Film devotee reluctantly converting soon to digital

After years of stubborn resistance, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion

that I am soon going to have to go digital (today's implosion of the building

at Kodak dedicated to the production of photographic paper is, it seems, an ill

omen for the future of film). One issue I have long had with "the digital

revolution" is how one best stores and presents digital images. I don't

particularly like the idea of merely storing photos on the computer and viewing

them on the computer screen. I have heard that there is software available

which will enable one to "burn" digital images onto DVD, but I am not certain

which software is best for this function; moreover, my DVD players are several

years old, and I understand that some DVD formats are not compatible with older

DVD players. I need, with your indulgence, some practical advice as to options

for storing and viewing digital photos, with particular reference to whether

the DVD option is viable. Of course, the whole idea is to be able to pop the

DVD into the DVD player and view the images on an HDTV screen, even if I have

to get new DVD players to accomplish that. Thanks in advance for any advice.

One or two more issues. First, I tend to travel a great deal, and typically shoot 400 or so exposures on each trip, so I am curious as to how many photos a DVD would "hold." Second, I intend to replace my Nikon N90 body with a digital Nikon body of 10 MP or so capability, and I have heard that some of the available software (e.g., ProGold)isn't up to handling that level of resolution. I would appreciate any comments on these additional matters.

Shane, are you intending to buy a dslr and then burn the captures to a dvd, or were you planning to do anything else between shooting and burning such as editing? You have dvd players (several years old). Do you have a writable dvd drive?

 

"I am curious as to how many photos a DVD would "hold.""

 

It depends on the file sizes of the photos.

First issue, standard resolution DVD format has less resolution then a wallet size print. If you are used to slide projector, you are not going to like it viewing it with your TV. There is no digital equal of a slide projector yet. You may have to store and view JPEG with a computer. The combo is the digital equal of light-box (computer) and viewing loop (monitor). The only (affordable) high resolution output in digital is print.

 

Second issues, it is not the software, it is the computer and its monitor (display). Most computer monitor only dispaly 1600x1200 or 2Mega pixel.

 

The latest generation of digital slide is the Bluray disk from Sony. There is also a 2nd version called HD-DVD. Kind of like VHS and Beta all over again. These formats currently focus more on movie then slide. It supports 1920x1080p. The format however is a 16 by 9 and not 3 by 2 or 4 by 5 or 8 by 10.

Correction "There is no digital equal of a slide projector yet." I mean; There is no slide resolution digital projector yet. There are a good number of lower resolution (1 to 2 Megapixel) digital data projector. You can use you computer to drive these data projectors.

Show `em on a lap top and carry it around. Send the files out for regular photo prints. You do an easy file transfer to Mpix with the provided software. Then tell them what size you want. Prints show up in the mail in a few days.

 

You need 300 ppi for good pics, 180 for average. They will look the same as real photo prints because they are.

 

I bought a Sony DVD burner. Plug it in and use the software to burn CD or DVD. The resolution is whatever you put in.

 

I also use an external 500GB hard drive for storage.

 

So now you have a DVD or two, external drive, and an image on you computer drive. Store one DVD off site.

<i>I have heard that some of the available software (e.g., ProGold)isn't up to handling that level of resolution.</i><p>Whoever is telling you something like this should permanently be taken off the "listen-to" list. Good DVD software writes files to a disk. Resolution has nothing to do with it. Big files, small files, they all get written to disk. Find some new sources that know what they are talking about.<p>

 

Hard drive backup is easier than DVDs, although less mail-able. I back up onto two hard drives and two DVDs (no software problems ever, by the way, for burning), and figure that's pretty safe. Safer than my negatives, at a minimum.

I would also caution against only storing images on a single hard-drive or DVD. Hardware failure is something that must be taken into careful consideration.

 

My recommendation is to buy two hard-drives of equal size and set them up in a RAID 1 array, which is complicated jargon that basically means whatever is written to one disc is written to the other as well. This gives you two exact copies of all of your images, ensuring their durability.

