Digital BW, The Print

A few years ago I decided to bite at the beautiful Contax G-1 range
finder. I was in 
Tokyo and the price was a few hundred bucks less than New York so I
decided to treat 
myself to a new camera. I-who usually carefully shop for the best
quality used gear-
put down 1100 for this great looking rangefinder.
What a piece of crap camera! Focus function was slow and unreliable
(passive auto) 
exposures except for manual mode were never correct. Looks
10-function 2. So I for 
one will not miss contax which in my opinion is a "status box" some
what a kin to a 
leica. They really aren't worth the extra money- but if you like
buying brand names...
IMHO digital is the best choice for commercial photography since most
of the images 
only really need to last thru the current issue of what ever they are
being used for.
Fleeting and disposable photographs-the use of digital images is an
environmentally 
sound choice. I include wedding and portrait professionals in this
category since most 
of the stuff they produce is rubbish-canned moments of phoney
emotion...there are 
very few "good" wedding or portrait photographers. 
I really think families should still shot their events on film. Film
will last much longer 
than digital files. Few home photographers practice proper back-up of
their digital 
files and every computer will have a crash event that will threaten
the hard drive. Mac 
or PC-they all crash. I predict in 20 years from now there are going
to be many many  
23 and 24 year olds who will be pissed off because there are no
pictures of thier 
chidhood-because dad didn't back up properly and all were lost in the
early part of 
the century due to a computer hard drive crash.
Migrating technology is also a big concern-you know something is
going to replace (hopefully!!)
those flimsy, cheap ass CD's soon-will everyone migrate to the new
media? -Does everyone go to the gym they pay membership to?-Doubtful.
Yet if you drop your film on the ground and run over it with the car
an image is going 
to survive- There will be some thing that will attest to the fact: I
was here...
jack

jnhugo writes:

> I really think families should still shot their events on film. Film
> will last much longer than digital files. Few home photographers
> practice proper back-up of their digital files and every computer will
> have a crash event that will threaten the hard drive.

Kodak feels the same way; they once predicted that at least 80% of all
digital photos will be lost, because they are being stored on disk
drives for which there are no backups.  When the disk fails, the photos
disappear.

> I predict in 20 years from now there are going to be many many 23 and
> 24 year olds who will be pissed off because there are no pictures of
> thier chidhood-because dad didn't back up properly and all were lost
> in the early part of the century due to a computer hard drive crash.

I agree.  It will all be gone.  The chances of those digital photos
surviving are about the same as the chances of all e-mail surviving
(that is to say, almost nonexistent).

Now this is really stupid....First of all the consumer marketplace disagrees
and has already switched to digital.  This is reflected in sales.  As for
backup, let's not go around that bush again.  There will be many who wish
their parents had kept their negatives at all, or hadn't kept their
negatives in a shoebox and decided to toss them years ago, or wish their
parents could afford a camera.

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:50:47 +0100
> To: jnhugo <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> 
> 
> jnhugo writes:
> 
>> I really think families should still shot their events on film. Film
>> will last much longer than digital files. Few home photographers
>> practice proper back-up of their digital files and every computer will
>> have a crash event that will threaten the hard drive.
> 
> Kodak feels the same way; they once predicted that at least 80% of all
> digital photos will be lost, because they are being stored on disk
> drives for which there are no backups.  When the disk fails, the photos
> disappear.
> 
>> I predict in 20 years from now there are going to be many many 23 and
>> 24 year olds who will be pissed off because there are no pictures of
>> thier chidhood-because dad didn't back up properly and all were lost
>> in the early part of the century due to a computer hard drive crash.
> 
> I agree.  It will all be gone.  The chances of those digital photos
> surviving are about the same as the chances of all e-mail surviving
> (that is to say, almost nonexistent).
> 
>

Hi Jack

I have been a long time user of the G1 crap, as you say.
I then upgraded to the G2 crap, which is obviously more expensive.
What I liked about the G crap is that it was light and compact,
nice for travelling, you can have the full complement of lenses in
your pockets. I used the crap to shoot slide film, which as you
know has little latitude for exposure. I was content with the crap
except of course the slow focus, I was aware though I would not
be getting a sports event Canon or Nikon.
I must admit that I'm a bit of a snob, in that I like titanium finish
crap, which is well built. Maybe it was me, but I rarely got out
of focus pictures.
Besides being a snob and flaunting that logo about, I used
the crap because it allowed me to mount some of the sharpest
lenses around, bar none. Had I been better off, I would've used
the Leica crap, for the same reasons shown above.
I for one will miss it.

Cheers !

Andrei

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: jnhugo 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 12:07 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy



  A few years ago I decided to bite at the beautiful Contax G-1 range
  finder. I was in 
  Tokyo and the price was a few hundred bucks less than New York so I
  decided to treat 
  myself to a new camera. I-who usually carefully shop for the best
  quality used gear-
  put down 1100 for this great looking rangefinder.
  What a piece of crap camera! Focus function was slow and unreliable
  (passive auto) 
  exposures except for manual mode were never correct. Looks
  10-function 2. So I for 
  one will not miss contax which in my opinion is a "status box" some
  what a kin to a 
  leica. They really aren't worth the extra money- but if you like
  buying brand names...
  IMHO digital is the best choice for commercial photography since most
  of the images 
  only really need to last thru the current issue of what ever they are
  being used for.
  Fleeting and disposable photographs-the use of digital images is an
  environmentally 
  sound choice. I include wedding and portrait professionals in this
  category since most 
  of the stuff they produce is rubbish-canned moments of phoney
  emotion...there are 
  very few "good" wedding or portrait photographers. 
  I really think families should still shot their events on film. Film
  will last much longer 
  than digital files. Few home photographers practice proper back-up of
  their digital 
  files and every computer will have a crash event that will threaten
  the hard drive. Mac 
  or PC-they all crash. I predict in 20 years from now there are going
  to be many many  
  23 and 24 year olds who will be pissed off because there are no
  pictures of thier 
  chidhood-because dad didn't back up properly and all were lost in the
  early part of 
  the century due to a computer hard drive crash.
  Migrating technology is also a big concern-you know something is
  going to replace (hopefully!!)
  those flimsy, cheap ass CD's soon-will everyone migrate to the new
  media? -Does everyone go to the gym they pay membership to?-Doubtful.
  Yet if you drop your film on the ground and run over it with the car
  an image is going 
  to survive- There will be some thing that will attest to the fact: I
  was here...
  jack





