Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-30-2004, 17:47   #1
General Sherman
Senior Member
 
General Sherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dunwoody, near Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 949
Digital Trends

According to the news on www.dpreview.com film sales continue to decline and the sales of digital cameras are increasing. Kodak announced they are laying off workers and discontinuing making reloadable APS and 35mm cameras. Digital camera sales are expected to peak in two years. However people are ordering less prints.

As an aside I found a good on-line printer at good prices who will do odd sizes and make big enlargements. See www.perfectposters.com
You e-mail them a photo and they print it the same day and return it to you by priority mail. Very very fast. Just what I needed. About 1/3rd the price of Ritz camera.
__________________
DISARMING GOOD PEOPLE GETS THEM MURDERED.

Remember the heros of United flight 93 including Georgine Corrigan. "Lets roll"
General Sherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2004, 00:25   #2
hwyhobo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,442


Re: Digital Trends

Quote:
Originally posted by General Sherman
According to the news on www.dpreview.com film sales continue to decline and the sales of digital cameras are increasing. Kodak announced they are laying off workers and discontinuing making reloadable APS and 35mm cameras.
This is not surprising. It is only a matter of time (not very long) before film is dead for all but most specialized of uses. Just like cut 8x10 film, it will find some narrow niche, but for 99.9% of the market digital will do everything cheaper and better. I was formally trained in film processing and darkroom techniques, and I think digital processing is so far ahead, it makes darkroom seem like a horse-driven buggy compared to a Ferrari.

I do miss the smells and the atmosphere of the darkroom, though. I miss the scale for weighing chemicals, the termometers, and all the other paraphernalia. They made one feel like an alchemist.

Last edited by hwyhobo; 07-31-2004 at 00:30..
hwyhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2004, 10:05   #3
CheesyD
Nyet to Marxism
 
CheesyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Under God
Posts: 10,161


This is most unfortunate. I still believe (hope) film will be around for many years to come. I think the "art" of photography will disappear along with film, if and when that happens. Far too many images today are computer manipulated way beyond what they began as. One no longer needs to be skilled in photography, only in Photoshop. I guess I'm old school but these are sad days indeed for photography.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
CheesyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2004, 10:06   #4
RBR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 380
Sherman - You might consider buying a good photo quality printer ,especially when newer models are released, to print your own pictures. They are pretty reasonable now (I have a Canon i860). You have to use the Canon photo paper for the best results which is a costly part of it but cheaper brands will work well also. I guess it depends on the cost differences and how much need you have to go the photo capable printer route.

Only problems I have encountered are sometimes what I see on my monitor(RGB)comes off different when converted to CYMK by the printer. I've tried all the settings on my monitor and editing software for matching but they still differ slightly at times. When editing photos I mentally know how the object appeared when shooting and then make any color/brightness etc. adjustments on the PC to match what I anticipate my printer will produce.

But done correctly with a quality high-res image the results are really good. This is one area where digital kills film in the processing ease, costs and turn-around time.

All said though I have much more respect and admiration for anyone who can shoot film and get beautiful results. I still feel digital is cheating a bit since there are many more processing or image enhancements available to fix so-so images.
__________________
Never get off the boat!
RBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2004, 14:05   #5
hwyhobo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,442


Art of photography with die with film because of digital manipulation? Digital is cheating? ;P That's like saying that art of painting died because we no longer spread vegetable mass on cave walls but instead paint with brushes on canvas. The art is inside the artist, not in his tools. You get better tools to help you express yourself, and you're scared of them? Maybe there isn't much to express, and you're hiding behind the inadequacy of the old implements of your profession?

Sorry for the harsh words, but the sentiments in the last two posts astonished me.
hwyhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2004, 14:21   #6
CheesyD
Nyet to Marxism
 
CheesyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Under God
Posts: 10,161


Quote:
Originally posted by hwyhobo
Art of photography with die with film because of digital manipulation? Digital is cheating? ;P That's like saying that art of painting died because we no longer spread vegetable mass on cave walls but instead paint with brushes on canvas. The art is inside the artist, not in his tools. You get better tools to help you express yourself, and you're scared of them? Maybe there isn't much to express, and you're hiding behind the inadequacy of the old implements of your profession?