 

This type of setup is not terribly expensive these days. A RAID card will run you about $30 last time I checked. Hard-drives are cheap.

"My recommendation is to buy two hard-drives of equal size and set them up in a RAID 1 array, which is complicated jargon that basically means whatever is written to one disc is written to the other as well. This gives you two exact copies of all of your images, ensuring their durability."

 

This automated back-up will also ensure your accidental deletions and mis-saves are instantly duplicated on your back-up drive.

"First, I tend to travel a great deal, and typically shoot 400 or so exposures on each trip,"

 

Epson makes a series of devices (I have the older P-2000) that have a really nice LCD screen and a hard disk and download images from your CF card. Your 10MP images will be about 15MB each (if you use uncompressed mode), so the 35 GB (larger disks are available) holds a lot more than 400 images; more like 2000 images (my math may be dizzy here, but it's something like that). Note, however, that you will be shooting a lot more than 400 images per trip with digital. With my 5D, a 4GB card holds just over 200 images, and I usually run out of energy at 150 shots or so in an afternoon out with the camera. So that can add up really fast, even on a short trip.

 

There are other similar devices as well. But they are really nice, since you can review your work in the evening and delete the obvious losers, and think about what to shoot the next day. I just got back from a trip to Boston with our CEO, and she just took the P-2000 with her to show her swimming buddies what her hubby's home town looked like when we got back to Tokyo. Very convenient.

"how one best stores and presents digital images"

 

Prints work well.

some of your questions seem to be answered, but I don't think they tied a thought together for you. And judging by your comments and questions, I will attempt to explain it from the point of view that you know absolutely nothing about digital anything. You may or may not...it'll just be more or a concept if I do it this way

 

You buy a memory card to put in your DSLR. This card is like a small hard drive...except it don't spin a disc...but it can be written to, read from, erased, and formatted.

 

You take the pic. Now, if you shoot in RAW, this will create a file apprx 10MG in size from your proposed camera...if you shoot with the best JPEG setting, a guess would be around 5MG (jpeg compresses the information). So, lets just say for arguement s sake, this allows 100 RAW pics on a 2gig card, or 200 jpegs (i didn't actually do the math....just ball parked it......but it's close). Most shooters will have at least 2 cards.......I have 6 accumulated over 2 years. They are pretty cheap these days. So you could concievably buy enough cards for say under $100, paying attention to sales and rebates (and as long as you don't shoot fast action...sports, etc...you don't need the fast cards, the basic entry level will do nicely for scenics and street scenes), to completely cover your 400 typical pics. If you find you shoot more with digital.....and a lot of people do......they there are mass storage devices as mentioned above......you can also transfet the memory card pics to a laptop, if you happen to carry one with you on these trips.

 

Now, eventually these files (your pics) get transferred to your main computer, on it's own hard drive at home. Think of that file as your negative. It's not....but treat it as such. However, you have a slightly different way of doing that. I aggree with the people above that say to have one copy of the pic on an external hard drive and a DVD. do that immediately to the external hard drive, do it to the DVD as you accumulate enough files to fill a DVD. So, now you have a copy on your DVD, your external hard drive, and you internal computer drive. Don't touch anything but your internal hard drive copy from now on........the other 2 copies are your negatives (archived files actually).

 

Now, you have this file on your computer's hard drive, and let's say you use Photoshop (it looks expensive.....but it's worth it....but that's my personal choice...but any will do for basic editting). Now you edit the pic. You generally will have to sharpen a digital pic. But all the other editting is what you would do in a wet darkroom with printing. Oh, you can do that fancy crap too.........but we'll stick with basic "fine tuning the image".......dodging, burning, cropping, touch up, etc. Ok, you do all that to the pic.......perfect........exactly like you want it. Save that edit to your hard drive (the one in the computer).

 

Let's, for sake of comparing to film, call that your internegative. Now, you have that perfect pic in a file. From here you process it for what ever output you want it to be. A print, a web picture, a slide show for your DVD player........they all get processed slightly different depending on the out put viewing medium you choose.