  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  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:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> Now this is really stupid....First of all the consumer marketplace disagrees
> and has already switched to digital.  This is reflected in sales
 
Oh Yeah-consumers are really smart- this reasoning would make Mcdonalds the best 
hamburger ever made

 As for
> backup, let's not go around that bush again. 

Luckly Kodak and Fuji are working really hard to create an "experts" group to address 
this problem-what do you think Steve? this issue has been resolved? 

There will be many who wish
> their parents had kept their negatives at all, or hadn't kept their
> negatives in a shoebox and decided to toss them years ago, or wish their
> parents could afford a camera.

Yeah-so what? doesn't change the fact..
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, <aderca@s...> wrote:
> Hi Jack
> 
> I have been a long time user of the G1 crap, as you say.
> I then upgraded to the G2 crap, 

The G2 is the camera they should have made in the first place-G1 as is reflected in 
used equipment prices at the time (pre digital prices)-wasn't worth the money. The 
value of "my" G1 dropped from 1100 to 550 in less than 2 years-not because of the 
digital impact on  prices of all things digital.

which is obviously more expensive.
> What I liked about the G crap is that it was light and compact,
> nice for travelling, you can have the full complement of lenses in
> your pockets. I used the crap to shoot slide film, which as you
> know has little latitude for exposure. I was content with the crap
> except of course the slow focus, I was aware though I would not
> be getting a sports event Canon or Nikon.
> I must admit that I'm a bit of a snob, in that I like titanium finish
> crap, which is well built. Maybe it was me, but I rarely got out
> of focus pictures.

Thats because the G1 wouldn't let you make an exposure unless the thing was 
focused-a really irritating and amatuer feature

> Besides being a snob and flaunting that logo about, I used
> the crap because it allowed me to mount some of the sharpest
> lenses around, bar none.
There have been sharp lenses since the days of Galileo-you can't say a japanese made 
zeiss is sharper than  any other major brand-you just can't. You know that.

 Had I been better off, I would've used
> the Leica crap, for the same reasons shown above.
> I for one will miss it.

Don't get me started on LEICA!!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> Now this is really stupid...
By the way Steve-nice opening line,,,,,
Jack

Digital prints made with archival materials (inks, paper) should 
last as long as traditional prints.  Regarding files, Delkin Devices 
makes a CD-R called eFilm Archival Gold that they claim has a 300-
year life span.  So I don't think that longevity of digital 
photography is an issue.

Val   

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Now this is really stupid....First of all the consumer marketplace 
disagrees
> and has already switched to digital.  This is reflected in sales.  
As for
> backup, let's not go around that bush again.  There will be many 
who wish
> their parents had kept their negatives at all, or hadn't kept their
> negatives in a shoebox and decided to toss them years ago, or wish 
their
> parents could afford a camera.
> 
> 
> > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@a...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:50:47 +0100
> > To: jnhugo <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> > 
> > 
> > jnhugo writes:
> > 
> >> I really think families should still shot their events on film. 
Film
> >> will last much longer than digital files. Few home photographers
> >> practice proper back-up of their digital files and every 
computer will
> >> have a crash event that will threaten the hard drive.
> > 
> > Kodak feels the same way; they once predicted that at least 80% 
of all
> > digital photos will be lost, because they are being stored on 
disk
> > drives for which there are no backups.  When the disk fails, the 
photos
> > disappear.
> > 
> >> I predict in 20 years from now there are going to be many many 
23 and
> >> 24 year olds who will be pissed off because there are no 
pictures of
> >> thier chidhood-because dad didn't back up properly and all were 
lost
> >> in the early part of the century due to a computer hard drive 
crash.
> > 
> > I agree.  It will all be gone.  The chances of those digital 
photos
> > surviving are about the same as the chances of all e-mail 
surviving

> > (that is to say, almost nonexistent).
> > 
> >

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Val Brunell" <vbrunell@d...> 
wrote:
> 
> Digital prints made with archival materials (inks, paper) should 
> last as long as traditional prints.  Regarding files, Delkin Devices 
> makes a CD-R called eFilm Archival Gold that they claim has a 300-
> year life span.  So I don't think that longevity of digital 
> photography is an issue.
> 
You're right -it's not a problem for professionals and archivists with staff, resources 
and knowledge....it's everyone else.
The CD-R mentioned above-does it work for three hundred years if it gets scratched? 
I'm still glad Kodak and Fuji think longevity is an issue-even of you don't.
Jack

Val,

Where does one buy such cd's? Mitsui also makes a gold cd that is rated at 
around 200 yrs. The Verbatim Data Plus  is what I use now. It has a special 
dye layer that allows a guarantee of 100yrs and is a fraction of the cost of 
these gold cds. I burn special things with the gold cds as a backup and never 
use them. Cd's also wear out the more you use them. Of course we won't be 
around to have these cd's replaced. And in 100 years this technology will look 
like the very ancient stone age. My plan is to copy over my cd's every 100 
years or so. I hope my burner holds out.

John

> 
> Digital prints made with archival materials (inks, paper) should 
> last as long as traditional prints.  Regarding files, Delkin Devices 
> makes a CD-R called eFilm Archival Gold that they claim has a 300-
> year life span.  So I don't think that longevity of digital 
> photography is an issue.
> 
> Val   
>

John...My plan is to re-burn every 75 years!!  Why take chances!!! ;-

Delkin has a website.