Sorry for the harsh words, but the sentiments in the last two posts astonished me.
I never said I was scared of digital. I have a Coolpix 5700 myself as well as Photoshop Elements. My point was the extent of image manipulation with digital makes the actual taking of the photo almost pointless. It's almost to the point where you can start with a blank screen in Photoshop and create an award winning image without leaving your PC. If that offends your digital senses, too bad.

Maybe it's you hiding behind the digital tools. What's the matter, can't take a decent photo with film so you need to "create" one on a PC? That makes about as much sense as your totally uncalled for attacks on others abilities.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
CheesyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2004, 18:00   #7
hwyhobo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,442


Quote:
Originally posted by CheesyD
What's the matter, can't take a decent photo with film so you need to "create" one on a PC?
Again, I cannot comprehend this. Do you accuse painters, "What's the matter, can't you spread vegetable mass on cave walls with your fingers well enough, so you have to resort to trickery with paint and canvas?" I mean, your point makes about as much sense. Apparantly, to you art is not artist's ability to express himself through whatever means he has at his disposal, but only through tools you happen to approve at the moment. How can anybody be so hung up on mechanical attributes of creation? Does the use of a computer exceed your pre-approved definition of photography? Do you approve of musicians using electronic instruments and digital processing, or does it make them lesser artists in your book because they dare learn new tools? Move on, the world doesn't stand in one place. How come you are using guns? Something wrong with a sling and a battle axe? What are you, a weakling?

Don't accuse me of personal attacks. I am merely extending your statements to their logical conclusion.
hwyhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2004, 18:40   #8
CheesyD
Nyet to Marxism
 
CheesyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Under God
Posts: 10,161


Whatever dude. You're ranting and raving now. You like making pretty pictures on a PC and I prefer using a 35mm camera. Life goes on but for me, this thread ends here.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
CheesyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2004, 20:41   #9
hwyhobo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,442


Quote:
Originally posted by CheesyD
You like making pretty pictures on a PC and I prefer using a 35mm camera.
Yea, riiight.
hwyhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2004, 13:17   #10
Spen84107
Senior Member
 
Spen84107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally posted by hwyhobo
Art of photography with die with film because of digital manipulation? Digital is cheating? ;P That's like saying that art of painting died because we no longer spread vegetable mass on cave walls but instead paint with brushes on canvas. The art is inside the artist, not in his tools. You get better tools to help you express yourself, and you're scared of them? Maybe there isn't much to express, and you're hiding behind the inadequacy of the old implements of your profession?

Sorry for the harsh words, but the sentiments in the last two posts astonished me.

Excellent statement. I'll be completely honest and say that I used to despise digital photography. Then I had a revelation along the same lines of your statement, ever since then, film is just a hassle to me. Granted, I will always maintain my respect for film, but photography is evolving.

I personally feel that digital manipulation is a more efficient way of dodging/burning/brushing, etc. If you ever look up the changes that Ansel Adams made on his photographs, one could accuse him of 'manipulation'.


;c
__________________
40 S&W Club #8410
Kalashnikov Klub #5
Spen84107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2004, 19:42   #11
redwinger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,673
this site(glocktalk)has become so fu(*&&^(*&ing deluted it stinks.it everything to everyone!pa lease!!!!!!lets blow up some cinder blocks.i have the 44 mag,480 roger and if that aint enough a 454!
redwinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2004, 22:07   #12
hwyhobo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,442


Quote:
Originally posted by redwinger
this site(glocktalk)has become so fu(*&&^(*&ing deluted it stinks.it everything to everyone!
;V
hwyhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2004, 14:33   #13
sharpshooter
Member
 
sharpshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: NV
Posts: 5,173
All darkroom photographers "manipulate" the image just as much as any digital photographer does. Both need to master finding good subjects to capture, and then they manipulate the image before framing it.

The darkroom developer needs to master chemicals and the art of exposure, dodging, burning, etc etc. It's done manually and takes lots of practice and raw materials to get it right. Ansel Adams had to print some of his shots HUNDREDS of times before he got them just right. Whupptee-doo. He wasted all that time and money trying to make his print better than the photograph he snapped.

Digital photographers do the same thing, but better and for less money. The originial untouched image may not look exactly like the finished print, but it's not any different than what darkroom developers do.

