Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 6/18/2003 4:10:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> Billy writes:
> 
> >... you wouldn't do 10,000 images shooting a 4x5 press camera!
> 
> So it actually couldn't be done before digital.
> 
> But then again, the next question that arises is:  If the overall purpose
> was still served by press cameras with far fewer images, was it really
> necessary to shoot 10,000 images just because digital allowed it?


The answer is YES., for that application, it is.

In capturing live stage acts, you are trying to get 3-4 fantastic peak 
moments of dance move (flips, jumps, aerial splits, aerial cartwheels, etc.) a good 
batting average is .100. I could have doubled my batting average with a faster 
responding camera than my D30 and I would have been able to shoot tiwce the 
number of pictures in the 3 minute time frame. That would have quadrupled the 
number of salable images per act (from 40-50 to 80-200). so the range would 
have been 20,000-100,000 images for that few weeks. But I would have had a higher 
sales average.

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.

That was my point from the beginning. Most photographers approach digital 
capture with a film mentality and miss many business opportunities in the 
process.

This brings up a good point. When Wedding photogapher shot B&W 4x5 pack film 
in press cameras in the fifties and printed their own images, they shot 38 
pictures and put at least 36 in the album. Their sense of timing for blinks and 
expressions were impeccable. Each piece of film was precious and could not be 
wasted. Then came the Rollei TLR, and Medium Format SLR's. the number of 
exposures at a Wedding went up as the coverage could become more candid. Depending 
on the size of the event and the package booked, exposures excalated to 
120-300. Then came better 35mm and one-hour labs, Brides wanted "photojounalisict" 
unposed pictures and details of everything. Coverage went to over 1,000-2,000 
images per event as they were economical to shoot and proof and 35mm was good 
enough for 8x10's. Those guys sold more 2 and 3 volume sets of images than 
everyone else.

With the advent of digital cameras, taking 38 esposures is the same cost as 
taking 3,800 (I know some California photographers that do).

All technology was meant to be used for it's best purpose. Otherwise, it just 
makes for a marginally interesting "white paper" or "film vs. digital" 
debates on these forums.

BTW, I have alway gotten decent Black and White glossy business head shots 
from my Kodak 8650 printers and still use them for that when not covering 
events.

To hang on my wall, nothing but Quadtone B&W will do.

Claude







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