Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 6/18/2003 2:40:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> >In talking to the guy who photographaphed my daughter's
> >gymnastics meet, he complains because he has to get his
> >$4,000 Canon Eos 1D shutters replaced every 2 months
> >because they only last 180,000 exposures. The world of
> >digital capture is not the world of film capture.
> >Most photographers approach digital capture with a
> >film mentality and miss many business opportunities
> >in the process.>With the advent of digital cameras, taking 38 esposures
> >is the same cost as taking 3,800 (I know some California
> >photographers that do).


It sounds like the world of cinematography.  If he prefers the shotgun
approach over careful selection of shots, why not just point an HDTV camera
at the festivities and pull stills from the resulting video recording later
on?  Who needs a photographer?

It's an interesting approach in theory, but I have tried this and it doens't 
work. Still cameras cut a sharp slice of time at high enough resolution to 
make a decent  8x10 on a dye sub., even when cropping. Video cameras have 
historically had much too low of a resolution (this is evolving as well, up to 1.3 
Megapixels as of now) to make an 8x10. Also, when you set the shutter to give 
you a continuous series of stills (30 FPS) your video viewing gives you an 
uncomfortable "choppy" or "strobe" quality. Reminds me of the Amphibian car in the 
early sixties. It wasn't a good car and it was a terrible boat.

Maybe they should be approaching it from a movie or surveillance camera> 
> standpoint; at least that's how the guy at the gymnastics meet seems to be
> doing it.
> So the only talent you really need nowadays is the ability to hold down the
> shutter button.  If you shoot enough frames fast enough, there's sure to be
> a couple of images that you can sell.  It's like a thousand monkeys with
> typewriters.
> 

Those are not fair statements. You are underestimating the timing it takes to 
capture those images, and the amount of skills required to do so. I have a 
friend who photographs for the NBA and the NFL. He used to shoot bags of slide 
film. Now he has 3 Canon 1d's and 1 1Ds. Doing kids dancing, gymanistics, any 
kind of sport is NOT a matter of just spraying the air with exposures as you 
suggest. There are lots of people who earn a good living precisely because they 
CAN nail those shots. The best hitters in baseball barely hit .300. Armchair 
quarterbacks don't make as much money as those who can actually throw the ball.

You comments are offensive to those who make a living trying to get those 
great shots and using the best equipment they can afford to do the job. I'm 
trying to give you some factual experienced anwers and make some good points, but 
you only seem to be interested in making fun of something you don't understand 
and insult the ones who do.

This is my last post on this matter.

Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]