The sky is not falling ...

[will_perlis]

All right, who are you and what have you done with Jay? You're right on, IMX. The little SD100 gets used, the M6 gets carried around.

[Spearhead]

<i>I wonder if all the labs you saw in Vietnam advertising digital did film developing as well - I think we have to assume so, and are you sure everyone/most was using digital. </i><p>

 

They did do film also. However, I thought it was interesting that they usually had a couple of people working full-time at computers with images. I'm not sure why as the equipment was modern and automated.<p>

 

 

<i>Without further proof it would just seem to be that the facilities exist for digital use, but by the same token most could still be using film - who really knows?

</i><p>

 

I have no statistics, but most people there don't own cameras yet. The locals I saw using cameras did have, as I said, digital cameras. I saw a lot of photography because I was there during Christmas and the locals seem to enjoy photographing each other in front of the decorations. The foreigners were mixed - Japanese visitors always seemed to have digital (usually Sony) and the rest used anything. Someone in Hanoi did stop me, a Frenchman, when he saw the Mamiya, he was using a Leica.<p>

 

I went in a lot of shops because I ran out of black and white film and had trouble finding more. The two names associated with photography there, from what I saw, are Sony and Fuji. I would guess that this is similar in much of Asia. Fuji is the only film supplier, but also seems to supply the digital processing equipment.

[grant_.]

marcs right about the detail in digital images. its amazing really how much detail is in the darker areas of a digital image that photoshop can reveal....expose for the highlights, and search for the shadows...<p>

<p>

as for people shooting film, yea, of course its still done, given that the deadlines are not so rigid. but its becoming a less desired medium for reasons of economy and time.

<p>

nowadays, its almost impossible to find a publication that at some point or another is not on a computer. using a digital cam eliminates a step of scanning in images, which saves time and money. businesses are getting hip to this new and kool crazy idea of a direct digital image.... :D

[jay_.]

<<However, I thought it was interesting that they usually had a couple of people working full-time at computers with images. I'm not sure why as the equipment was modern and automated.>>

 

Probably because they could afford to with $0.50/hr labor.

[h._p.]

Well, I suspect that everyone's right here, up to a point. Jessops just opened a new shop in Cirencester (which is a small town in the largely rural area of south Gloucestershire) not long before Christmas. They put in a Frontier (or something rather similar). As Jessops are pretty well known for anticipating the market in the UK, I imagine that this suggests they reckon they'll get the five years use out of the machine which I understand is what it needs to make a profit.

[kelly_flanigan1]

My one dentist went digital about somewhere between 1994 to 1996; and my dentist on the other side of the country went digital last fall in 2003. Sometimes it is just a return on investment problem. The "2003 digital dentist" has a smaller practice; and it was harder for him to justify the "all digital" Xray device until last year. The first dentist does alot of work for the big name stars; and has a huge office; and could justify the changeover alot sooner. Both are great dentists; the film versus digital was a pure economic one.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The first dentist was a beta site; and had some digital problems/abventures at first.

[fotografz]

Gary, you are right, this probably isn't the place for that discussion.

 

Short version: For weddings (as opposed to my personal work) I almost (not always)

use flash with a Luimiquest soft diffuser. I set the camera on Manual if in low light and

AV outdoors. The 550EX is set to High Speed ETTL always (yes, I know it sucks juice,

but I don't have to fiddle with it when shooting). I usually compensate the flash by

experience (down for closer shots, up for distant shots).

 

As Grant also mentioned there is an amazing ability to pull up shadows in PS, so I

expose for the highlights when necessary (i.e. the bride's dress usually controls that

aspect as a dominate highlight area) The RAW files are almost always underexposed a

bit, but are easily lifted in the Adobe RAW developer that's now included in PS CS.

There are so many slider controls in PS CS RAW that it's pretty hard to screw up a

digital shot as long as the dress isn't completely blown out.

[jamiew]

While I do not disagree with any of the main points of the article, the very fact that it was written is a sign that film is, indeed, dying. I mean.. it's like hey, look... a film user.

[jay_.]

<<Both are great dentists; the film versus digital was a pure economic one.>>

 

That may have been true for the one who held off, but the fact is that the imagery from digital dental radiographs are in a different universe better than analog x-ray. I'm not talking the difference between Velvia and Provia 400F, I'm talking Velvia vs Fuji 1600 pushed to EI 64,000!