You make a good point about cost.  I know there are some CDs that 
have decent archival capabilities that are less expensive than the 
Delkin product...Best, Val

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> 
> Val,
> 
> Where does one buy such cd's? Mitsui also makes a gold cd that is 
rated at 
> around 200 yrs. The Verbatim Data Plus  is what I use now. It has 
a special 
> dye layer that allows a guarantee of 100yrs and is a fraction of 
the cost of 
> these gold cds. I burn special things with the gold cds as a 
backup and never 
> use them. Cd's also wear out the more you use them. Of course we 
won't be 
> around to have these cd's replaced. And in 100 years this 
technology will look 
> like the very ancient stone age. My plan is to copy over my cd's 
every 100 
> years or so. I hope my burner holds out.
> 
> John
> > 
> > Digital prints made with archival materials (inks, paper) should 
> > last as long as traditional prints.  Regarding files, Delkin 
Devices 
> > makes a CD-R called eFilm Archival Gold that they claim has a 
300-

> > year life span.  So I don't think that longevity of digital 
> > photography is an issue.
> > 
> > Val   
> >

Collectively yes consumers are smart.  MacDonalds isn't the best burger in
the world but a whole lot of people like them - why?

As for backup, this has been discussed ad nausea - take a look through the
archives.  Whether it is digital or analogue one must take care of data.  It
is a lot easier to duplicate and hence "backup" digital data.  That doesn't
mean that people will do it and that those that do will make mistakes but it
is easier to protect digital data.

The digital revolution is making it easier for people to take photos, share
photos, and store photos.  Consumers are abandoning film in droves.  So are
pros - photojournalists, sports photographers, fashion photographers (the
only fashion photographers still doing "editorial" work, the lowest form of
fashion photography, with film are those that can't afford a digital
back)....  The only guys left are the bleeding (or bleeting) "artists".
Film is good but it is a dying product.  It has been largely abandoned by
many commercial environments and is a gasping for breath in others.   I
don't believe it will become extinct - there will likely be those who still
demand it and are prepared to pay for it.  But note my words, the price will
begin to go up....

> From: jnhugo <jacknadelle@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:37:26 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> 
> wrote:
>> Now this is really stupid....First of all the consumer marketplace disagrees
>> and has already switched to digital.  This is reflected in sales
>  
> Oh Yeah-consumers are really smart- this reasoning would make Mcdonalds the
> best 
> hamburger ever made
> 
>  As for
>> backup, let's not go around that bush again.
> 
> Luckly Kodak and Fuji are working really hard to create an "experts" group to
> address 
> this problem-what do you think Steve? this issue has been resolved?
> 
> There will be many who wish
>> their parents had kept their negatives at all, or hadn't kept their
>> negatives in a shoebox and decided to toss them years ago, or wish their
>> parents could afford a camera.
> 
> Yeah-so what? doesn't change the fact..
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Nothing wrong with stating, succinctly, the obvious.

> From: jnhugo <jacknadelle@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:26:59 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> 
> wrote:
>> Now this is really stupid...
> By the way Steve-nice opening line,,,,,
> Jack
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Nothing wrong with stating, succinctly, the obvious.
> 
> 
> > From: jnhugo <jacknadelle@h...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:26:59 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> > <stevekale@b...> 
> > wrote:
> >> Now this is really stupid...
> > By the way Steve-nice opening line,,,,,
> > Jack
> > 
> >
now that's a really even SMARTER thing to post-asshole
jack

Labeling a statement 'stupid' is rude behavior, regardless of how 
stupid or wrong the statement might have been. When a message board 
like this degenerates to rudeness and name-calling, etc., it goes 
downhill fast...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Nothing wrong with stating, succinctly, the obvious.

Steve Kale writes:

> Now this is really stupid....First of all the consumer marketplace disagrees
> and has already switched to digital.

Consumers haven't even the slightest notion of what digital requires in
terms of archiving.  They will find out the hard way.  They are about
the last place I'd look for guidance in photography.

> As for backup, let's not go around that bush again. There will be many
> who wish their parents had kept their negatives at all, or hadn't kept
> their negatives in a shoebox and decided to toss them years ago, or
> wish their parents could afford a camera.

My parents actually have negatives of photos of me, from infancy
onwards.  And when I scan them today, they look a hundred times better
than they did when they got drugstore prints of those negatives decades
ago.  One of the advantages of film was that it stored a huge amount of
information, even before there was an economical way to extract it.  I
scanned some 40-year-old Tri-X negatives (from a shoebox!) not long ago,
and they looked like they had been shot yesterday.

Val Brunell writes:

> Digital prints made with archival materials (inks, paper) should
> last as long as traditional prints.  Regarding files, Delkin Devices 
> makes a CD-R called eFilm Archival Gold that they claim has a 300-
> year life span.  So I don't think that longevity of digital 
> photography is an issue.

These don't help if the only place you have the photos is on a disk
drive (no prints, no CDs).  And this is the case for most consumers.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with that!!  And, their tendancy to purchase cheap CD
media (Memorex, etc.) w/o doing homework will bite them.


On the other hand, I read something recently that made the most sense: 'The
BEST way to store digital images is to make prints....'

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...] 

==
==Consumers haven't even the slightest notion of what digital 
==requires in terms of archiving.  They will find out the hard 
==way.  They are about the last place I'd look for guidance in 
==photography.
==

Steve Kale writes:

> Collectively yes consumers are smart.

Not smart, cheap.  Price is the overwhelming factor in consumer choice,
as the size of the market grows.  Consumers chose VHS over Betamax, and
VHS over laser discs.  They chose disposable cameras over Leicas.  They
chose Yugos over BMWs.  These don't seem like smart people to me.

