NY Times special Digi Photo section and an amusing sidenote

C

ch1

Guest
For those who are interested - the NY Times' "Circuits" section in today's paper is devoted to digital photography and processing etc. Usual FID etc. but also some interesting info on EVF etc.

Outside NYC you can usually get "The Times" at Starbucks and Walgreens etc.

Now for some amusment and a cautionary for digital camera users:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/06/06/hp.recall.reut/index.html

:D
 
I just read that section and decided that it should really be stamped "Special Advertising Section" as it's basically a very thinly veiled ploy to get people to buy or upgrade digital cameras even more so than the usual "Circuits" drivel. There is a bunch of misinformation in there that leads you to believe that the dynamic range of digital surpasses film (which if it is technically true doesn't really explain the blown highlights and lack of detail in most digitally captured images I've seen).
 
nightfly said:
I just read that section and decided that it should really be stamped "Special Advertising Section" as it's basically a very thinly veiled ploy to get people to buy or upgrade digital cameras even more so than the usual "Circuits" drivel. There is a bunch of misinformation in there that leads you to believe that the dynamic range of digital surpasses film (which if it is technically true doesn't really explain the blown highlights and lack of detail in most digitally captured images I've seen).
Click to expand...


Blown highlights and lack of detail- that is not the camera-that is technical incompetence. The basic dynamic range of high-end digital camera's is about 9 stops. Little tricks when shooting RAW can boost that to about 12. Both values similar are similar to film. Look at the digital and film shots in the galleries of hybrid shooters here. You'll be surprised both at the film and at the digital shots. There is no real difference in quality.
 
nightfly said:
I just read that section and decided that it should really be stamped "Special Advertising Section" as it's basically a very thinly veiled ploy to get people to buy or upgrade digital cameras even more so than the usual "Circuits" drivel......
Click to expand...

I agree.

I (and a few thousand of my closest friends) am a regular participant in NY Times marketing surveys. Every couple of months I get sent one of these "special sections" with yellow stickies on the ads. I am then asked to fill out a questionairre as to whether I saw the ad originally etc. The last one was a "special section" on Art Museums which was a "carry vehicle" for ads from museums and art gallieries.

Expect more of these kinds of ads.

BTW, they pay me a dollar to do this - real hard cash! :D
 
nightfly said:
I just read that section and decided that it should really be stamped "Special Advertising Section" as it's basically a very thinly veiled ploy to get people to buy or upgrade digital cameras even more so than the usual "Circuits" drivel. There is a bunch of misinformation in there that leads you to believe that the dynamic range of digital surpasses film (which if it is technically true doesn't really explain the blown highlights and lack of detail in most digitally captured images I've seen).
Click to expand...

Just about every tech section in every newspaper I've ever read is a bs ad section.
 
jaapv said:
Blown highlights and lack of detail- that is not the camera-that is technical incompetence. The basic dynamic range of high-end digital camera's is about 9 stops. Little tricks when shooting RAW can boost that to about 12. Both values similar are similar to film. Look at the digital and film shots in the galleries of hybrid shooters here. You'll be surprised both at the film and at the digital shots. There is no real difference in quality.
Click to expand...

I shoot negative film, positive film, and digital. There is no way that digital gives 9 - 12 useful stops unless you combine shots exposed for shadows with identical shots exposed for highlights. For most purposes, I expose digital as I do transparencies - place the highlights and accept the shadow detail.
 
nightfly said:
I just read that section and decided that it should really be stamped "Special Advertising Section" as it's basically a very thinly veiled ploy to get people to buy or upgrade digital cameras {deletia}
Click to expand...

Follow the money!

There's boatloads-o-bux to be made by convincing the Teeming Millions that they need to drop whatever they have now and go for the latest and greatest -- even if it happens to catch fire. :) :)
 
kbg32 said:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06060701hpr707fireware.asp
Click to expand...

Interesting - the time stamp on the DP review article is 07:45 GMT - the CNN article is 4:26AM EDT which is 8:26GMT (I think it's 4 hours during DT?)

Also, the CNN report is based on an annoucement by the US Consumer Products Safety Commission indicating a regulartory ordered recall - yet the article goes on to discuss the firmware upgrade.

I guess if I were really interested I'd go to HP's site - but I'm not really that interested. ;)
 
The dynamic range of digital and transparency film are very similar. And they have to be because thay are positive processes and the contrast is required to make a visually appealing. Negative film has a far larger "dynamic range" than either of the other two. Fitting the entire range that is possible on a negative on the print can be a challenge. Fortunately, most scenes don't have such a large contrast range so it works out well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom