Digital BW, The Print

Peter writes:

> 1.  The pro's (or the art directors or other
> clients) have high standards for quality.

Not necessarily.  Photojournalists have low standards for quality, because
most print and electronic use of images does not require anything beyond a
postcard-sized reproduction.  Their priority is timeliness.  Naturally, they
went to digital early and en masse, since digital provides time savings,
even if the quality suffers a bit (but it is still enough for PJ use).

Art directors are sometimes under time constraints, too, like catalog and
product photographers, and some other types of photography.  When time is
more important than quality, digital wins.  When quality is all that
matters, film wins.

> The fact that they are working in digital
> shows that digital can meet high standards.

See above.

> 2.  The pro's need to be productive, so technology
> that allows them to work faster, create a larger
> percentage of "keepers", and get more consistent
> or reliable results, appeals to them and should
> appeal to non-pro's on the same basis.

This conflicts with your first assertion.  Is quality job one, or isn't it?

Non-pros have a very wide variety of reasons for taking pictures, and few
constraints.  They don't have to be fast or productive.  They don't even
have to be consistent or reliable.

> Many film shooters are not thinking through
> the money angle on digital.

Many digital shooters aren't, either.

As a group, photographers tend to be more artists than engineers.  They
usually go by feeling, not by fact.  In both the digital and film camps, it
is hard to find any photographers who actually base their preferences on
cold, hard facts, and not simply on intuition, superstition, rumor, habit,
advernture, or incorrect/superficial impressions.

> They only see the cost of the body but they
> fail to take into account the cost of the film
> and processing ...

Rather like digital photographers who only talk about the cost of film and
processing, and sweep the $10,000 they've spent on gear under the rug.

> But serious amateurs who shoot a hundred
> or more rolls of film a year are probably
> way ahead with digital.

If all they care about is money, that might be true.  But if amateurs cared
only about money, they wouldn't be amateurs.

In my case, I care essentially only about quality.  I want the best quality
I can afford.  Currently, that requires film.  It's as simple as that.

On 5/20/03 8:40 AM, "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:

>> They only see the cost of the body but they
>> fail to take into account the cost of the film
>> and processing ...
> 
> Rather like digital photographers who only talk about the cost of film and
> processing, and sweep the $10,000 they've spent on gear under the rug.

I believe the expression is penny wise, pound foolish.

Having been at producing images via a computer since the 80's I can safely
say that shooting film and developing and printing it yourself in a dark
room is much, much cheaper in the long run if you don¹t consider time and
you are in it for the long haul.  The $100,000's that I've spent on computer
and digital gear over that time period would have gone a long way for an
excellent darkroom and a whole lot of film, chemicals and equipment.

For my pro work...when I use digital it is always about time...when I use
film it always about quality.  For my art work...I have tried digital (D1
and D1x for about three years now)...but now I use film 90% of the time
because of shooting convenience and flexibility on what I want to do with
the image down the road.

Robert

So ... getting back to the topic of the list, what are your preferences when
shooting black and white?  Do you ever shoot B&W digitally?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Morrison" <rmorrison@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 18:47
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Cost of digital (was full-format yada yada )


> On 5/20/03 8:40 AM, "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:
>
> >> They only see the cost of the body but they
> >> fail to take into account the cost of the film
> >> and processing ...
> >
> > Rather like digital photographers who only talk about the cost of film
and
> > processing, and sweep the $10,000 they've spent on gear under the rug.
>
> I believe the expression is penny wise, pound foolish.
>
> Having been at producing images via a computer since the 80's I can safely
> say that shooting film and developing and printing it yourself in a dark
> room is much, much cheaper in the long run if you don\ufffdt consider time and
> you are in it for the long haul.  The $100,000's that I've spent on
computer

> and digital gear over that time period would have gone a long way for an
> excellent darkroom and a whole lot of film, chemicals and equipment.
>
> For my pro work...when I use digital it is always about time...when I use
> film it always about quality.  For my art work...I have tried digital (D1
> and D1x for about three years now)...but now I use film 90% of the time
> because of shooting convenience and flexibility on what I want to do with
> the image down the road.
>
> Robert

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Robert Morrison 
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:

> Having been at producing images via a computer since the
> 80's I can safely say that shooting film and developing
> and printing it yourself in a dark room is much, much 
> cheaper in the long run if you don¹t consider time and
> you are in it for the long haul. The $100,000's that I've
> spent on computer and digital gear over that time period
> would have gone a long way for an excellent darkroom and
> a whole lot of film, chemicals and equipment.