> As for backup, this has been discussed ad nausea - take a look through
> the archives. Whether it is digital or analogue one must take care of
> data. It is a lot easier to duplicate and hence "backup" digital data.
> That doesn't mean that people will do it and that those that do will
> make mistakes but it is easier to protect digital data.

It's not any harder or easier.  They work out to different versions of
the same thing.  However, protecting data on disk drives requires
explicit actions that the average consumer doesn't carry out.  And since
consumer digital photos are typically stored on disk drives (and nowhere
else), when the drive fails, the photos are lost.

I even lost a large number of photos myself once, when I had to format a
drive without being able to back it up.  Fortunately, they were scans,
so I can still rescan the original film.  Had they been digital, they
would have been lost forever.

> The digital revolution is making it easier for people to take photos, share
> photos, and store photos.

It's making it a lot easier to lose photos, too.

> Consumers are abandoning film in droves.

Consumers never cared much about film, anyway.  The average consumer
shot only about a roll a year, at most.

> So are pros - photojournalists, sports photographers, fashion
> photographers ...

The only pros who are abandoning film are those who need speed.  Not all
pros need speed.  There's no real advantage to digital if you don't
require speed.

> ... only fashion photographers still doing "editorial" work,
> the lowest form of fashion photography ...

Editorial work is the lowest form of fashion photography?  Who decreed
this, and when?

> The only guys left are the bleeding (or bleeting) "artists".

The HCBs and AAs of the world.  Real losers.

> Film is good but it is a dying product.  It has been largely abandoned by
> many commercial environments and is a gasping for breath in others.

Zzzz.

Why do so many people feel so compelled to go to extremes in so many
things?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> 
> Why do so many people feel so compelled to go to extremes in so 
many
> things?

good question.......and why do people(you) choose to 
equate "principles" or lack there of,with the media one choses to 
work with?...or manufacture?

Anthony,

> There's no real advantage to digital if you don't require speed.

Only increased resolution, better signal/noise ratio, better dynamic range, 
less storage space per image, better color, exposure correction of raw 
files, etc., etc., etc., .....................;)

> Why do so many people feel so compelled to go to extremes in so many 
> things?

Because they are human, and they like pushing back the boundaries, be they 
mountaineers, divers, astronauts, digital camera designers, or just B&W 
fanatics?

Bob Frost.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

I think you miss the point - they don't care.  Those that do, take
precautions or over time learn the hard way as Anthony has said.  But this
is no different from learning the hard way by not storing film properly. All
you are talking about is basic data (any data) protection and the good news
is that there are many other reasons influencing the behaviour of serious
people to take care in protecting their computer data - not just their
photos.  But most don't care.  Immediacy is powerful.  "Look at my photos
from my recent vacation?"  They can be up on the web to be shared with
family and friends in a heartbeat.  This is very difficult to achieve with
film and most value very highly the ease of digital.  Consumers are flocking
to digital for very good reasons - not because they are blind.

And Anthony, nobody is looking to the masses for guidance on how a serious
photographer (pro or hobbyist) might behave.  But be sure that they
represent powerful economic forces which will influence the way serious
photographers can behave.  Film is fast becoming a niche product for
manufacturers (or a product they are abandoning completely).  That's not to
say there isn't any demand.  But it is to say that the economics of
investing in and manufacturing film are changing enormously.  The level of
demand for 35mm film in particular is dropping precipitously and beginning
to affect all those that currently still use it.  If those that still want
it aren't prepared to pay an enormous price per roll (relative to today's
prices) it will no longer be manufactured.  Such sound economic behaviour is
a good thing for us all.

> From: Seth <seth@...>
> Organization: Serh Rossman Photography
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:40:16 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> 
> 
> I ABSOLUTELY agree with that!!  And, their tendancy to purchase cheap CD
> media (Memorex, etc.) w/o doing homework will bite them.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I read something recently that made the most sense: 'The
> BEST way to store digital images is to make prints....'
> 
> Seth 
> 
> ==-----Original Message-----
> ==From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
> 
> ==
> ==Consumers haven't even the slightest notion of what digital
> ==requires in terms of archiving.  They will find out the hard
> ==way.  They are about the last place I'd look for guidance in
> ==photography.
> ==

I very much doubt that your situation is the norm.

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

> My parents actually have negatives of photos of me, from infancy
> onwards.  And when I scan them today, they look a hundred times better
> than they did when they got drugstore prints of those negatives decades
> ago.  One of the advantages of film was that it stored a huge amount of
> information, even before there was an economical way to extract it.  I
> scanned some 40-year-old Tri-X negatives (from a shoebox!) not long ago,
> and they looked like they had been shot yesterday.
> 
>

And I would also think about "speed" in a broader sense.  The image doesn't
have to be time sensitive (like a sensational news story) for "speed" to be
a factor.  Take my fashion photography situation again.  One can see the
power of digital in a professional shoot when the photographer and creative
director can rough work images in real time.  You simply can't do that with
Polaroid and film.  It's not necessarily because the image has to be in the
magazine tomorrow that matters.  (The last 20 fashion shoots I worked on
were all shot digitally with PhaseOne backs.)

I am not at all suggesting that "artists" or anyone else HAS to abandon film
today.  But to ignore critical market trends is rather foolish.  Film is
dying - fact - ok let's say "shrinking so enormously in use that it will
only be used in specialist situations if at all within the next 10 to 20
years".  My bet is development of 35mm film cameras and 35mm film has
largely ended already - in stark contrast to the advancement of their
digital counterparts.  We are beginning to see similar trends in the 645
format world.  The only way film will continue to be made is if there are
enough people prepared to pay a big enough price for it to be worthwhile.
The number of people is falling - and so you can bet the price will be going
up or the product dropped.

