Thom Topic

[Bill Pierce]

It seems that these days I’m recommending more web articles than starting topics myself. But here’s one that is very pertinent, intelligent and useful for all of us in the digital world.

http://www.bythom.com/lookforward.htm

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Thom's article is a fun read. His prognostications are always fun to think about. He mentions something I hadn't heard before - that Nikon & Canon have been doing research around the three layer sensor idea (like Foveon). I'm sure he's right (and many others writing about this stuff these days) about how we're still just in the early days of digital technology development.

Thanks for posting the link.

 

[Bike Tourist]

I usually glance at his site a few times a week. He's a font of information (and speculation) on Nikon business and Nikon technology. It often relates only indirectly to photography. That aside, I always read him.

 

[sparrow6224]

As a user, I find the biggest problem in digital photography is one no one ever mentions: printing. Home printers are largely terrible. Drugstore kiosks: unusable if you want color accuracy. The prints don't last and they look, from the beginning, cheap. Yes there are tremendous printing machines and skilled technicians out there but the typical user cannot afford to use them and largely doesn't know about them in any case. Photo chemicals on photo paper was a great technology and the digital kingdom has failed to reasonaly duplicate it, never mind improve on it. The net effect: we look at our photographs on computer screens. But if that's what we do, why in god's name do we need such good cameras?

 

[Bill Pierce]

As a user, I find the biggest problem in digital photography is one no one ever mentions: printing. Home printers are largely terrible. Drugstore kiosks: unusable if you want color accuracy. The prints don't last and they look, from the beginning, cheap. Yes there are tremendous printing machines and skilled technicians out there but the typical user cannot afford to use them and largely doesn't know about them in any case. Photo chemicals on photo paper was a great technology and the digital kingdom has failed to reasonaly duplicate it, never mind improve on it. The net effect: we look at our photographs on computer screens. But if that's what we do, why in god's name do we need such good cameras?

Agreed that there are a lot of bad digital prints out there. But I do disagree that top quality, do-it-yourself digital printing is more unaffordable than its silver equivalent. Remember, that good wet darkroom printer has got some equipment that cost a lot of money, especially when it comes to a top drawer enlarger and lenses.

(I always thought the last economical darkroom was Edward Weston’s. He developed his 8x10 film in the same trays in which he developed his enlargerless contact prints.)

Presuming that the contemporary photographer already owns and uses a computer for a variety of purposes, a good printer that will do 17x22, something like an Epson 3880, can cost as little as $1300 whereas a Durst 1200, one of the standard enlargers in a good wet darkroom, now costs in excess of $5000 without lenses. Even when they were selling in quantity and the wet darkroom was standard, good equipment was expensive. I don’t remember how much my Durst cost millennia ago, but it wasn’t cheap. To be honest, I think that the reason there are a lot of bad inkjet prints is for the same reason there used to be lots of bad silver prints - folks who can’t print very well.

 

[shadowfox]

The only thing I agree on in that article is regarding the 3 layer sensor.

 

[furcafe]

I also prefer to look at photos in print form, but technology moves on. Monitors & screens continue to improve. For example, have you seen photos on an Apple MacBook or iPad with Retina display? Pretty nice.

The net effect: we look at our photographs on computer screens. But if that's what we do, why in god's name do we need such good cameras?

 

[Chuck Albertson]

(I always thought the last economical darkroom was Edward Weston’s. He developed his 8x10 film in the same trays in which he developed his enlargerless contact prints.)

I recall an article by one of his sons, explaining how he printed his dad's negatives. If he had a particularly thick negative, he just screwed a higher-wattage bulb into the fixture hanging from the ceiling of his darkroom.

Thom Hogan is a good writer, but I don't understand any of the digital stuff. Although I found a used F6 with a manual, it was practically useless until I bought Thom's guide to the camera.

 

[Michaeljohn]

he only thing I agree on in that article is regarding the 3 layer sensor.



