Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 6/16/2003 11:09:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> Oh Claude,
> 
> >The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film ...
> 
> You obviously haven't used one, or your film simply is really substandard.
> The SD-9 suffers from severe color balance problems, and low light
> saturation.  I don't know of any films that have those problems...
> 
> Austin
> 

How can you make these "obviously" type statments without any supporting 
facts? I actually enjoy debating technical stuff with you, with the intent that 
there is something to learn. But I base my statments on things I have actually 
done, specifically. If not, I try to make it, otherwise, clear.

However, I find these type of accusatory, opinionated statements, based on 
false assumptions to rude/insolent/insulting.

I would never make a statement about any product unless I have used one, 
period. And I have apologized when appropriate. That is good manners and good 
communication.

I'm amazed at the ease with which I can make moire free, uncannily color 
accurate reproduction of flesh tones and a Macbeth color chart using the SD-9, 
studio flash, custom white balance, and Luster paper with Atkinson profiles on an 
Espon 7600.

I have offered to you, on 2 occasions to send actual prints to support my 
statments and you have not responded.

Therefore, (in the same spirit of your prior statements to me) I can only 
conclude that you are not interested in broadening your horizons and merely want 
to take cheap shots at those who are doing something new and different and 
want to share factual things.

Hope you have a better day.

Claude


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

In a message dated 6/16/2003 11:09:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> >Claude writes:
> >
> >>The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film than any other
> >>single shot digicam and it's only $1,200 street
> >>price ...
> >
> >You can get an excellent film SLR for $250 or so.
> >
> And it won't be outdated in another six months...and your "negatives" won't
> be obsolete either when the technology improves likewise...you can simply
> rescan the film.  If you capture the image with a 6megapixel camera...that's
> all image will ever be.
> 
> Robert
> 

Film gets outdated the same way that digicams do. I have some frozen VPS or 
Ektachrome 64 film I'll let you have real cheap. There is not as much R&D money 
being spent on new films anymore, because it is fast becoming a nitch market. 
The great part of film, historically, is that you could get an update of 
technology by simply buying a new emulstion to use in your same old hardware. A 
benefit we probably took for grated as we did not have digicams to contrast 
against.

As to the outdated aspects of digicams, it they work well right now for what 
you are doing, there is no reason to upgrade. I'm still making money on with 
my 6 year old cameras.

The only thing that will make digicams truly obsolete is when focal plane 
shutters wear out and you have to decide whether to spend hundreds to fix it, or 
over a thousand to upgrade. At that point, the amount of money you have saved 
on film and processing should more than make up for the loss of the camera, so 
the economics do make sense for some people.

I paid off my Canon D-30 in two weeks. I shot 10,000 images with it and that 
would have been about $3,000 in film and processing alone..........except the 
market application demanded immediate printing and/or the sale of a CD with 
JPEGS on it. At that point, I could have thrown it away and it owed me nothing 
as I walked away with a good sum of money when the gig was over.

Either way, it's nice to have so many choices in the world.



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

Claude writes:

> I paid off my Canon D-30 in two weeks. I shot 10,000
> images with it and that would have been about $3,000
> in film and processing alone...

That's one photo every thirty seconds, for two straight weeks, full-time.
What exactly were you shooting that required 10,000 images?  And how long
did it take you to sort through them to find the keepers?

What it _would have been_ in film and processing is irrelevant unless you
were actually shooting the same number of pictures on film before you went
digital.

> ... except the market application demanded immediate
> printing and/or the sale of a CD with JPEGS on it.

Ten thousand images is a lot of CDs.

> > Oh Claude,
> >
> > >The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film ...
> >
> > You obviously haven't used one, or your film simply is really
> substandard.
> > The SD-9 suffers from severe color balance problems, and low light
> > saturation.  I don't know of any films that have those problems...
> >
> > Austin
> >
>
> How can you make these "obviously" type statements without any supporting
> facts?