> From: Bob Frost <bob@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:32:05 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> 
> 
> Anthony,
> 
>> There's no real advantage to digital if you don't require speed.
> 
> Only increased resolution, better signal/noise ratio, better dynamic range,
> less storage space per image, better color, exposure correction of raw
> files, etc., etc., etc., .....................;)
> 
>> Why do so many people feel so compelled to go to extremes in so many
>> things?
> 
> Because they are human, and they like pushing back the boundaries, be they
> mountaineers, divers, astronauts, digital camera designers, or just B&W
> fanatics?
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
>

Andrei,

THANK YOU - I'm still chuckling

What  is it about some folks who can't accept that we are all 
different, like different products for different reasons and that that 
is something we should celebrate - not condemn!

That's why I - just like you keep using MY crap - although it's not the 
same crap as yours..=*^)

Hang in there!

Christer

			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell

			  http://www.ChristerArt.com
	


On Mar 17, 2005, at 4:41 AM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Subject: Re: the contax toast/film thingy
>
> Hi Jack
>
> I have been a long time user of the G1 crap, as you say.
> I then upgraded to the G2 crap, which is obviously more expensive.
> What I liked about the G crap is that it was light and compact,
> nice for travelling, you can have the full complement of lenses in
> your pockets. I used the crap to shoot slide film, which as you
> know has little latitude for exposure. I was content with the crap
> except of course the slow focus, I was aware though I would not
> be getting a sports event Canon or Nikon.
> I must admit that I'm a bit of a snob, in that I like titanium finish
> crap, which is well built. Maybe it was me, but I rarely got out
> of focus pictures.
> Besides being a snob and flaunting that logo about, I used
> the crap because it allowed me to mount some of the sharpest
> lenses around, bar none. Had I been better off, I would've used
> the Leica crap, for the same reasons shown above.
> I for one will miss it.
>
> Cheers !
>
> Andrei

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

By the way, has anyone seen an actual press release from Contax?  All else
is mere speculation, conjecture, rumour etc etc - even if some underling
from Contax said this or that.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> By the way, has anyone seen an actual press release from Contax? 
All else
> is mere speculation, conjecture, rumour etc etc - even if some underling
> from Contax said this or that.

See message #58401 posted today.

Andre

Yes indeed, Anthony - perhaps something you should ponder yourself..

Christer


			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell

			  http://www.ChristerArt.com



On Mar 17, 2005, at 1:51 PM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>    From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Subject: Re: the contax toast/film thingy
>
>
>
> Why do so many people feel so compelled to go to extremes in so many
> things?

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

Andy Graham writes:

> good question.......and why do people(you) choose to
> equate "principles" or lack there of,with the media one choses to 
> work with?...or manufacture?

I associate principles with the quality of the final image.

I saw it but don't consider the source official.  Still nothing on Contax's
website.

> From: Andre <am1000@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:19:39 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: the contax toast/film thingy
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> By the way, has anyone seen an actual press release from Contax?
> All else
>> is mere speculation, conjecture, rumour etc etc - even if some underling
>> from Contax said this or that.
> 
> See message #58401 posted today.
> 
> Andre
> 
>

Bob Frost writes:

> Only increased resolution ...

The resolution of digital is lower than that of film.

> ... better signal/noise ratio ...

Film has better S/N for equivalent resolution.

> ... better dynamic range ...

Digital has more trouble with dynamic range than film, although this is
largely an implementation problem.

> ... less storage space per image ...

The amount of space required per image is identical for film and
digital, for equivalent image quality.  Digital usually requires less
storage space because the quality of the image is lower.

> ... better color ...

Digital has serious problems with color, although much of this is an
implementation problem (the use of mosaic filters instead of true,
separate RGB sensors).

> ... exposure correction of raw files ...

The only way to correct exposure is at the time of exposure.

> Because they are human, and they like pushing back the boundaries, be they
> mountaineers, divers, astronauts, digital camera designers, or just B&W
> fanatics?

Unfortunately, it clouds their judgement.

Steve Kale writes:

> Film is fast becoming a niche product for manufacturers (or a product
> they are abandoning completely).

That has been true for LF and MF film for decades, but they are still
with us.

> The level of demand for 35mm film in particular is dropping
> precipitously and beginning to affect all those that currently still
> use it.

Film is still the medium of choice even for consumers outside developed
countries (the other five billion people, that is).

> If those that still want it aren't prepared to pay an enormous price
> per roll (relative to today's prices) it will no longer be
> manufactured.

There is no reason why the price per roll need become enormous.  It's a
lot cheaper to produce film than it is to produce chips.

Sorry Andre I only saw the earlier report on Luminous Landscape  -thanks

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:31:31 +0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: the contax toast/film thingy
> 
> I saw it but don't consider the source official.  Still nothing on Contax's
> website.
> 
> 
>> From: Andre <am1000@...>
>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:19:39 -0000
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: the contax toast/film thingy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
>> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>>> By the way, has anyone seen an actual press release from Contax?
>> All else
>>> is mere speculation, conjecture, rumour etc etc - even if some underling
>>> from Contax said this or that.
>> 
>> See message #58401 posted today.
>> 
>> Andre
>> 
>>

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

> 
>> The level of demand for 35mm film in particular is dropping
>> precipitously and beginning to affect all those that currently still
>> use it.
> 
> Film is still the medium of choice even for consumers outside developed
> countries (the other five billion people, that is).

Now let me see...in Europe (including Eastern Europe), the bulk of Asia, the
Americas (North at least), and Australasia, at a minimum, the trend away
from 35mm film is very very strong.  Who else is left and what percentage of
global GDP do they represent?

> 
>> If those that still want it aren't prepared to pay an enormous price
>> per roll (relative to today's prices) it will no longer be
>> manufactured.
> 
> There is no reason why the price per roll need become enormous.  It's a
> lot cheaper to produce film than it is to produce chips.


Cheaper but not cheap.  You need an economics lesson ol' son.

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

> 
> Steve Kale writes:
> 
>> Film is fast becoming a niche product for manufacturers (or a product
>> they are abandoning completely).
> 
> That has been true for LF and MF film for decades, but they are still
> with us.