But this is the Digital Black and White Printing forum.  So we can 
assume that the computers, Photoshop, monitors, printer(s), 
profilers, etc, are a given.

The ONLY variable being discussed is whether it's cheaper to use a 
film camera or a digital camera.  My claim is that for a serious 
photographer who does lots of shooting digital is cheaper.


> but now I use film 90% of the time because of shooting 
> convenience and flexibility on what I want to do with
> the image down the road.

Could you clarify these?  Why is film more convenient and what can't 
you do with digital down the road?

On 5/20/03 9:54 AM, "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:

> So ... getting back to the topic of the list, what are your preferences when
> shooting black and white?  Do you ever shoot B&W digitally?


First of all...I should say I shoot theater and film still work and also a
fair bit of fine art model work.  The model work frequently involves motion
with a mix of ambient light and specialized flash techniques frequently out
of the studio in unusual locations. I also enjoy street and travel
photography.

For my film work flow I shoot tmax 100, delta 100, 400 (at 250-320) and 3200
(at 1600).  The tmax gets developed in RS and the deltas in D76 1:1.  I
shoot mainly with Leicas and a Mamiya 7II...but occasionally with a Nikon
F100...usually for fast action rear curtain flash motion shots. Typically I
scan the film with a Nikon 8000 film scanner using Vuescan...but I have had
images drum scanned from time to time using a crossfeld drum scanner.
Output is done with a variety of epson printers (7000, 1280, 1160 dedicated
for BW; 2200 and 1270 for color) using imageprint or inkjet control.  Much
of my digital vs. film comparison work was done with prints made using the
original piezo driver and either an Epson 1160 or 1280 running the original
cone quad inks.

I shot almost exclusively digital even for BW work with a Nikon D1 and D1x
for about 2 years...with the intention of using much of it for BW printing
before switching back to film.  I haven't used the Kodak dedicated BW
digital camera. I will frequently use the D1x in studio shoots to check
lighting effects before switching to film.  For the most part the SLRs are
much too noisy and obtrusive for the theater and film work that I do...and
make hand held ambient light work much less practical because of mirror
shake.  I always shoot the digitals in raw mode and use either MacBibble or
Nikon Capture 3 for image conversion.

I have a series of BW shots taken with my D1 that I like very much...but the
image sizes are roughly 2x3 inches.  When I push the images beyond 5x7 I'm
not happy with them.  I've used all the exotic enlargement, upsizing and
sharpening techniques...but the images just loose it beyond the small size.
They lack fine detail.  Even on model/portrait shots which many people talk
about being fine with digital in big enlargements...pore and hair structure
are lost and that really interferes with my being able to appreciate the
humanity of the shot.  When I switched to the D1x I found BW images that
didn't have much detail to be ok at 8x10...occasionally ok at 11x14...but I
definitely preferred the 8x10.  In contrast I will regularly print 35mm film
images shot with Delta 400 at 10x15 and have pushed them larger with good
success. I'm happy with full frame, 6x7 neg Delta 400 shots up to about
20x30in...so I'm not biased against larger images...but I've never seen
anything from my D1x that I wanted to print in BW beyond 11x14.

Just my experience,

Robert

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Morrison" <rmorrison@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 18:47
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Cost of digital (was full-format yada yada )
> 
> 
>> On 5/20/03 8:40 AM, "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...> wrote:
>> 
>>>> They only see the cost of the body but they
>>>> fail to take into account the cost of the film
>>>> and processing ...
>>> 
>>> Rather like digital photographers who only talk about the cost of film
> and
>>> processing, and sweep the $10,000 they've spent on gear under the rug.
>> 
>> I believe the expression is penny wise, pound foolish.
>> 
>> Having been at producing images via a computer since the 80's I can safely
>> say that shooting film and developing and printing it yourself in a dark
>> room is much, much cheaper in the long run if you don¹t consider time and
>> you are in it for the long haul.  The $100,000's that I've spent on
> computer
>> and digital gear over that time period would have gone a long way for an
>> excellent darkroom and a whole lot of film, chemicals and equipment.
>> 
>> For my pro work...when I use digital it is always about time...when I use
>> film it always about quality.  For my art work...I have tried digital (D1
>> and D1x for about three years now)...but now I use film 90% of the time
>> because of shooting convenience and flexibility on what I want to do with
>> the image down the road.
>> 
>> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

