Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

35mm film vs digital

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 4:30:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important point.
Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or digital. If we
look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get an
interesting result.

Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax 35mm film
camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some so-so and
some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I scanned
those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting to see
how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.

I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve some/many of
their pictures.

Also, I'm not attacking those film people who use medium and/or large format
film for the splendid output pictures they produce. The information provided by
these formats is outstanding as are many of the pictures. But these formats are
used more by semi-professionals and professional photographers.

The digital realm has opened possibilities for point and shoot camera buffs
that is truly amazing. I suppose that's another reason for the flood of digital
equipment sales over the past months/years.

Happy 2005,

Conrad



Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon

More about : 35mm film digital

Anonymous
December 29, 2004 4:30:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Conrad Weiler wrote:
> The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an
important point.
> Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or
digital. If we
> look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might
get an
> interesting result.

If you look at the P&S market then digital has simply swept through. My
colleagues and friends who probably would click 2-3 rolls a year and
that too on special occasions only now click almost everything and
anything. Digital P&S simply mean a lot more photographs and lot more
memories clicked. And the typical P&S shooter is more interested in
capturing the moment rather than the sharpness, contrast, metering etc.


The only thing is the price. Here, in India, a decent digital P&S still
costs about Rs.10,000 and thats a lot of money for people who are more
likely to buy the Kodak KB10 sort of camera. Then again, sales of the
cheaper 2MP CMOS based taiwanese cameras is also strong indicating that
people are happy with the results. Most just see the results on a PC, a
few print 4x6 and still fewer get them enlarged.

Then there are the phone cameras and thats a different rage altogether.
My guess is a large number of camera manufacturers will go the US
railroad way. They've forgotten that people are more interested in
capturing the moment than the quality of it, so phone cameras just
might make dedicated cameras redundant as the quality of phone cameras
improves more and more.

- Siddhartha
December 29, 2004 4:30:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Conrad Weiler" <weil91@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041229083008.15969.00002463@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Hi,
>
> The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important
point.
> Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or digital.
If we
> look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get an
> interesting result.
>
> Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax 35mm
film
> camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some so-so
and
> some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I scanned
> those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting to
see
> how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
> Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.
>
> I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
> adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve
some/many of
> their pictures.
>
Actually modern labs will do an amazing amount of correction. But there is a
limit not in the lab equipment to correct these errors. Part of it is
operator skill, an experienced technician will "eyeball" the neg and
manually override the machine settings. A timely example is a child on
Santa's lap, the maching sees lots of red, so it corrects leaving a cyan
faced child. An good tech will see this and compensate, machines can't
determine what the scene is a person can. However in the days of "how cheap"
can this be many labs will keep the machines on full auto and hire a minimum
wage button pusher, as operating costs will be kept low.

At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button pusher, or
their employers.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 4:30:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:

> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JaednboYafooUE_cRVn-2w@wavecable.com...
>>
>> The downside, of course, is the enormous flood of really terrible
>> photography. And some people just don't seem to improve; all they do is
> take
>> lots of bad pictures, myself being a notorious case in point. :-)
>>
>
> The downside to digital is the time it takes to tweak all the images.

The upside to digital is that it takes far less time to adjust the
images than it did with film photography.

> When I have one or two really important ones, I enjoy working on them, but
> film still offers advantages when shooting lots of photos, in that the lab
> does much of the post-shoot work.
>
> Of course, it requires that we use good labs, not those generic types that
> hire minimum-wage employees, if we are to expect decent results.

If you want to hire somebody to print for you, you can do that in
digital, too.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 4:30:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:

> I'm looking for another online lab that does not interfere with my edited
> files.

Whitehouse Custom Color, <http://www.whcc.com&gt;.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 4:30:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> If you look at the P&S market then digital has simply swept through. My
> colleagues and friends who probably would click 2-3 rolls a year and
> that too on special occasions only now click almost everything and
> anything. Digital P&S simply mean a lot more photographs and lot more
> memories clicked. And the typical P&S shooter is more interested in
> capturing the moment rather than the sharpness, contrast, metering etc.

I walk through Times Square every morning - I wonder how many times a year
I'm captured in a photo by someone (not including the omnipresent security
cameras).
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 6:01:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You have touched the nail right on the head.

"At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button pusher,
or
their employers"
I looking to purchase a new scanner. Can I ask what brand and type of
scanner you are using?