 

I use photoshop and Epson printers for a print. I also use Kodak's online printing for the family type shots where everyone wants a 4x6 of the pic.....I hate makeing 10 prints of the same pic.......even if it is just a press of a key on the keyboard.

 

I use Roxio CD/DVD Creator (we're talking PC here, for a Mac I think they call it Toast). It copies discs, it creates proper formats for DVDs,.....the list is amazing as to what this thing does. The instruction book is like 300 pages. Costs well under $100 on sale. You can get as simple or as complicated as you want with it (well, short of Hollywood production complicated....it's not a "professional" software........it's beginner to advanced amateur)

 

I generally use the web page builder in Photoshop to put together sets of web pics for my website. I then use HTML (a web program language essentially) to piece all those sets together so the viewer can pic and choose.

 

And, I'm no young pup.........55 years old......and did film photography from when I was 22 to around 52 before getting into digital. so, it's learnable (is that a word?) if you determined to put in the time. I do have a background in electronics....so that did help with all the computer stuff, however.

You can make digital photography as complicated or as simple as you want it to be. The

options are wide open.

 

Regards digital presentation and archiving:

 

- Make prints with a good printer onto archival paper with archival pigment inks. Store

them the way you always have.

 

- Store the image files that you use to produce the prints on an external hard drive. Use a

second external hard drive to duplicate the first one for security.

 

- Make DVD slide shows if you so desire. It's a useful distribution medium but not an

archival storage medium. There are several software packages available to help you do

this, for both Mac OS X or Windows systems.

 

Godfrey

Shane, it would help if you can provide some context about your work, such as what do you do with them, and do you print your own, etc. These are very relevant when transitioning from film to digital.

 

Have you tried shooting with a N90 equivalent digital camera, and how you feel about the results? Before worrying about how to store (or edit, etc.) digital images, I would first pay close attention to how shooting digital is different from shooting film. If I can't get over those differences, why bother?

 

I would strongly recommend this book:

Photographer's guide to the digital darkroom by Bill Kennedy

 

It is not a detailed 500+ page click by click instructional book, but a ~200 page one perfect for the seasoned film shooters. It will tell you what you are getting into. Wish it was available when I got my feet wet a few years ago.

 

Also check out the two articles at this site by another seasoned film shooter. He talks about how he joined the "revolution", and learned how to get off the equipment chasing "hamster" wheel.

 

http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/

 

Compared to traditional photo technology, digital photo technology is still in its infancy. By the time you master the current crop of digital equipment (sw or hw), they will be obsolete. Begin your transition with this in mind, and remind yourself the learning curve you had gone through in the traditional photo techniques, and you will be much more mentally prepared what to expect.

My thanks to all for some very informative responses. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that I'd probably be better off sticking with film for as long as it's available and I can still get processing for it. I shoot slide film mostly, and the idea of giving up Provia and Velvia, along with my excellent Leitz Pradolux projector, is somehow less appealing now. However, I realize the inevitability of film's demise, and you have all helped me ascend the digital learning curve a good deal.

You may consider scanning, editing and printing your slides as an entry to the digital revolution. That will let you learn the tail end of the process first, i.e. Photoshop and printing. You will have a taste of working in a digital darkroom and evaluating your own digital prints. Your experience may influence your decision about switching to shooting digitally. With this part of the learning curve down, if and when you switch to shooting digitally all you need to learn is about operating the camera. Meanwhile you can continue to enjoy shooting film, archive your slides digitally, produce digital prints, and wait for the digital technology/pricing to settle.

 

The only downside to this approach is learning the scanning process, which will become useless once you do switch.

<i> The only downside to this approach is learning the scanning process, which will become useless once you do switch. </i> <p>

<p>

Many of us have thousands of slides and/or negatives, so this experience should still be useful.

I do scan slides and negatives occasionally to make enlargements. I normally use Adobe Photoshop in conjunction with this. This is about the extent of my experimentation with digital thus far.