Peter,

Why do you and others use the term 'full-format'? Surely there are many
different formats, of which 35mm is just one. My Nikon D100 is 24mm format.
The fact that it has a body and lenses that are also used for 35mm film
format doesn't make the 24mm format automatically inferior. The 35mm film
format became a standard presumably because it offered the best compromise
between resolution and costs of bodies, lenses, and film. Similarly 24mm
digital format may also offer the best compromise for the future, who knows.
But there is certainly nothing magic about 35mm format. A photographer using
MF or LF formats would say that 35mm format is just a small fraction of
their 'fuller' formats!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 3:52 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Cost of digital (was full-format yada yada )


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony
> Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
>
> > > It's MOST of what there is professionally.
> >
> > And most of photography in the world is done with disposable film
> cameras.
> > Should we look to the use of disposable film cameras
> > for future trends, then?
>
> Only if that's the level of skill and quality we aspire to.
>
> The reasons why the pro's matter are:
>
> 1.  The pro's (or the art directors or other clients) have high
> standards for quality.  The fact that they are working in digital
> shows that digital can meet high standards.
>
> 2.  The pro's need to be productive, so technology that allows them
> to work faster, create a larger percentage of "keepers", and get
> more consistent or reliable results, appeals to them and should
> appeal to non-pro's on the same basis.
>
> > > Being cheaper doesn't make something better.
> >
> > No, but being both cheaper and better makes something
> > a more logical choice for someone who wants the best
> > quality for his budget.
>
> Many film shooters are not thinking through the money angle on
> digital.   They only see the cost of the body but they fail to take
> into account the cost of the film and processing, or the value of
> their own time and cost of chemicals if they develop the film
> themselves.
>
> Weekend snapshooters who only shoot a few dozen rolls a year may
> still find film cheaper.  But serious amateurs who shoot a hundred
> or more rolls of film a year are probably way ahead with digital.
> I use an Olympus 3030, which was $700 when I bought it a few years
> ago, for studio test shots and that's paid for itself many times
> over by reducing the amount of film I use, just in the studio!   If
> Nikon had a full-format DSLR then I could switch to digital for
> everything and save an even bigger bundle.   So I just don't
> understand the argument that digital is "expensive".   I see it as a
> cost REDUCTION option.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Bob writes:

> The fact that it has a body and lenses
> that are also used for 35mm film format
> doesn't make the 24mm format automatically
> inferior.

No, but all else being equal, the smaller the image area, the lower the
image quality.

> Similarly 24mm digital format may also offer
> the best compromise for the future, who knows.

I seriously doubt that.  The only reason for such a small format today is
that it is so difficult and expensive to produce larger image sensors.  But
larger image sensors can contain more pixels with lower noise, and so they
tend to produce better images.  Film formats follow the same principle.

> A photographer using MF or LF formats would
> say that 35mm format is just a small fraction of
> their 'fuller' formats!

And he would be right.  And he would be getting better images from MF and
LF, too.

Wellll, maybe. Don't get caught up in the ad-hype more pixels are better.

A larger sensor alternatively allows larger sensors; therefore, more "data,"
resolution, acuity, sharpness, etc.  AND, less interpolation.

Heck, it's ALL theory until they produce it.

Seth


=From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...] 
=I seriously doubt that.  The only reason for such a small 
=format today is that it is so difficult and expensive to 
=produce larger image sensors.  But larger image sensors can 
=contain more pixels with lower noise, and so they tend to 
=produce better images.  Film formats follow the same principle.
=

EXACTLY!!

Seth

=-----Original Message-----
=From: Bob Frost 
=
=Why do you and others use the term 'full-format'? Surely there 
=are many different formats, of which 35mm is just one. My 
=Nikon D100 is 24mm format. The fact that it has a body and 
=lenses that are also used for 35mm film format doesn't make 
=the 24mm format automatically inferior. The 35mm film format 
=became a standard presumably because it offered the best 
=compromise between resolution and costs of bodies, lenses, and 
=film. Similarly 24mm digital format may also offer the best 
=compromise for the future, who knows. But there is certainly 
=nothing magic about 35mm format. A photographer using MF or LF 
=formats would say that 35mm format is just a small fraction of 
=their 'fuller' formats!
=
=Bob Frost.
=