"Darrell" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
news:D YGdncgK7o-9IE_cRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
>
> "Conrad Weiler" <weil91@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041229083008.15969.00002463@mb-m02.aol.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important
> point.
> > Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or
digital.
> If we
> > look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get
an
> > interesting result.
> >
> > Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax
35mm
> film
> > camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some
so-so
> and
> > some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I
scanned
> > those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting
to
> see
> > how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
> > Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.
> >
> > I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
> > adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve
> some/many of
> > their pictures.
> >
> Actually modern labs will do an amazing amount of correction. But there is
a
> limit not in the lab equipment to correct these errors. Part of it is
> operator skill, an experienced technician will "eyeball" the neg and
> manually override the machine settings. A timely example is a child on
> Santa's lap, the maching sees lots of red, so it corrects leaving a cyan
> faced child. An good tech will see this and compensate, machines can't
> determine what the scene is a person can. However in the days of "how
cheap"
> can this be many labs will keep the machines on full auto and hire a
minimum
> wage button pusher, as operating costs will be kept low.
>
> At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button pusher,
or
> their employers.
>
>
>
>
December 29, 2004 6:50:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JaednboYafooUE_cRVn-2w@wavecable.com...
>
> The downside, of course, is the enormous flood of really terrible
> photography. And some people just don't seem to improve; all they do is
take
> lots of bad pictures, myself being a notorious case in point. :-)
>

The downside to digital is the time it takes to tweak all the images.

When I have one or two really important ones, I enjoy working on them, but
film still offers advantages when shooting lots of photos, in that the lab
does much of the post-shoot work.

Of course, it requires that we use good labs, not those generic types that
hire minimum-wage employees, if we are to expect decent results.

I just hate having to edit 50 or more shots at a time. I'd rather be doing
something else, instead of going cross-eyed watching a monitor. Just one of
my personal peeves.

For me, digital will not replace film, it will add to my current
capabilities.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 6:58:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to tinker with
the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make prints at all
they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that paradigm
for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That is the
market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be respected.

How many people want to fix their own cars?

However the process is not automatic, at either a commercial film lab or
home digital darkroom. That is why there is so much disappointment when
unsophisticated consumers are misled by all the advertising, buy digital
cameras and printers, then post on this newsgroup how they get better 4x6
prints at Walmart than they can make at home.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 6:58:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uuAAd.4432$yV1.1451@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to tinker
with
> the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make prints at
all
> they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that paradigm
> for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That is the
> market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be respected.


That is true. The Kodak EasyShare cameras I gave away this Christmas were
very well received. The only thing recipients new to digital photography
wanted to know was where they could get their pictures printed. I told them
Costco or WalMart and they were happy.
December 29, 2004 7:29:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l76dnTjB7-kpS0_cRVn-1A@wavecable.com...
>
> "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:uuAAd.4432$yV1.1451@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to tinker
> with
> > the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make prints at
> all
> > they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that
paradigm
> > for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That is the
> > market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be respected.
>
>
> That is true. The Kodak EasyShare cameras I gave away this Christmas were
> very well received. The only thing recipients new to digital photography
> wanted to know was where they could get their pictures printed. I told
them
> Costco or WalMart and they were happy.
>
>

Kodak seems to have automated the printing process, via their PerfectTouch
process. The algorithms are now so sophisticated that they can even
identify and remove red-eye. They also use this on prints made by their
online OFOTO subsidiary.

Frankly, this may give better overall results than having to rely upon the
skill of an underpaid technician operating a high-volume printer. I still
remember that moron at Sam's Club that printed my photos with tree leaves
and grass coming up Kelly Green.

I'm looking for another online lab that does not interfere with my edited
files. PerfectTouch may be great for consumers that don't edit, but it
completely defeats the purpose of editing for those of us that do our own
and do not require being second-guessed.

Anyone know of any online labs that print on real photo paper (not inkjet or
dye sub) and that do not "improve" the customer's file?
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 7:29:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
> Kodak seems to have automated the printing process, via their PerfectTouch
> process. The algorithms are now so sophisticated that they can even
> identify and remove red-eye. They also use this on prints made by their
> online OFOTO subsidiary.
>
> Frankly, this may give better overall results than having to rely upon the
> skill of an underpaid technician operating a high-volume printer.

They will probably build such processing into minilabs soon, if they
haven't already.

> Anyone know of any online labs that print on real photo paper (not inkjet or
> dye sub) and that do not "improve" the customer's file?