__________________________________________________
wow gold|Diablo 3 Gold kaufen|Guild wars 2 gold|Diablo 3 Gold

 

[Chris101]

I have for some years referred to Thom as "Often Wrong" Hogan. This article builds on this. Like Will, I agree that Foveon holds a lot of promise, but so does light field technology. With my Lytro I can make 3D photos that my one-eyed friends can see. Hogan's glib dismissal of light field photography shows his surface approach designed to cater to his audience (Nikon shooters who spend a lot of money on Nikon gear.)

 

[GaryLH]

Working my whole career in the Silicon Valley... There are a lot of things I agree w/ in this article... I saw some of it in my own industry..both the good and the bad.

As far a foveon is concerned... I some what disagree. I like what sigma has done with the Merrill series. Sigma in general has come a long way from the company that I remember from the old film days.

Whether sigma can stay on top... W/ foveon technology or someone else catches up and surpasses them... That is an old story that happens all the time, what else is new?

Sigma certainly got too big for their britches when they tried to sell their dslr version of the Merrill (before they called it the sd1 Merrill) for more then anybody thought it was worth... And got their pervebal u know what handed to them.

Canon and Nikon have been on top of the market for so long in their space... I not sure that they will be the next big innovator. It is the guys that currently in second tier that will be pushing the envelop.. They are just not as hungry as these other guys and seem currently to be more about protecting their dslr market space.

It is not to say that canon and Nikon are not doing different things such as eos-m (fail), Nikon one (I think doing well only in Asia), and coolpix A (looks pretty good)...but in terms of a big innovation that is where I am not sure.. I c more step wise stuff..

Gary

 

[shanenoir]

Working my whole career in the Silicon Valley... There are a lot of things I agree w/ in this article... I saw some of it in my own industry..both the good and the bad.

As far a foveon is concerned... I some what disagree. I like what sigma has done with the Merrill series. Sigma in general has come a long way from the company that I remember from the old film days.

Whether sigma can stay on top... W/ foveon technology or someone else catches up and surpasses them... That is an old story that happens all the time, what else is new?

Sigma certainly got too big for their britches when they tried to sell their dslr version of the Merrill (before they called it the sd1 Merrill) for more then anybody thought it was worth... And got their pervebal u know what handed to them.

Canon and Nikon have been on top of the market for so long in their space... I not sure that they will be the next big innovator. It is the guys that currently in second tier that will be pushing the envelop.. They are just not as hungry as these other guys and seem currently to be more about protecting their dslr market space.

It is not to say that canon and Nikon are not doing different things such as eos-m (fail), Nikon one (I think doing well only in Asia), and coolpix A (looks pretty good)...but in terms of a big innovation that is where I am not sure.. I c more step wise stuff..

Gary

I think that now that the Megapixel Marathon has tapered off and the ISO capabilities of modern high-end cameras have skyrocketed, the next battle will likely be tonal range and resolving power (as initiated by Nikon's D800). I think that noise artifacting will also become a primary focus as cameras strive for more 'film-like' grain (points go to Fuji's success).

Not sure if we will see any big innovations in terms of new tech this decade, but definitely further refinement and maturation of current technology. I am happy to see larger sensors in smaller devices.

On a side note, I hope one day Mamiya will release a digital 7-- the Mamiya 8 perhaps 😉

 

[DougFord]

Seems everyone likes the basic concept of the foveon sensor. I reckon that if some of the most intelligent design engineers are as of yet unable to bring this tech to market by now, then perhaps cost/performance will contiinue to hinder its marketability. Maybe these cost- performance issues, as they exist today will always be relative to the current accepted technology of the time.
Seems the lytro tech is making its way into cell phones. Finding the right niche application for this image capture technology will be its salvation.
While the Nikon 1 may have been the first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera to use the pdaf pixel trick, that technology was already in some Fuji p&s cameras. It's the rest of the nikons design execution that the greater market rejected. Pdaf or no pdaf, the Nikon 1 sales numbers remain the same; my guess.
I'm thinking focusing tech is a major issue, which some of the new innovations will address in the near future. PDAF allows you to track moving objects, as long as they don't hide behind another object. Hide behind another object after it was focused upon, and then reappear off to the side at a greater or lesser distance. This is a scenario that I think will be addressed in coming years and not by using Lytro tech.