You make excellent, logical points.
Keep the faith, my friend. Right up until the bitter end. (And it's coming
soon, I'm afraid.)
Tris
>From: Jan Steinman
>Subject: [OM] Re: So digital can do it all?
>
>I suspect he is very familiar with film, and only a beginner with digital.
Incorrect assumption.
>I'm afraid your brother doesn't know what he's doing.
Oh, my. What a statement to make, especially since you aren't familiar
with his work or his methods. He's done digital stuff that's truly
outstanding. We should be able to discuss this topic without comments like
that.
>What happens if you shoot 2,196 frames of Velvia, and the customer decides
they want them all to look like Kodachrome? You schedule a re-shoot... of
course, that may be a billable job, but give me a chance, and I'll take
your customer's business away from you the next time. :-)<
I would certainly hope you know what look the customer wants before you
select the type of film to use. Otherwise, you're not doing your job.
These particluar shots were for a calendar company (Browntrout - the
largest in the world) that discourages the submission of images in digital
format - too unpredictable in image quality and too slow to review
submissions in the file sizes required for calendar work. Know your
customer and select the right product from the beginning to match THEIR
needs. If they want film, choose the film that fits; if they want digital,
you work accordingly. Of course, this is much easier to do on repeat
business with long-time clients.
>I don't mean to make this into some big fight. I'm only saying that
digital is inevitable. One can whine and moan that it's "nowhere as
flexible nor cost effective" as film, or one can work to discover new ways
of making it flexible and cost effective.<
It's not a fight. My original point, which seems to have been lost, was to
open up a discussion about digital having a different "look" than film. It
may or may not be the look that you need. Digital cameras capture an image
in RAW mode and everything else is done through software, whether in the
camera or in your computer. Film still allows more flexibility in how the
original image is recorded (and, of course, you can scan and manipulate
film in the same way you can manipulate digital images).
No whining and moaning. Just making a point from someone with a foot in
both camps that the stampede to digital seems to be ignoring the advantages
film still has to offer. One final point before I drop this subject
completely, which seems to be turning into some type of religious argument:
My brother was telling me the other night about the latest Philadelphia
ASMP meeting, where the topic of discussion was how many feel the current
digital era will become the "missing generation" of great photojournalism.
What they mean is that the digital work for newspapers and magazines is
being done at resolutions and file sizes that create great efficiency in
the production process but may not stand the test of time. If you go to a
retrospective show of great shots from the past - the Marines raising the
flag on Iwo Jima, for instance - the impact of these historical prints
exhibited as 16x20 or larger is impressive, and the power of the film-based
images is readily apparent. But many of today's photojournalism digital
files are simply too small and too low of a resolution (only what is needed
for newspaper/magazine reproduction) to allow for the same type of display.
So 25 years from now, today's images will not likely be able to be
displayed in the same manner and a "gap" will appear in historical
retrospective shows - hence, the "missing generation."
This isn't my viewpoint, but the viewpoint of Philadelphia area
photographers. I'm reporting it second-hand and hope I got the meaning
through. I'll now drop the discussion as it appears to be going nowhere
other than people telling me how to use Photoshop.
Steve Troy
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|