N
Nikon Bob
Guest
With regard to inkjet printers having trouble producing B&W prints without colour casts, I think that is no longer true. My cheap HP 7960 does it quite well and fairly inexpemsively too.
Bob
Bob
My theory on the SLOW death of digital
- Thread starter MP Guy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 135
- Views 10K
Anand
Newbie
This is a juicy discussion these days... so much happening. Prices on digital cameras drops -a lot. That´s good! New modells all the time. Strange to relate to something that is top of the bill today and outdated stoneage in a year!
I am new to photography. Got a digicam 2 years back and I started for real this summer with taking a lot of pictures for a friend so he could use it for his brochure. I decided to get a good camera (digital) and looked at the web and came across "Cameraquest" etc. I got realy charmed buy the rangefinders!. They are small (not the Yashica Lynx 14) and can take a knock. I always carry one in my bag.
I bought a digital camera for taking pictures for using in my brochures, posters, adds etc. It is real easy to use digital because you see the results (light, contrast, color) before you shoot. Have been work a lot with lay-out and even a repro-camera (in the eighties) so I know what I want pictures to look like because I have the experience from the lay-out part of it.
To me film looks much better than digital -at least for now- Richer colors - more depht in the colors - better contrast. I have been using a Contax G1 with the 45 mm and a Hexar AF (not really rangefinders but...also have a Konica S3 etc) digtal; D70 and the panasonic LC1.
Too say it short; digitall got me into film. I will use both. One guy I bought some cameras from said the same thing.
Jpg-files have been around for some time. At least since 84. Should not be any problem storing digital pictures or...?
Greatings AN
I am new to photography. Got a digicam 2 years back and I started for real this summer with taking a lot of pictures for a friend so he could use it for his brochure. I decided to get a good camera (digital) and looked at the web and came across "Cameraquest" etc. I got realy charmed buy the rangefinders!. They are small (not the Yashica Lynx 14) and can take a knock. I always carry one in my bag.
I bought a digital camera for taking pictures for using in my brochures, posters, adds etc. It is real easy to use digital because you see the results (light, contrast, color) before you shoot. Have been work a lot with lay-out and even a repro-camera (in the eighties) so I know what I want pictures to look like because I have the experience from the lay-out part of it.
To me film looks much better than digital -at least for now- Richer colors - more depht in the colors - better contrast. I have been using a Contax G1 with the 45 mm and a Hexar AF (not really rangefinders but...also have a Konica S3 etc) digtal; D70 and the panasonic LC1.
Too say it short; digitall got me into film. I will use both. One guy I bought some cameras from said the same thing.
Jpg-files have been around for some time. At least since 84. Should not be any problem storing digital pictures or...?
Greatings AN
DougK
This space left blank
Nikon Bob said:
That's good to know. Does it use the black ink cartridge only or are "grayscale" inks available to replace the color ink? It would be nice if that option was available for my Epson C62.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Doug
Several models of HP substitute a grey cartridge for the black one for photo printing and the black is swapped back for regular printing. A web search of HP printer reviews should give you more info. I also read somewhere that there are after market inks for the Epson C60 printer that work well to give good B&W printing. I don't use Epson so I did not pay too much attention. If I find the info I will PM you.
Bob
Several models of HP substitute a grey cartridge for the black one for photo printing and the black is swapped back for regular printing. A web search of HP printer reviews should give you more info. I also read somewhere that there are after market inks for the Epson C60 printer that work well to give good B&W printing. I don't use Epson so I did not pay too much attention. If I find the info I will PM you.
Bob
DougK
This space left blank
Thanks Bob, I'd appreciate that. I did some Googling and found the answer on the HP inks, which is what I thought I remembered they did. I'll start digging around on the C62 and see what I can come up with.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
If you speak about markets a "niche" isn't a niche if there is no profit. It is in the opposite a small but highly profitable market compared to the mass markets.DaShiv said:
Otherwise it's only a fart in a managers's brain.
Best,
Bertram
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Printing got much better indeed and you have not to accept clour casts anymore, true.Nikon Bob said:
But this says nothing about the source. I've seen nice injekt prints on archival matte paper made from a scanned b&W neg.
But (coming back to our issue) I've never seen a nice inkjet print or laser copy of a B&W photo taken with a digital camera. No matter how expensive it was and how experienced the photog was in postprocessing RAW files.
They all look like plastic, cold, sterile somehow and artificial, if shot in a studio.
Outdoor there is always a lack of shadow details and burned out highlights in bright sunlight. Some wedding shooters tell me they use digital not anymore for outdoor work.