Yes, any decent digital pro lab.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 7:49:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:

> The downside to digital is the time it takes to tweak all the images.
>
> When I have one or two really important ones, I enjoy working on them, but
> film still offers advantages when shooting lots of photos, in that the lab
> does much of the post-shoot work.
>
> Of course, it requires that we use good labs, not those generic types that
> hire minimum-wage employees, if we are to expect decent results.
>
> I just hate having to edit 50 or more shots at a time. I'd rather be doing
> something else, instead of going cross-eyed watching a monitor. Just one of
> my personal peeves.

Then spend a bit more time setting up your shots.
>
> For me, digital will not replace film, it will add to my current
> capabilities.
>
That's an excellent approach. I plan to go back to some film at some point.

--
John McWiliams
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 11:48:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:n9ednY9otrghJk_cRVn-rQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> If you look at the P&S market then digital has simply swept through. My
>> colleagues and friends who probably would click 2-3 rolls a year and
>> that too on special occasions only now click almost everything and
>> anything. Digital P&S simply mean a lot more photographs and lot more
>> memories clicked. And the typical P&S shooter is more interested in
>> capturing the moment rather than the sharpness, contrast, metering etc.
>
> I walk through Times Square every morning - I wonder how many times a year
> I'm captured in a photo by someone (not including the omnipresent security
> cameras).

Immortalised, gotta be happy with that.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 2:47:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

weil91@aol.com (Conrad Weiler) wrote in
news:20041229083008.15969.00002463@mb-m02.aol.com:

> I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
> adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve
> some/many of their pictures.

If they were willing to spend the hundreds of dollars on buying photoshop,
they're likely not the kind of people who would use only cheap p&s's.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 2:47:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> writes:
> If they were willing to spend the hundreds of dollars on buying photoshop,
> they're likely not the kind of people who would use only cheap p&s's.

I got a copy of Photoshop LE included with my scanner. I think some
digicams come with it too.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:09:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in
news:7xsm5oodhg.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com:

> Jon Pike <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> writes:
>> If they were willing to spend the hundreds of dollars on buying
>> photoshop, they're likely not the kind of people who would use only
>> cheap p&s's.
>
> I got a copy of Photoshop LE included with my scanner. I think some
> digicams come with it too.
>

but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p 

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:09:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> writes:
> > I got a copy of Photoshop LE included with my scanner. I think some
> > digicams come with it too.
>
> but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p 

Back in the day, learning photography included learning how to make
prints in a darkroom. Dodging, burning, adjusting contrast, all that.
Now it's the same thing but with computers. It's still all about
turning the image you've previsualized into a picture that others can
see.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:09:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:09:57 GMT, Jon Pike
<Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:

>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in
>news:7xsm5oodhg.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com:
>
>> Jon Pike <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> writes:
>>> If they were willing to spend the hundreds of dollars on buying
>>> photoshop, they're likely not the kind of people who would use only
>>> cheap p&s's.
>>
>> I got a copy of Photoshop LE included with my scanner. I think some
>> digicams come with it too.
>>
>
>but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p 

As a gross example, you can't come even close to doing this with just
the camera:
http://www.asciigroup.org/gallery/my-best-pics/pima_4

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 8:59:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Conrad wrote:
>The digital realm has opened possibilities >for point and shoot camera buffs
>that is truly amazing. I suppose that's >another reason for the flood of
>digital equipment sales over the past >months/years.

That - and the fact that you can take dozens of photos, use a couple, and
discard the rest easily and cheaply with a digicam.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<B>Dissident news - plus immigration, gun rights, weather, Internet Gun Show
<I><A HREF="http://www.alamanceind.com">ALAMANCE INDEPENDENT:
official newspaper of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy</A></b></i>
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 10:31:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <m2fz1p0x1e.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
>
>> I'm looking for another online lab that does not interfere with my edited
>> files.
>
>Whitehouse Custom Color, <http://www.whcc.com&gt;.

Hey, cool -- only, they look like they're really geared toward people
who do high volumes of prints (and aren't accepting new customers
right now, anyway).

For lighter-volume printers, it looks like Shutterfly has an option
where you can tell them not to muck with your color by disabling
"VividPics(R)": http://www.shutterfly.com/help/effects.jsp

I have no idea how well that works, though.