There isn't yet a cost-effective substitute product for LF film.  I wonder
what % of global film sales large format film represents?  What was it 5
years ago and what do you think it will be in five year's time?

The MF substitute is coming on stream now...

Steve Kale writes:

> And I would also think about "speed" in a broader sense.  The image doesn't
> have to be time sensitive (like a sensational news story) for "speed" to be
> a factor.  Take my fashion photography situation again.  One can see the
> power of digital in a professional shoot when the photographer and creative
> director can rough work images in real time.

Some fashion photographers have abandoned digital for that reason.  When
the image is immediately available, they find that art directors and
models constantly want to stop and look at and critique the images, and
the shoot never gets finished.  So they go back to film to force
everyone to wait.

Another objection some photographers and photo editors have to digital
is that there is a tendency to shoot anything and then "fix it" with
Photoshop.  Of course, this can be a problem with scanned film as well.

In any case, you're still talking about speed.

> You simply can't do that with Polaroid and film.

Sure you can.  Polaroids provide instant images, too.

> It's not necessarily because the image has to be in the
> magazine tomorrow that matters.  (The last 20 fashion shoots I worked on
> were all shot digitally with PhaseOne backs.)

It's all about speed, although there might be a certain snobbishness to
it as well.  After all, editors and art directors long insisted on MF
even though they couldn't possibly reproduce MF quality in a magazine,
just out of snobbishness.  Now they want digital because digital is more
cool than MF.  Never mind that digital doesn't provide the MF quality
that they used to insist that they had to have.  Hmm.

> My bet is development of 35mm film cameras and 35mm film has
> largely ended already - in stark contrast to the advancement of their
> digital counterparts.

That makes it pretty hard to explain the new Nikon F6, doesn't it?

> The only way film will continue to be made is if there are
> enough people prepared to pay a big enough price for it to be worthwhile.

There are.  And it doesn't cost that much to make film.  Film can even
be produced nearly as a cottage industry.

Anthony,

> The resolution of digital is lower than that of film.

> Film has better S/N for equivalent resolution.

> Digital has more trouble with dynamic range than film, although this is
largely an implementation problem.

If your above statements are true, would you please explain why Roger 
Clark's measurements are all wrong.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#ExampleImageDetail

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

His experiments seem reasonable to me.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

Steve Kale writes:

> Now let me see...in Europe (including Eastern Europe), the bulk of Asia, the
> Americas (North at least), and Australasia, at a minimum, the trend away
> from 35mm film is very very strong.

The bulk of Asia?  Where, exactly?  People in India are spending a
year's wages on digital cameras?  And ten years' wages the PCs they need
to use them?

> Cheaper but not cheap.  You need an economics lesson ol' son.

Compared to making chips, making film is dirt cheap.  Producing film
isn't much more complicated than producing garbage bags.  Producing
chips is about as complicated as producing spaceships.

Steve Kale writes:

> There isn't yet a cost-effective substitute product for LF film.  I wonder
> what % of global film sales large format film represents?  What was it 5
> years ago and what do you think it will be in five year's time?

I don't think LF is going to see much change.

> The MF substitute is coming on stream now...

The digital fad is washing over MF right now.  We'll see how long the
wave lasts.  At $30,000 for a digital back that has less quality than
film, my guess is not very long, unless some dramatic advances are made.

Bob Frost writes:

> If your above statements are true, would you please explain why Roger
> Clark's measurements are all wrong.

What makes Roger Clark right, and me wrong?  I don't know him from the
postman.

Hey Bob - I give up.  Anthony is right.  You can't win an argument disputed
on these terms. Anthony, let's take a time out for now and check back in in
5 years time.

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:56:21 +0100
> To: Bob Frost <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> 
> 
> Bob Frost writes:
> 
>> If your above statements are true, would you please explain why Roger
>> Clark's measurements are all wrong.
> 
> What makes Roger Clark right, and me wrong?  I don't know him from the
> postman.
> 
>

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>>... better signal/noise ratio ...
> 
> 
> Film has better S/N for equivalent resolution.

Back that up Anthony. *Everything* I have seen, every measurement, test 
report, and years of experience suggests that digital has a VASTLY 
better S/N.

Serious image quality (resolution+S/N) analyses put >10MP SLRs in the 
same category as 645, not 35mm.

> What makes Roger Clark right, and me wrong?  

Genetics.

I don't know him from the
> postman.

Anthony,

I didn't say he was right! I said why is he wrong? You haven't provided any 
evidence for your statements, whereas he has.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

> If your above statements are true, would you please explain why Roger
> Clark's measurements are all wrong.

What makes Roger Clark right, and me wrong?  I don't know him from the
postman.

I suspect that is far from the norm.  My parents kept albums/scrapbooks of both of us (I was born in 1939, my brother in 1944 I think--harder to get film in that period), but there are NO negatives.  Even though my grandfather was an amateur photographer, only his slides remain--no negs for any of his prints.  Photographs were put in the albums but the color photos are very degraded--the black and whites reasonably good condition----but, as I said, no negatives and I suspect this is more likely the norm.

Diane
-----------
Diane B. Fields
picnic@...
photo site  http://www.pbase.com/picnic

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Kale 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy


  I very much doubt that your situation is the norm.


  > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

  > My parents actually have negatives of photos of me, from infancy
  > onwards.  And when I scan them today, they look a hundred times better
  > than they did when they got drugstore prints of those negatives decades
  > ago.  One of the advantages of film was that it stored a huge amount of
  > information, even before there was an economical way to extract it.  I
  > scanned some 40-year-old Tri-X negatives (from a shoebox!) not long ago,
  > and they looked like they had been shot yesterday.
  > 
  > 



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

And---plants have to be kept open to make film--Kodak, for instance, has closed a number of their plants.  They are in the process of opening a plant almost totally specific for their printer docks for consumer digital cameras.