When digital cameras will work at the same quality standard as film does today, and the prices will be on a level which allows me to achieve my break even after 3 years or 120 rolls of film and dev, THAT will be the day when I will think about digital seriously as an alternative.
Could be I stay with film anyway then, from other reasons.
Up 'til today the whole discussionin magazines and in the web about digital quality reminds me to that old joke " Eat s**t, billions of flies can't be wrong !" 😀
If I must get half blind to be contented with a " future technology" I prefer to remain in that niche of boring old farts.
Best,
Bertram
dmr
Registered Abuser
Nikon Bob said:
I like my HP as well, and I really believe that I get better results with that than I could do in a wet darkroom.
My big gripe about today's printers is that even though the printers themselves are amazingly affordable, the ink prices are obscenely high! Good example of the "give them the razor, sell them the blades" type of marketing, AFAIC.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
With some printers, when you run out of ink you might as well pitch the printer and buy a new one as it is only slightly more than the cost of new ink cartridges. I have not tried B&W printing from a digital camera but it might be possible to get satisfactory results http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html?page=3 . It certainly is from from film scanned in, in my opinion. Sometimes millions of flies have the first whiff of something good beginning to happen but not quite ripened (matured) enought for us old farts. It is just another way of getting there with a different set of pros and cons.
Bob
PS I think Bill has it right and we should all smell the coffee and enjoy film as long as we can or care too.
Bob
PS I think Bill has it right and we should all smell the coffee and enjoy film as long as we can or care too.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
For the Epson C82/4/6 series, checkout Mike Johnston's article
http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column63/index.html , look under "New System for B&W" or go to www.inksupply.com
http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column63/index.html , look under "New System for B&W" or go to www.inksupply.com
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Remy, I still think the end of all kinds of photography is the print. If now we happen to look at it through a computer, we're still looking at a potential print: something that shows an image. In sum, it's not a philosophical but a cultural spin I'm proposing here. Look at it this way: when we write documents, we don't do it with the purpose of storing them in the computer. Our purpose is that documents, texts in general, be read (such as this post). If you apply the same analogy, photographs are to be seen, observed, looked at, whether we do it in the computer or transfer them to a print. It just happens that the cultural model we have is the print, the same as the cultural model we use for the computer is the written text (why, then, do we talk about "files" when they are electromagnetic phenomena?).
Maybe I failed to explain myself clearly, but the end result is, still, a print or a derivate thereof. In other words, the photos in the gallery replace the prints in our albums just like the projected slides move as if they were turned like the pages of a book.
Don't blame me for this kind of thinking. It's all Derrida's fault! 🙂
Let me add something: this is a really civilized discussion. Jorge, I'm afraid you've failed at starting a flame war... 🙁 We're too reasonable! 😛
Maybe I failed to explain myself clearly, but the end result is, still, a print or a derivate thereof. In other words, the photos in the gallery replace the prints in our albums just like the projected slides move as if they were turned like the pages of a book.
Don't blame me for this kind of thinking. It's all Derrida's fault! 🙂
Let me add something: this is a really civilized discussion. Jorge, I'm afraid you've failed at starting a flame war... 🙁 We're too reasonable! 😛
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Kin
Thanks that was what I was thinking of.
Bob
Thanks that was what I was thinking of.
Bob
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Nikon Bob said:
You're welcome. I'm tempted to get a C86 just to be able to try this. Tigerdirect has it for $114- CDN, but I've got no where to set it up. My main printer is already a very good Canon i860.
I know that I'll have better output from an inkjet that my wet darkroom right now. That's mostly due to my pathetic darkroom skills (or lack of 🙂 )
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Kin
At least you have a darkroom and skills so you are ahead of some of us.
Bob
At least you have a darkroom and skills so you are ahead of some of us.
Bob
Lloyd
Newbie
A demand for digital death...or at least control...
A demand for digital death...or at least control...
A newbie with an extra 2 cents - There is an aspect of digital that one could see require a return to film, or some sort of control over the image source.
I have a great concern over the incredible temptation for people who shoot news who don't understand that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed with respect to manipulating images. I shoot part time for a daily paper. We/they went 100 percent digital about two years ago. For news (especially papers) it offers the advantage of speed (although that should be qualified as well) when on a deadline.
But there is a potential loss of credibility dangling out there like a carrot on a photoshop stick. Recently the incidence of manipulation to the point of recomposing images on screen before transmitting them to the publication has increased at a distressing rate. When found out most PJs ( photojournalists) have been rightfully fired. It is as if a reporter were to say about a news story, "Well, that's not what really happened, but the way I wrote it was much better..."