--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 4:08:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<< If they were willing to spend the hundreds of dollars on buying photoshop,
> they're likely not the kind of people who would use only cheap p&s's. >>

Point well taken except that Photoshop Elements can do all of the tweaks I
mentioned (Contrast, Saturation, UnsharpMask) except Curves -- in which case
Levels may be substituted. PSE 3 lists for ~$90 but usually can be obtained for
less.

Thanks for all the excellent comments. They are appreciated.

Best,

Conrad


Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 4:54:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Kozlowski <mlk@klio.org> writes:

> In article <m2fz1p0x1e.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
>>
>>> I'm looking for another online lab that does not interfere with my edited
>>> files.
>>
>>Whitehouse Custom Color, <http://www.whcc.com&gt;.
>
> Hey, cool -- only, they look like they're really geared toward people
> who do high volumes of prints (and aren't accepting new customers
> right now, anyway).

I managed to get a new-client package out of them, and just sent in my
first set of test pics, so we'll see if they actually print them and
set up an account for me. But yeah, I ended up paying 4 times as much
elsewhere to get a batch of family pictures out for Christmas for a
client because they weren't taking new clients that fast, at least.

> For lighter-volume printers, it looks like Shutterfly has an option
> where you can tell them not to muck with your color by disabling
> "VividPics(R)": http://www.shutterfly.com/help/effects.jsp
>
> I have no idea how well that works, though.

If they bother to do it, it really *ought* to work perfectly; it's not
like it's hard!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 5:05:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> If they bother to do it, it really *ought* to work
> perfectly; it's not like it's hard!

My last trip to Hawaii, I made friends with the
owner of a local lab, and he showed me his
printers and machines. We talked about paper,
prices, all the wedding shots he does, how much
people still use film, where to buy Velvia --
all that stuff. He told me I could bring in a CF
card with my shots the way I wanted them,
and I could get 11x17s with no problem.
That's how our conversation got started.
So I did that, and nothing looked right. All
the prints were different than what I thought
they should be in terms of brightness and
saturation. When I commented, he said,
"Oh, we run auto-levels on everything
before we print it." Arggh!
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 11:30:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <abWdnblSZZIwwkncRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, dl682@concrete.not
says...
> When I commented, he said,
> "Oh, we run auto-levels on everything
> before we print it." Arggh!

The bane of perfectionists everywhere... running auto levels on your
corrected images. Gah!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 8:40:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote in
news:9bk7t0d4skmeemkshneroml30vra7d06h4@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:09:57 GMT, Jon Pike
> <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in
>>news:7xsm5oodhg.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com:
>>
>>> Jon Pike <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> writes:
>>>> If they were willing to spend the hundreds of dollars on buying
>>>> photoshop, they're likely not the kind of people who would use only
>>>> cheap p&s's.
>>>
>>> I got a copy of Photoshop LE included with my scanner. I think some
>>> digicams come with it too.
>>>
>>
>>but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p 
>
> As a gross example, you can't come even close to doing this with just
> the camera:
> http://www.asciigroup.org/gallery/my-best-pics/pima_4

Yep. kinda the point.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 12:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <20041229083008.15969.00002463@mb-m02.aol.com>, weil91@aol.com
says...
> Hi,
>
> The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important point.
> Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or digital. If we
> look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get an
> interesting result.
>
> Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax 35mm film
> camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some so-so and
> some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I scanned
> those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting to see
> how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
> Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.
>
> I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
> adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve some/many of
> their pictures.
>
> Also, I'm not attacking those film people who use medium and/or large format
> film for the splendid output pictures they produce. The information provided by
> these formats is outstanding as are many of the pictures. But these formats are
> used more by semi-professionals and professional photographers.
>
> The digital realm has opened possibilities for point and shoot camera buffs
> that is truly amazing. I suppose that's another reason for the flood of digital
> equipment sales over the past months/years.

I have a series of tips on my web site about producing excellent inkjet
prints of your images. Most are aimed at film photographers, but the group
on how to use Photoshop should be of general interest.
There is even one specifically aimed at showing the comparison between
machine-made prints and what you can do yourself.
Just follow the tips link on my home page...

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:13:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>>but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p 
>>

Postprocessing has always been a major part of photo-GRAPHY. It use to
be in the darkroom and now it's in Photoshop, either way, there's a
skill to be learned.


If your not doing post then you're either a photojournalist or just
taking snapshots .

Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 5:04:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank Vuotto commented courteously ...