The average Joe with his 35mm SLR or point-n-shoot can't get as good of quality pictures as he can with a 3.2mp digital camera and photoshop. Half the pics with a 35mm don't turn out good enough to frame or put in your album. You're wasting money on developing bad pics and you're not getting pics of the stuff you thought you were.

With digital, all you gotta do is maybe run your favorite images thru some simple programs to adjust color etc, maybe crop a little, and then you can develope them professionally at Costco in 1 hour for $0.19 each and they look terrific! Erase the ones you don't want to print. There's no negatives to store, no film to develop, and no film to buy.

Digital is a clear winner! People haven't been printing because home printers are not real great or economical yet. But they're getting there, and Costco prices and quality are fantastic. People will start printing more now that it's easier to do.
sharpshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2004, 19:19   #14
Timber Wolf
Christ. Warrior
 
Timber Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally posted by redwinger
this site(glocktalk)has become so fu(*&&^(*&ing deluted it stinks.it everything to everyone!pa lease!!!!!!lets blow up some cinder blocks.i have the 44 mag,480 roger and if that aint enough a 454!
;z ;L ;9 ;G ;T ;! ^9 ^8 ^2 ;5 ;n ;6 ;m

NOBODY SAYS YOU HAVE TO COME IN HERE!
NOBODY SAYS YOU EVEN HAVE TO STICK AROUND!
__________________
New NRA & SAF MEMBER - NOV 2008
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." US 2nd Amendement
2 Chronicles 7:14
Ps 144:1-2a
Timber Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2004, 19:39   #15
potatoho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Port Orange, FL
Posts: 290
We got one of those stand-alone photo printers. An Epson R300. It's like $150-$200. Has slots for compactflash, SD/MMC, and a couple others. Bluetooth isn't built-in though, you have to buy an extra dongle. Anyways, awesome photos I think.

I guess you can plug it into a computer too, via usb. But really, who'd do that when it works standalone. You just pop the card out of your camera and use the printer's display to palletize your pictures. Says something about printing directly to CDs and DVDs. What's that about?
potatoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2004, 09:38   #16
sharpshooter
Member
 
sharpshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: NV
Posts: 5,173
Since you likely want to permanently save at least some of your pics, you're going to have to use your computer anyways. So what's the point of having a stand alone printer? Maybe for traveling or something if you want quick pics... Also, going directly from your camera to the printer doesn't allow you to use photoshop for cropping or color adjustments. Just my $0.02.
sharpshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2004, 18:33   #17
Bill D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Acworth, Ga.
Posts: 878
General,
Before you buy a printer, photo paper, and lots of ink, check with Costco as mentioned previously. $.19 per 4x6 print on Kodak paper.
Bill D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2004, 13:38   #18
T. Harless
Senior Member
 
T. Harless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WV
Posts: 6,985
There is no less art in digital photography than film. I do this for a living and what digital allows me is to provide to my client a publication ready image faster and cheaper than ever before. No halftone, no drum scan, it's ready to go. Even before digital cameras got to where they are, say 98 or so, I was shooting film then scanning the negative on a Nikon film scanner to drop into a Quark page. I do miss the smell of fixer and the rush of printing half dry b/w negatives on deadline but not enough to go back. I was working an Orioles/Red Sox game recently and had 25 game images FTP'd to the Boston Globe from Camden Yard before the game was over. Do that with film.

As for art, Photoshop work is an art to itself. I have seen amazing things done with my photos(by somebody else) that blew my mind. Its just another medium, another canvas. 95% of what I do with photoshop is exactly what I would have done in a traditional darkroom. Crop, size, dodge, burn, tone or color correct. Difference is I do it much faster and I don't pour chemicals down the drain and I didn't use half a box of paper to get the perfect print.

There are folks that still make daguerreotypes. Film's not dead. It's just mostly useless to me. Todd
__________________
ergo bibamus
T. Harless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 19:07   #19
DigitalPhotog
Member
 
DigitalPhotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 27
I think those that say the art will go away dont realize, you need to capture the right informaion on the chip at exposure. You still have to be a photographer not just a button pusher. YES, you can fix some later, but in consulting photographers to digital (what I do)or helping with their workflow, many think they can expose like film and get the same results. I think photographers have become lazy with TTL metering, extended latitude films, and auto everything cameras.
__________________
Kahr MK9
S&W 639
DigitalPhotog is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

« Dual purpose | odd »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:39.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 564
115 Members
449 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31