But there is supporting fact, your erroneous statements that are completely
contrary to other people's use and report of use.

> I'm amazed at the ease with which I can make moire free, uncannily color
> accurate reproduction of flesh tones and a Macbeth color chart
> using the SD-9,

But you can't!  I've seen others, and done my own, and the SD-9 is no where
near "color accurate" with a Mcbeth color chart!

> I have offered to you, on 2 occasions to send actual prints to support my
> statments and you have not responded.

Without knowing exactly what you've done, they are pretty much useless as
proof of anything.  I KNOW what I've gotten out of the camera, and I've also
been substantiated by countless other people who have gotten the same
results as I have...

> Therefore, (in the same spirit of your prior statements to me) I can only
> conclude that you are not interested in broadening your horizons...

Certainly not when there is nothing to be broadened, and your information is
clearly flawed!  This isn't unusual with you, you seem to live on an
entirely different planet with entirely different laws of physics...and I'm
not the only one who has pointed this out many times.  It's almost like
you're trolling...and this happens on every list I've been on that you're
on.  You make outlandish claims, and dozens of people jump on you and tell
you that your claims don't coincide with their personal experience, and
typically, no one else supports your claims.

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Claude writes:
> 
> > I paid off my Canon D-30 in two weeks. I shot 10,000
> > images with it and that would have been about $3,000
> > in film and processing alone...
> 
> That's one photo every thirty seconds, for two straight weeks, full-
time.
It was live national dance competition on stage by available light12 
hour days, and a new act about every 3 minutes, about 50 shots per 
act. There were others helping with the process, but I was the only 
shooter. The camera did get hot in my hands and I kept cycling 
through cards and battery recharges. All Jepegs.

> What exactly were you shooting that required 10,000 images?  And 
how long
> did it take you to sort through them to find the keepers?

The clients were sorting through them on several workstations. This 
type of work absolutely demanded digital capture. Also, picture 
packages were printed on dye sub printers.

> What it _would have been_ in film and processing is irrelevant 
unless you were actually shooting the same number of pictures on film 
before you went digital.

That is precisely my point. This job would have been impossible (for 
me) without digital capture. What it would have been in film is 
precisely relevant when on is making a comparison on cost 
justification. Assuming I could have processed the film and presented 
on Tamron Photovixes within 30 minutes of the shoot, the cost would 
have been the price of the camera body. EXACTLY my point and totally 
relevant. There are markets where film just simply cannot go and 
there are markets where digital capture simply cannot go. Landscapes 
is one that is better served with LF film, especially B&W.
> 
> > ... except the market application demanded immediate
> > printing and/or the sale of a CD with JPEGS on it.
> 
> Ten thousand images is a lot of CDs.

True, but not THAT many. Not when they are 1.3 Meg Jepegs. Had I 
booked all the acts, I could have shot 40,000, but I pre-booked 
rather do it on speculation. I really needed the Canon Eos 1d for 
that Job but it didn't come out until about 6 months later, and even 
then, there was a waiting list. I got by with what I had but I know I 
missed a lot of split second shots where I hit the trigger at the 
right time, but the camera refused to fire. The timing of those 
events requires anticipation. It's harder than it looks, but I 
digress.............

Claude

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Claude writes:
> 
> > I paid off my Canon D-30 in two weeks. I shot 10,000
> > images with it and that would have been about $3,000
> > in film and processing alone...
> 
> That's one photo every thirty seconds, for two straight weeks, full-
time.
> What exactly were you shooting that required 10,000 images?  And 
how long
> did it take you to sort through them to find the keepers?
> 
> What it _would have been_ in film and processing is irrelevant 
unless you
> were actually shooting the same number of pictures on film before 
you went

> digital.
> 
> > ... except the market application demanded immediate
> > printing and/or the sale of a CD with JPEGS on it.
> 
> Ten thousand images is a lot of CDs.