Why are pro photographers...

Err Adam he says facts.

He asserts that traditonal colour printing is better.

It's not. A drum scanner blows Cibachrome out the water.

He can't even post a decent Jpeg. Come on.

My love is b&w film and printing it, but I'm not blind to technology.

I give up here, before I end up sounding like Scott Eaton!

Gareth.

Chrome film is slide film. No where in my post did I even mention traditional color printing.

 

The point of my post was, due the processes most labs use today, for color prints, a good digital camera will produce beter prints than scanned film.

 

On and no where did I say digital was crap. I shoot 95% of my non-B&W stuff with digital. If anything my post was critisizing film users.

 

I dont want to make this a personal arguement, so go read my post again and don't assume. As for the two crapy jpgs I posted. They are large on purpose to show a friend the built in ND effects from my G3. Again nothing personal, but you shouldn't assume anything.

Lets be honest here, you can produce good results or bad results from both methods if you want. Even if you buy an 11 mp digital camera or an top line 35mm film camera take the pic to the wrong lab and your results will look like s**t. It is also how you use the camera that is important leave the tripod at home when you need it and you can forget about sharp shots whatever format you shoot. Another thing professionals shoot what they need to shoot to get the job done when they need speed and convienience they may choose 35mm or digital equivilant depending on there prefered workflow. If it is a slower job in the studio or outside they may choose MF or digital MF. If a custommer wants the ultimate quallity and it is a static subject they could choose LF 8x10 or maybe a scanning digital back. You can't really say that one is better that the other, cameras are just tools to do a job and you need to choose the right tool. One could argue that LF 8x10 is the best but you would be silly to try and shoot a sports event with it, you would be equally silly to imagine that a car manufacture would allow you to shoot their new advertising shots of their latest model on 35mm or 6mp digicam when they usually have 5x4 or 8x10. Pick the right tool for the job and you will get great results. Film and digital both have their place at the moment but digital will continue to get better and better and the manufactures will spend less and less money developing film technology eventually there may well be no reason to shoot film anymore for some that day has come and for others it will come eventually, but photography will continue you can be sure of that and that is more important than the method of capture. Regards......

<blockquote>

<p><i>No, you know why, because you use an AA filter with digital work and by

doing that you blend a small amount of the pixels together, you know what that

does?</i></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not all AA filters are created equal.  The 10D may use a far from ideal

AA filter, though.</p>

<p>Also, the Sigma SD9/SD10 doesn't use an AA filter, from what I

understand.  You get more apparent detail, but you also get aliasing. 

But some people really like the effect.</p>

Hmmmm....

The question seemed inoccuous at first. It seems, however, that that old f vs. d

debate has reared its hideous head once again. After mulling over the issue for some

months, I have come to the following decisions regarding my use of tools:

 

1) I got rid of my D100 and Nikkor ED glass

 

2) I got myself a metal laden Blad of Hassel, which I now typically wield in conjunction

with an Carl Zeiss Aryan Super Lens.

 

3) I also got myself a "lowly" mamiya C3 and a couple of lenses.

 

4)I did this because I have developed a rather serious love affair with black and white

imagery. I like the dynamic range as well as the texture of a traditionally printed

black and white photograph. I don't care as much for the digital equivalent. Not even

from the 1DS Wunderpixellator.

 

5) Thanks to some comments from Scott on another thread, I decided to compare film

scanners before buying. (Thanks, Scott!) I've decided that an Epson flatbed may be

lurking about in my near future.

 

6) I plan to buy another digital camera. I have a preference for film when it comes to

black and white. I personally feel, however, that high- end digital images made with

exceptionally good glass ( such as my much missed Nikkor 180 2.8 ED) is far above

and beyond what is achieveable with 35mm film, with respect to the handling of color

accuracy. I like the Nikkor glass, but I think Fuji and yes, Sigma have better offerings

in terms of color rendition and facility than does Nikon.

 

7) A wise man once told me, " as an artist, you choose the tools you like and work

with them."

 

I have Photoshop, A G4 and a Wacom tablet. I STILL prefer the look and texture of a

crow quill pen and Dr. Martin's Tech Black ink to its cybernetically produced

counterpart.

 

8) Use what you will.