  > There is no reason why the price per roll need become enormous.  It's a
  > lot cheaper to produce film than it is to produce chips.


  Cheaper but not cheap.  You need an economics lesson ol' son.


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

I never said film was dead, I DO BELIEVE I READ YOU WERE CONCERNED WITH 
GETTING FILM IN THE FUTURE,  I simply comment on the fact the Nikon had 
in the works a Digital FM3 which is a B&W film camera I do believe.  
Second if Kodak was so right then why has their sales go down hill for 
the last two years.  And for as that goes Kodak is putting a lot of 
their marbles into Digital, I work in an industry that supplies 
packaging supplies to the commercial ind. Mainly shrink film. I see less 
and less new upgrades in film camera so that industry is driving the 
digital as well.  I not on either side of this issue, I happen to use a 
D70 , and trying to learn it.\
Just so you know I have been an OS/2 eComStation(Warp user) for years.  
I also have to use windows for certain things.  SO in life everything 
has its place.      Anthony

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

In with what Steve said, it known that Kodak waited almost too long to 
really jump to Digital and it almost cost them their business.    Anthony

Steve Kale wrote:

>Now let me see...in Europe (including Eastern Europe), the bulk of Asia,
the
>Americas (North at least), and Australasia, at a minimum, the trend away
>from 35mm film is very very strong.  Who else is left and what percentage
of
>global GDP do they represent?


Good grief, will you and the others participating in this "my digital is
better than your film" and vice versa silly argument give it a break? Why
the need to exert such effor to convince others of the superiority of the
medium with which you choose to make mages?  Does it really matter to you
that some people prefer film (or to the film buffs that some people prefer
digital)? Who cares? If you like digital, use it, if you like film, use it.
If you want to argue, join a debating society and take it there.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy






> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

>
>> The level of demand for 35mm film in particular is dropping
>> precipitously and beginning to affect all those that currently still
>> use it.
>
> Film is still the medium of choice even for consumers outside developed
> countries (the other five billion people, that is).

Now let me see...in Europe (including Eastern Europe), the bulk of Asia, the
Americas (North at least), and Australasia, at a minimum, the trend away
from 35mm film is very very strong.  Who else is left and what percentage of
global GDP do they represent?

>
>> If those that still want it aren't prepared to pay an enormous price
>> per roll (relative to today's prices) it will no longer be
>> manufactured.
>
> There is no reason why the price per roll need become enormous.  It's a
> lot cheaper to produce film than it is to produce chips.


Cheaper but not cheap.  You need an economics lesson ol' son.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Bob Frost writes:

> I didn't say he was right! I said why is he wrong?

Why am I wrong?  You need to apply the same standards to everyone.

> You haven't provided any evidence for your statements,
> whereas he has.

I've discovered in the past that evidence never seems to count in
digital-vs.-film debates.

The images I shoot with film look better to me than the images I shoot
digitally.  Until and unless this changes, there's no reason to shoot
digital.  Others may differ, and that's fine.  But when people
unconditionally dismiss either type of image capture, or when they say
things that reveal ignorance of either domain, I feel compelled to make
things right, lest the uninformed be misled.

Diane Fields writes:

> And---plants have to be kept open to make film--Kodak, for
> instance, has closed a number of their plants.

Kodak is probably the industry's best example of how _not_ to run a
photography company.  Every time they come up with a real potential
money-maker, they kill it; and they pour zillions of dollars into
technologies that are doomed to go nowhere (anyone still using a Kodak
Disc camera?).

> They are in the process of opening a plant almost totally specific for
> their printer docks for consumer digital cameras.

A lot of companies are banking on home printing to make the money they
lose by abandoning film, but they are going to be disappointed.

A lot of companies are going to find that they've exchanged the small
but steady and unlimited income of film photography for the irregular
and finite income of selling digital cameras.  They are going to be
disappointed, too.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. Atkielski" 

So Anthony, what kind of inkjet are you printing with?

Anthony S. Tubbs writes:

> ... I simply comment on the fact the Nikon had in the works a Digital
> FM3 which is a B&W film camera I do believe.

That would certainly be interesting if it comes to pass.  A native B&W
digital camera would give excellent results.  I don't know how much
market there is for a camera that can do _only_ black and white, though.
That's the problem with digital B&W cameras: you can't change the
sensor, so you're stuck with either color or B&W, but not both.

Of course, the ideal is interchangeable sensors, but since companies are
already shooting themselves in the feet with the digital "revolution," I
suppose they won't pound the last few nails into the coffin by going to
interchangeable sensors.

> Second if Kodak was so right then why has their sales go down hill for
> the last two years.

Kodak has never been right.  It's a textbook example of consistently
poor management.

> And for as that goes Kodak is putting a lot of their marbles into
> Digital ...

See above.

> I see less and less new upgrades in film camera ...

Since a film camera can do its job well for fifty years, there isn't
much reason to "upgrade" it.

> I not on either side of this issue, I happen to use a
> D70 , and trying to learn it.

What's to learn about it?  The only difference between digital and film
is that one uses electronic capture (not really digital, despite the
name), and the other uses chemical capture.

> Just so you know I have been an OS/2 eComStation(Warp user) for years.
> I also have to use windows for certain things.  SO in life everything 
> has its place.

Yes.

Anthony S. Tubbs writes:

> In with what Steve said, it known that Kodak waited almost too long to
> really jump to Digital and it almost cost them their business.

It had nothing to do with digital.  The company is just very poorly
managed.  They won't thrive on digital, either.  They should have
changed management, not technologies.

Jon Witsell writes:

> So Anthony, what kind of inkjet are you printing with?

Epson 2000P, on those rare occasions when I print something myself.

Alas, Christer, Anthony G. the troller got no ponder. He got
a FISH ON!

P.S. Mods, please cut his line.