In the 'old' days I turned in a roll of film with a film log. The darkroom souped it and took a look at the initial images that I thought would have the greatest impact. From there is went to the photo editor who scanned the chosen frames and often another editor gave the final okay the pics as they got readied to burn on the plate (sheet).
So it ended up being like accounting controls, several people were aware of what the raw product was and the likelihood of anybody fudging an image was decreased.
But with people armed with digitals and laptops near war fronts or many remote parts of the planet, people with less experience may find the temptation too great, especially when pressed for fresh items, the need or possibility of recognition via competitions or awards, or simply not having the ethics thing understood or ingrained enough with experience.
Except for somthing akin to an environmental portrait for a feature, or somthing of that nature, I would never ask a subject to "do that again" or otherwise re-enact something. On the digital editing side I might do the digital equivalent of cleaning off a lens, but no more cropping would happen than would have happened with film. And when in the office, we've still got a couple extra pairs of eyes looking over our shoulders.
We are questioning the media in an ample manner these days. I am prejudiced in favor of print and think that in general mainstream print media are more credible than many of the broadcast counterparts. I also think that in order to maintain that credibility removing any chance that a photo could be put into question is essential.
I invested more than I wanted to on digital when the paper went all digital. As far as digital vs film, I think it is simply the right tool for the right job and certainly not an 'either or' situation. If it needs to be fast on deadline with heavy pulp paper - digital works well almost all the time.
The mags I freelance for still want slides or medium format trannies.
For my own use, even if I'm just heading out for a walk, I grab my old M2 with Tri-X or HP5. And whenerver there is an opportunity for documentary work where deadlines aren't breathing down my neck it is again the M2 or a Rolleiflex TLR.
Sorry for the longwinded message.
Best to all,
Lloyd
A demand for digital death...or at least control...
A newbie with an extra 2 cents - There is an aspect of digital that one could see require a return to film, or some sort of control over the image source.
I have a great concern over the incredible temptation for people who shoot news who don't understand that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed with respect to manipulating images. I shoot part time for a daily paper. We/they went 100 percent digital about two years ago. For news (especially papers) it offers the advantage of speed (although that should be qualified as well) when on a deadline.
But there is a potential loss of credibility dangling out there like a carrot on a photoshop stick. Recently the incidence of manipulation to the point of recomposing images on screen before transmitting them to the publication has increased at a distressing rate. When found out most PJs ( photojournalists) have been rightfully fired. It is as if a reporter were to say about a news story, "Well, that's not what really happened, but the way I wrote it was much better..."
In the 'old' days I turned in a roll of film with a film log. The darkroom souped it and took a look at the initial images that I thought would have the greatest impact. From there is went to the photo editor who scanned the chosen frames and often another editor gave the final okay the pics as they got readied to burn on the plate (sheet).
So it ended up being like accounting controls, several people were aware of what the raw product was and the likelihood of anybody fudging an image was decreased.
But with people armed with digitals and laptops near war fronts or many remote parts of the planet, people with less experience may find the temptation too great, especially when pressed for fresh items, the need or possibility of recognition via competitions or awards, or simply not having the ethics thing understood or ingrained enough with experience.
Except for somthing akin to an environmental portrait for a feature, or somthing of that nature, I would never ask a subject to "do that again" or otherwise re-enact something. On the digital editing side I might do the digital equivalent of cleaning off a lens, but no more cropping would happen than would have happened with film. And when in the office, we've still got a couple extra pairs of eyes looking over our shoulders.
We are questioning the media in an ample manner these days. I am prejudiced in favor of print and think that in general mainstream print media are more credible than many of the broadcast counterparts. I also think that in order to maintain that credibility removing any chance that a photo could be put into question is essential.
I invested more than I wanted to on digital when the paper went all digital. As far as digital vs film, I think it is simply the right tool for the right job and certainly not an 'either or' situation. If it needs to be fast on deadline with heavy pulp paper - digital works well almost all the time.
The mags I freelance for still want slides or medium format trannies.
For my own use, even if I'm just heading out for a walk, I grab my old M2 with Tri-X or HP5. And whenerver there is an opportunity for documentary work where deadlines aren't breathing down my neck it is again the M2 or a Rolleiflex TLR.
Sorry for the longwinded message.