 

9) Stop with the poisonous barbs and innuendoes; it ain't that deep. I have had VERY

POSITIVE experiences with Photo.net. We are beginning to sound like those folks on

the DPREVIEW board. THAT is a VERY BAD thing.

 

End.

 

F.

I don't own the 1DS, but I was at a pro store (Vistek, Toronto)while they shot the outside of the store in RAW on a tripod with this camera. Printed on the Epson 7600 (no sharpening done)to almost 16x20, the image is superior to 35mm in some ways, no grain to deal with, clean sky....but it needed sharpening in photoshop for it to look really good. But, I could have done this for a lot less money with my old Nikon F2 shooting a good fine grain film (and achieved same level of sharpness and results...and also room for sharpening in photoshop). Please note, I did not analyze it with a microscope, but I've printed enough images to know they are in the same ballpark. The difference is convenience(pros want speed, zero film/dev cost) and less grain! Also, I can blow up a 35mm to 40x60 if for some strange reason I wanted to. Try that with the 1ds and the image will look like a puzzle. Digital has limitations, once the square pixels are visible, you've reached your limit. With film I can keep going because grain is not an eye sore.

 

As for 30x40 prints with the 1Ds. Well the math doesn't back that claim. An 11 pixel camera works out to around 3800x3000 pixels. To print at 300ppi output @1440dpi, that means a print size of 10x12.6 inches. At 240 ppi the print size is 16x11 inches. At 150ppi the print size is 25x20 and quality is now poor (to my standards), that comment about 30x40 prints is rediculous!

 

Scanning large negs is the cheap way to go. The 1ds is not for every pro, and it is not up to grade for fine art landscape photographers wanting the ability to make large prints (24x30+), and a digital backs for 4x5 or Hassys are so far too expensive. However, for journalists, magazine, or any one printing smaller size, the 1ds is the way to go..quality is there, and film/dev cost savings is tremendous (pays for camera in first year). Considering a pro shoots about 10 rolls per day, 5 days per week, over a year that is 2600 rolls of film at $10 for film/processing. This is the main reason why the switch over to digital (if you want to stay in business).

 

One other thing most people forget. Film has a very long life (especially when refrigerated). With digital you must always deal with technical obsolesence. Will you be able to copy or read your CD files later, and even if you can, do you want to always update those thousands of files(lot of work)? Also, CD's have a lifespan not as long as most people think...cheaper ones 25 years, better ones about 45 years. So we have 2 markets...those pros wanting to shoot for profit NOW and don't care about longevity, and those pros wanting to shoot and keep their images at a archival level. This second group consists of fine art photographers shooting 4x5, med format(then scan), and still a lot of wedding photographers. However, many wedding photographers I noticed are switching. One pro owner I spoke with still is not satisfied with the digital images, preferring traditional papers and he gets a lot of orders for "large" prints(and doesn't want a digital back for his Hassy). Other wedding photographers only do 8x10 packages and don't give a dang about longevity or anything, they went to digital...does the job. These guys don't care too much about saving images for long keeping because they know they must make the money up front, because people will be scanning them at home later(repeat sales is dead for them).

 

When prices come down, more will switch to digital. But there will be those afraid to give up film due to it's archival properties (nothing beats it yet), and the real hassle of copying digital files over and over to keep up with newer technology. So it sounds like digital and film will serve their own markets, both have advantages. Most pros that went digital are shooting 2 1/4 and getting lightjets or ultrachrome prints done after scanning. Most serious landscape photographers still prefer 4x5 (Quon Ton at this site still shoots 5x7...see www.terragalleria.com), then scans. Ilfochrome (Ciba) is basically dead. With most places (including Vistek..biggest in Canada) you now need to special order this paper, same goes for Endura color paper. In my opinion, high end scanning is the key, then choose your printer (Epsons 9600/7600/4000/2200, Lightjets, Roland, HPDesignjet5500, Colorspan, etc).

 

Digital has it's flaws, Epson 9600's experience bronzing on glossy, switching back and forth between Quad tone inks and color is a nuisance, wasteful, and expensive...and by the way also stupid (Epson needs to wake up). Prints will surely all be digital eventually(photoshop has so many advantages, especially in color), but the capture medium is most likely going to stay film and digital to serve different markets.