Digital BW, The Print

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/
>
>