Best to all,
Lloyd
Welcome to RFF, Lloyd! Sounds like a healthy attitude there... 🙂
R
RML
Guest
Lloyd, welcome. But as to your concern... film never stopped anyone making fakes or forgeries. The difference with digital is that more people have access to and are capable of using the editing tools. But still it takes a lot of knowledge and technique to come up with a composite photo that can stand minute scrutiny. Your concerns are real but I find it short-sighted to concider it a problem that comes only with digital media.
Like someone said here on RFF before, maybe we should all return to glass plates for resolution, shelf life, and now also for originality and protection from forgery.
Like someone said here on RFF before, maybe we should all return to glass plates for resolution, shelf life, and now also for originality and protection from forgery.
John Robertson
Well-known
Short Story - Recently in a building being demolished in Blackburn England they found three large drums containing short films by two men Mitchell and Kenyon shot in the 1900-1914 period.
The subjects must have seemed very mundane at the time but restored they now form a very valuable archive of the lives of ordinary working people in that period. I worder how much digital and video of such things today will be available in 100years time, or will they have wiped the tapes or found the CD roms unreadable? BBC has just shown a series of programmes based on the Mitchell and Kenyon films and they were facinating to watch.
The old saying "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" seems to apply.
The subjects must have seemed very mundane at the time but restored they now form a very valuable archive of the lives of ordinary working people in that period. I worder how much digital and video of such things today will be available in 100years time, or will they have wiped the tapes or found the CD roms unreadable? BBC has just shown a series of programmes based on the Mitchell and Kenyon films and they were facinating to watch.
The old saying "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" seems to apply.
S
Socke
Guest
John, I now read CDs burned in 1995 in a Sony DualLayer DVD burner. On this years CeBit two new drives with even more capacity and guess what, they are downward compatible to CDs.
Lloyd
Newbie
Film never stopped anyone...
Film never stopped anyone...
You are so correct on all accounts. And it doesn't even require technical where-with-all to 'manipulate' a photo. A couple years ago when news surfaced from US Homeland Security that a potential 'sleeper cell' threat existed in upstate NY, media swamped the particular town. After the initial news dwindled PJs were trying to earn their keep by finding related news images. One day a group of shooters went to the area of town where things were under investigation. While there a group of colleagues observed a NY Times PJ directing a subject in a news related environment/background to stand/or pose a variety ways near or infront of this urban backdrop. The colleagues questioned this and the NYT PJ didn't respond.
A photo from that 'setup' ran in one edition of a run, but editors got wind of the matter and pulled the photos from that PJ from the rest of the press run. He was subsequently dissmissed.
Digital or film wouldn't have mattered in that situation.
I guess the point earlier was that the tools for good manipulation are available to a larger number of people, with a larger community of people who may face a temptation or proffessional pressure to take advantage of those tools.
But yes, film and print have also aways been subject to this sort of thing. And there were times when the entire organization or publication condoned it with the composites that emerged in the early tabloid format papers which faced daily market share battles for readership.
Again, it's the right tool for the job. A good image is a good image whether it's film, digital, paint on canvas or charcoal on concrete, and as you rightly mentioned all are or have been subject to manipulation. A good point.
Best to all,
Lloyd
Film never stopped anyone...
RML said:
You are so correct on all accounts. And it doesn't even require technical where-with-all to 'manipulate' a photo. A couple years ago when news surfaced from US Homeland Security that a potential 'sleeper cell' threat existed in upstate NY, media swamped the particular town. After the initial news dwindled PJs were trying to earn their keep by finding related news images. One day a group of shooters went to the area of town where things were under investigation. While there a group of colleagues observed a NY Times PJ directing a subject in a news related environment/background to stand/or pose a variety ways near or infront of this urban backdrop. The colleagues questioned this and the NYT PJ didn't respond.
A photo from that 'setup' ran in one edition of a run, but editors got wind of the matter and pulled the photos from that PJ from the rest of the press run. He was subsequently dissmissed.
Digital or film wouldn't have mattered in that situation.
I guess the point earlier was that the tools for good manipulation are available to a larger number of people, with a larger community of people who may face a temptation or proffessional pressure to take advantage of those tools.
But yes, film and print have also aways been subject to this sort of thing. And there were times when the entire organization or publication condoned it with the composites that emerged in the early tabloid format papers which faced daily market share battles for readership.
Again, it's the right tool for the job. A good image is a good image whether it's film, digital, paint on canvas or charcoal on concrete, and as you rightly mentioned all are or have been subject to manipulation. A good point.
Best to all,
Lloyd
Similar threads
