80Gb one. But I needed to do that anyway, as it had filled up over the years.

My 17" monitor screen is adequate for retouching the photos.

Wild horses wouldn't make me buy a conventional camera. I can take over 150 shots with this camera (64Mb memory card). More than adequate for my son's Cyprus wedding and a fortnight's holiday there. I uploaded the photos to my Apple Mac iBook so I had backup copies. I then downloaded them onto my iPod MP3 music player as a double-backup. I also sent a few copies to friends via e-mail, using my mobile phone connected to the iBook. It's such a versatile technology! And I print out only the ones approved on-screen (by my wife of course).

Note that I don't sell cameras and have no connection with anyone who does.

Martin
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
Martin Pickering
Free member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun 28 Sep 2003 18:03 GMT
Location: Western Crete

Postby Kay » Mon 29 Sep 2003 08:38 GMT

Hi Martin

Welcome to the forum. I had a look at your site and read all about you. I love your sense of humour!

Cheers

Kay :D
Not Delia - Foodie blog with lots of reviews and recipes.
Posted by:
User avatar
Kay
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15338
Joined: Wed 22 Jan 2003 13:06 GMT
Location: Kent for a couple of years

Postby atoz » Mon 29 Sep 2003 15:04 GMT

Yes, welcome Martin. To fully welcome you to the forum, I have to ask you one (just one) question:

How did you buy the cameras if you have no connection with anyone who sells them...?

Sorry :roll:, sometimes I just can't help myself.
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
atoz
Free member
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed 5 Feb 2003 11:02 GMT
Location: London

Postby Kay » Mon 29 Sep 2003 17:28 GMT

How did you buy the cameras if you have no connection with anyone who sells them...?


Atoz, yer a daft bu99er! That was nearly a gotcha.

Kay :D
Not Delia - Foodie blog with lots of reviews and recipes.
Posted by:
User avatar
Kay
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15338
Joined: Wed 22 Jan 2003 13:06 GMT
Location: Kent for a couple of years

Postby Victor » Tue 30 Sep 2003 11:32 GMT

Savannah_Alan wrote:Surely it would't be the end of the world for other manufacturers to put out a digital version of their body so that we can continue to use our existing investment in lenses, filters etc...



This is exactly why I went for Canon EOS. I already had an EOS 30 and lenses, so the EOS 10D was the perfect fit. I did think of waiting for the cheaper EOS300D which at EUR 900 value for money, but its aimed more at the consumer rather than Prosumer market.
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
Victor
Free member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu 3 Jul 2003 00:05 GMT
Location: Munich (D), Drapanos (GR) & Banitza (BG)


Return to Photographers and Artists