S
Socke
Guest
Cooki said:
No, I don't have to decide, I can take crappy pictures with any equipment!
Is It Digital or Is It Film?
- Thread starter x-ray
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 24
- Views 2K
No, I don't have to decide, I can take crappy pictures with any equipment!
x-ray
Veteran
Cooki said:
Although I have never worked in my field that I was educated in I am an organic chemist / microbiologist. Both chemical and electrical processes, digital and analog film, are dependent on electrons to achieve the reaction whether in a digital sensor or redox reaction in film and in the process. Not being critical but just a little side note.
You guys are saying the same thing i've been saying since the days of video tape vs film arguments started. One doesn't replace the other but only complements each other. It's just another tool to execute the job.
http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray
Jucas
Photo Jockey
Ya but water color didn't kill pastel.
sf
Veteran
I think, when you look at all th factors on all three sides (analog/analog, analog/digital, digital/digital) that you'll notice that each has its benefits.
100% analog will probably give you the best results in terms of resolution and tonal quality/continuity. And working in the wet darkroom is just so fulfilling. To get a decent 16x20, you're spending maybe $300 for a used enlarger, chemicals and $500 for a 645 or 6x6 or 6x7 SLR. $800 and you're rolling.
analog to digital gives you the control of digital, the hitrate, and the analog medium when you want it. It gives you the ability to have 50MP or more out of a negative. You are capable of getting better results than with a 100% digital process in terms of quality, so long as you have the tools to do it properly. To get a decent 16x20, you're spending $500 on the camera, $1500 on the scanner, and $1300 on the printer. $3300 and you're rolling.
digital/digital gives you complete control over everything except how the image looks in terms of "grain" structure. Digital is digital in that sense. This is the lowest cost option if you are willing to stick to the same body for a few years. If you're a 35mm shooter, the Canon 5D, Nikon D200, or Nikon D2X are pretty decent performers. This is the business-photographer's way. The client doesn't care if you're shooting film. The product is all that matters (and they aren't very sensitive to the qualities of the product at less than 30 inches viewing distance), and they're probably going to be happy with their wedding portrait off the D2x. To get a decent 16x20 from this, you're going to have to spend . . . .$15000 on the camera (or more), and $1300 on the printer. $20000 gets you rolling.
So, you see, quality costs more as you go from 100% analog to 100% digital, but your costs per unit out output drop as activity increases. As you fall back from 16x20 to 11x14 and 5x7 print sizes, this relationship breaks down according to the quality of the media and the skills of the printer.
and the x-factor, if you're a high volume pro, is post processing. How much do you save on this service if you're shooting digital? If you used to pay $10000 per month on film processing, you aren't doing that anymore. But, maybe you've hired a staff of Photoshop technicians. . . .
I think it's that digital = increased overhead and analog = increased unit cost. But if you look at a 4x6 or 5x7 print . . . that equation isn't applicable.
100% analog will probably give you the best results in terms of resolution and tonal quality/continuity. And working in the wet darkroom is just so fulfilling. To get a decent 16x20, you're spending maybe $300 for a used enlarger, chemicals and $500 for a 645 or 6x6 or 6x7 SLR. $800 and you're rolling.
analog to digital gives you the control of digital, the hitrate, and the analog medium when you want it. It gives you the ability to have 50MP or more out of a negative. You are capable of getting better results than with a 100% digital process in terms of quality, so long as you have the tools to do it properly. To get a decent 16x20, you're spending $500 on the camera, $1500 on the scanner, and $1300 on the printer. $3300 and you're rolling.
digital/digital gives you complete control over everything except how the image looks in terms of "grain" structure. Digital is digital in that sense. This is the lowest cost option if you are willing to stick to the same body for a few years. If you're a 35mm shooter, the Canon 5D, Nikon D200, or Nikon D2X are pretty decent performers. This is the business-photographer's way. The client doesn't care if you're shooting film. The product is all that matters (and they aren't very sensitive to the qualities of the product at less than 30 inches viewing distance), and they're probably going to be happy with their wedding portrait off the D2x. To get a decent 16x20 from this, you're going to have to spend . . . .$15000 on the camera (or more), and $1300 on the printer. $20000 gets you rolling.
So, you see, quality costs more as you go from 100% analog to 100% digital, but your costs per unit out output drop as activity increases. As you fall back from 16x20 to 11x14 and 5x7 print sizes, this relationship breaks down according to the quality of the media and the skills of the printer.
and the x-factor, if you're a high volume pro, is post processing. How much do you save on this service if you're shooting digital? If you used to pay $10000 per month on film processing, you aren't doing that anymore. But, maybe you've hired a staff of Photoshop technicians. . . .
I think it's that digital = increased overhead and analog = increased unit cost. But if you look at a 4x6 or 5x7 print . . . that equation isn't applicable.
Last edited:
x-ray
Veteran
There's two sides to everything. I was the first in my market to go digital and forced the other commercial studios to do the same. The upside to digital is the ability to control the image to a much higer degree vs film. Shooting in industrial environmentsused to be a mightmare but now digital handles the mixed lighting much better. Shooting raw is the ultimate way to deal with these problems. With digital I can design and create the look I want. Esentially I am creating the charactertistics of my own "emulsion". The down side is the time involved in post processing these imagesand the constant change in technology that requires major investment every year. In reality I find there to be no cost advantage to digital. Like film I have to pass the cost of technology on to the client. There is no free lunch! Unfortunately a number of clients think there is no cost involved in digital which is very wrong. I used my analog equipment, Rollei SL66's, Sinar Norma, Deardorff, Linhof, Leicas, Nikons for twenty five to almost fourty years without needing to update. I update every year in the digital world. I spend an average of just over $40,000 just to keep up. Clients want the latest and greatest or you'll be left behind without work.
This year I'm planning on hiring a part time person to work with the digital processing. I hate to turn this over to someone but I't getting to the point that I just can't handle all the shooting and post work. From mid July untill the end of the year my work builds untill I'm working eighteen hours a day. Good for the wallet but not for the mind and body. I figure I spend about an average of an hour working files for every hour shooting. This translates to no free time and a bunch of taxes at the end of the year.
http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray
This year I'm planning on hiring a part time person to work with the digital processing. I hate to turn this over to someone but I't getting to the point that I just can't handle all the shooting and post work. From mid July untill the end of the year my work builds untill I'm working eighteen hours a day. Good for the wallet but not for the mind and body. I figure I spend about an average of an hour working files for every hour shooting. This translates to no free time and a bunch of taxes at the end of the year.
http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray
Similar threads
- Article