Jim 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer
Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
> Yes indeed, Anthony - perhaps something you should ponder yourself..
> 
> Christer 
> 			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
> 
> 			  http://www.ChristerArt.com 
> 
> On Mar 17, 2005, at 1:51 PM, 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> 
> >    From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@a...>
> > Subject: Re: the contax toast/film thingy
> >
> > Why do so many people feel so compelled to go to extremes in so
many things?

Anthony,

> Why am I wrong?  You need to apply the same standards to everyone.

As I said in my previous post, I didn't say you were wrong; I asked you for 
your evidence that proves Roger Clark is wrong. I do try to apply the same 
standards to everyone; as a scientist, I've always had to. If you want 
people to believe what you say is correct, then you have to publish the 
evidence for your statements. Until someone publishes evidence that Roger 
Clark's experiments are faulty, or that his conclusions are not justified by 
his experimental evidence, they must be accepted as the the current facts.

> I've discovered in the past that evidence never seems to count in
> digital-vs.-film debates.

Without evidence, it's all just so much hot air.

> The images I shoot with film look better to me than the images I shoot
> digitally.  Until and unless this changes, there's no reason to shoot
> digital.

That is fine; you are making a subjective judgement that you prefer film. 
But it does not entitle you to make statements about the superiority of film 
that are clearly against the current published evidence. If you want to 
prove that the published evidence is faulty, do some real objective 
experiments yourself and see if you can prove the opposite is true - as you 
claim it is.


> I feel compelled to make things right, lest the uninformed be misled.

It seems to some of us, that you are the uninformed, and are constantly 
mislead by your gut feelings.

So, if you have no objective evidence to support your statements, there is 
little point in continuing this discussion.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>

Anthony, well I know quite a few pros that carry two or three bodies 
with them, some have two d2h or F5 now maybe the F6 which is probably 
like the last of the top end pro film to be made. I could see having a 
D2x , D70 and the FM3 or just the D70 and FM3 use the same lens. As far 
as a market well I think if you look at the amount of people register to 
this group you will get a good feel for the black and white market. IMHO 
it would sell well.   Anthony

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>That would certainly be interesting if it comes to pass.  A native B&W
>digital camera would give excellent results.  I don't know how much
>market there is for a camera that can do _only_ black and white, though.
>  
>

(List moms forgive me, but) he is so full of crap I have taken the liberty
of adding him to my Blocked Senders list, never the more to be deluged with
such ramblings.  Only when he is quoted in responses will I be reminded that
such obstinacy still exists.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...] 
==
==Bob Frost writes:
==
==> Only increased resolution ...
==
==The resolution of digital is lower than that of film.
==
==> ... better signal/noise ratio ...
==
==Film has better S/N for equivalent resolution.
==
==> ... better dynamic range ...
==
==Digital has more trouble with dynamic range than film, 
==although this is largely an implementation problem.
==
==> ... less storage space per image ...
==
==The amount of space required per image is identical for film 
==and digital, for equivalent image quality.  Digital usually 
==requires less storage space because the quality of the image is lower.
==
==> ... better color ...
==
==Digital has serious problems with color, although much of 
==this is an implementation problem (the use of mosaic filters 
==instead of true, separate RGB sensors).
==
==> ... exposure correction of raw files ...
==
==The only way to correct exposure is at the time of exposure.
==
==> Because they are human, and they like pushing back the 
==boundaries, be 
==> they mountaineers, divers, astronauts, digital camera designers, or 
==> just B&W fanatics?
==
==Unfortunately, it clouds their judgement.
==
=

I did that months ago.  I can't imagine why folks continue to take his bait.
 
Tom Baker

Seth <seth@...> wrote:

(List moms forgive me, but) he is so full of crap I have taken the liberty
of adding him to my Blocked Senders list, never the more to be deluged with
such ramblings. Only when he is quoted in responses will I be reminded that
such obstinacy still exists.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...] 
==
==Bob Frost writes:
==
==> Only increased resolution ...
==
==The resolution of digital is lower than that of film.
==
==> ... better signal/noise ratio ...
==
==Film has better S/N for equivalent resolution.
==
==> ... better dynamic range ...
==
==Digital has more trouble with dynamic range than film, 
==although this is largely an implementation problem.
==
==> ... less storage space per image ...
==
==The amount of space required per image is identical for film 
==and digital, for equivalent image quality. Digital usually 
==requires less storage space because the quality of the image is lower.
==
==> ... better color ...
==
==Digital has serious problems with color, although much of 
==this is an implementation problem (the use of mosaic filters 
==instead of true, separate RGB sensors).
==
==> ... exposure correction of raw files ...
==
==The only way to correct exposure is at the time of exposure.
==
==> Because they are human, and they like pushing back the 
==boundaries, be 
==> they mountaineers, divers, astronauts, digital camera designers, or 
==> just B&W fanatics?
==
==Unfortunately, it clouds their judgement.
==
=




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links









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

Seth's post reminded me that I could do that--and I did.

Diane

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Baker" <tbaker1328@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy



I did that months ago.  I can't imagine why folks continue to take his bait.

Tom Baker

Seth <seth@...> wrote:

(List moms forgive me, but) he is so full of crap I have taken the liberty
of adding him to my Blocked Senders list, never the more to be deluged with
such ramblings. Only when he is quoted in responses will I be reminded that
such obstinacy still exists.

Seth

Cos from time to time it's fun to poke the troll under the bridge...

> From: Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:28:50 -0800 (PST)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] the contax toast/film thingy
> 
> 
> I did that months ago.  I can't imagine why folks continue to take his bait.
>  
> Tom Baker
>

Tom you guys are starting to make this guy sound just like a guy over in 
the OS2 fourms, knocking the new version put out by eComStation just 
because it was not true blue IBM, though all the people working on it 
had been for years.       Anthony

Tom Baker wrote:

>I did that months ago.  I can't imagine why folks continue to take his bait.
> 
>  
>