[snip]
> However, some of the points you make are hypothetical, like the loss
> of data from a CF card from some magnetic field
Hypothetical? That's a joke, right? As I said, I'm computer engineer. There is a thousand things that can go wrong with any electronic storage devices. Hell, even EMC systems that cost millions of dollars can have a multiple point failure resulting in irrecoverable loss of lots of important information. You can even lose that data due to computer virus! Not to mention that in about 10 years you will have to worry about converting all that data from DVDs or CDs or whatever you use into some new format. Not so with film.
. In three years of
> shooting digital, I've not experienced that problem nor have any of my
> fellow digital shooters. I have not read of that happening either.
Good. Because in over 10 years of film photography I had only two-three badly developed films. I'm very picky, I don't just go to the lab everyone is raving about. I "test" them personally first. If I'm not happy - I bring my business elsewhere. Technically I don't care - I can mail my film for development to East Siberia, if they will happen to have the lab staffed with best people and best equipment. And that's the way this business is going I believe. Thousands of BAD labs are going out of business (which is a good thing) and better, more successfull labs emerge as a result.
With current global nature of things, I can really send my film over to Germany, Switzerland, you name it and get it done at high quality and decent price.
> Besides, when shooting important work, I download the CF cards as I go
> to a portable HD. Which means I have 2 exact copies of the work while
> I'm still there. Something not possible with film.
yeah, two copies are good. And both can be lost. trust me on that one
So, although it's a good point, it's of no use to me. Quality is irreplaceable. And there is no way I can get quality I'm used to getting on film by using digital. So, having two copies of bad photograph doesn't make me feel any better.
As I mentioned in one of previous posts, just check out new CLN from Zeiss, film still beats the hell out of digital and it will only keep improving while getting faster. Again, if Kodak abandons it - it will only bring more business to Fuji and Ilford that are ALREADY doing a better job than Kodak (besides, Kodak announced they are not going to spend more money for R&D of consumer film. Don't remember seeing anything about professional film). How many serious hobbyists and pros you know that are using exclusively Kodak? Because I know plenty that are using exclusively Fuji!
Just take Fuji NPZ 800. 110lp/mm. That translates into (24*2*110) x (36*2*110) ==> 5280 x 7920 "pixels" image. That's 41.8 MILLION. True color "pixels". No bayer pattern, post-processing, anti-aliasing, layer of micron-lenses, cross-cell noise, issues related to extremely small sensor sizes, degradation of quality of applied "filter" on photo cells and other crap of this sort.
For me digital just doesn't cut it. And probably will never do. I enjoy watching movies shot on film and can't stand movies shot on video for the same reason.
It works for you, you get paid for you work, then be happy!
> I have not lost any images on CD-ROMs or DVDs due to scratches, but
> acknowledge that it could happen. That is why, for less than a dollar
> more, I burn a second one (one for the client's records and one for
> mine). The wonder of it is, duplicates of RAW or Tiff images are exact
> copies. I also have a 200 gig drive with often used images stored on
> it. But a HD should not be trusted as a sole form of storage.
You still keep forgetting one thing. TIME. Time is money. And even more so in my case, since I don't do photography for a living. It's like having a car and changing oil, tires, lubricating chassis, changing cooling liquid, brake fluid, transmission fluid, replacing shocks, etc and all that by yourself. Most of people would rather take their car to the shop. And that's what I do with my film.
> On the other hand, my recent loss of images due to poor lab work is
> not hypothetical. It actually happened. The fact is that good labs are
> under stress due to a majority of commercial work going digital. For
> ex&le, mail house labs that once thrived on wedding orders are
> getting less and less from that source as that industry goes digital.
> And we have to remember that everything that ends up in printed form,
> which constitutes millions of printed images, is basically now all
> digitally processed (either scanned or digital in the first place). In
> addition, financial pressures from the economy are fueling the switch
> to digital. For ex&le, more and more automotive print is being done
> digitally, which I thought would be the last to switch. The situation
> was personally brought home to me recently when my favorite Pro Lab
> (in my area) stopped developing Tri-X. : -( And during a recent trip
> to Las Vegas I requested info from pros there as to where to get my
> film processed. The reply was that the main labs had shut down. Only
> one remained, and it's quality had slipped. Again, that info was from
> working pros from the area.
You know, funny you should say it. A&I can't keep up with demand for film processing and printing. Over the last 2 years, they doubled number of film-processing machines and printers and STILL demand exceeds their abilities. See my note above - I'm glad BAD labs will go out of business and good ones will remain. It will narrow the field of competitors for all of us and offer us a better choice - you won't be choosing between 100 bad labs and 1 good lab anymore. You will be choosing between 3-4 good labs and that's it!
And I disagree about all prints made digitally. As I said, even lightjet prints don't look like well-made optical ones. And that's why A&I still offers this service even for basic 4x6 proof prints. As someone here noted, true resolving power of prints made on Frontier is 180dpi (actually I'm not sure if that figure is entirely accurate. I have seen doc somewhere that was stating that Frontier's maximum resolution is 200dpi. It's not much better though) and Lightjets are 305dpi. Difference is visible between the two AND optical prints.
> As to the price tag for a Mac G5 and attendant gear. As a business
> expense it is figured into my overhead and reflected in the rates I
> charge. In the end, it pays for itself...so in essence it is free.
> Again, it's the difference between professional services and a hobby.
> Like any business, you have to spend money to make money.
Exactly. But previously, you spent that money on paying the lab and saving your time. Now, you're spending your time and money on bunch of electronic equipment that loses value faster that the Earth rotates around its axis.
> The rest, like liking or not liking Ink-Jets is personal preference
> and not something that can be empirically touted or dismissed except
> from a personal point of view. That my clients accept them, and many
> prefer them, is the only opinion that I need be concerned with.
Precisely. They like it, they pay for it, then why bother? But the point is - a lot of people out there don't really know what they want. Once they see two very good prints made using two different methods - they might change their minds. A lot of wedding photographers here in California are basically pushing digital down the throat of their clients, who don't know better to make their own decisions. And these "photographers" do it only because it's easier for them to make money. Not because of quality.
> Making great Ink-Jets or Dye-Sub prints is something of an art. Some
> are better at it than others...just like analog
Actually, results seem to be so inconsistent among the labs that do that, that it's absolutely impossible to predict final results.
> printing. Personally, like you, I think a well made silver print, by a
> master printer, is still unmatched in the digital domain. But the gap
> is rapidly closing.
So far I don't see that happening.
And still, my point stands - to each hiw own.
Dirk:
Yeah, I'd love to see Zeiss engineered film scanner myself. And Zeiss certified film-processing and printing lab as well. A lot of optical printers out there will do well by using higher quality enlargement lenses.
Mike.