> Postprocessing has always been a major part of
> photo-GRAPHY. It use to be in the darkroom and now it's
in
> Photoshop, either way, there's a skill to be learned.
>
> If your not doing post then you're either a
photojournalist
> or just taking snapshots .

Frank, I've just been lurking on this thread, but your
analogy to film struck a chord with me and I thought I'd
ring in...

While I have a 5MP camera (Nikon 5700), I only shoot at
1600 x 1200 because it fits my needs of shooting car
pictures with reasonable size for display. I don't need
super MP because I don't want to do huge prints, and the
smaller image size speeds up my processing on the PC.

Back to the issue here... I use Paint Shop Pro 9 (I
upgraded to 9 primarily to get their Digital Camera Noise
Reduction filter), but the software isn't important, it's
the concept you're explaining that I highly agree with.

I have yet to see *any* picture taken by *anyone* either
film or digital that can't be "improved" from its as-taken
state. As you say, lots of skill was necessary to do this
work during film development then later in the darkroom
printing. Now its in a photo editor.

For my part, I spend anywhere from a couple of minutes to
a half-hour or more on *every* picture I take in PSP. I
start with cropping down to 1280 x 960 (my working size),
work on noise, sharpness, color, saturation, brightness,
defect elimination, etc. etc. What is truly magic about
digital is how easy that is compared to film, not to
mention that there is *always* detail I can pull out that
just isn't there with film (except when highlights blow
out, of course).

There's some sort of bullshit mystique by the people who
sell cameras and photo editing software that two things
are true: more mega pixels means higher quality pictures,
and anyone can learn to digital photo edit in 10 minutes.

I've long held the conviction that it is *much* better to
know how to use your camera and editing software well,
even if both are mediocre, than it is to be a mediocre
photographer with no computer skills, but a $10K DSLR and
$750 for PS CS.

Just my views, your mileage may vary...

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

Delete the reverse SPAM to reply by E-mail
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:38:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
>
> I've long held the conviction that it is *much* better to
> know how to use your camera and editing software well,
> even if both are mediocre, than it is to be a mediocre
> photographer with no computer skills, but a $10K DSLR and
> $750 for PS CS.
>
> Just my views, your mileage may vary...
>


My conclusions, exactly. But no editor can correct all the problems
caused by a really BAD photographer... Unfortunately.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 8:57:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter commented courteously ...

> All Things Mopar wrote:
>>
>> I've long held the conviction that it is *much* better
to
>> know how to use your camera and editing software well,
>> even if both are mediocre, than it is to be a mediocre
>> photographer with no computer skills, but a $10K DSLR
and
>> $750 for PS CS.
>>
>> Just my views, your mileage may vary...

> My conclusions, exactly. But no editor can correct all
the
> problems caused by a really BAD photographer...
> Unfortunately.

Ron, I used the wrong semantics when I said know how to
use the camera. I meant learn how to take pictures other
than snapshots but don't blame the camera if you take poor
pictures.

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:39:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
> Ron Hunter commented courteously ...
>
>
>>All Things Mopar wrote:
>>
>>>I've long held the conviction that it is *much* better
>
> to
>
>>>know how to use your camera and editing software well,
>>>even if both are mediocre, than it is to be a mediocre
>>>photographer with no computer skills, but a $10K DSLR
>
> and
>
>>>$750 for PS CS.
>>>
>>>Just my views, your mileage may vary...
>
>
>
>>My conclusions, exactly. But no editor can correct all
>
> the
>
>>problems caused by a really BAD photographer...
>>Unfortunately.
>
>
> Ron, I used the wrong semantics when I said know how to
> use the camera. I meant learn how to take pictures other
> than snapshots but don't blame the camera if you take poor
> pictures.
>
Well, VERY few of my bad pictures were the camera's fault. An exception
being a really nice picture of a parking lot pavement, minus the
tumbleweed that moved on while I waited on shutter lag. My latest
camera doesn't seem to suffer much from this problem. Technology
marches on.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 7:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank Vuotto <deepthrob@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:48tdt0hcal2gvqdrcjojq2kfe8is5al4fs@4ax.com:

>
>
>>>>but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p 
>>>
>
> Postprocessing has always been a major part of photo-GRAPHY. It use to
> be in the darkroom and now it's in Photoshop, either way, there's a
> skill to be learned.
>
>
> If your not doing post then you're either a photojournalist or just
> taking snapshots .

the type of post-processing taking place in most photoshop workshops is not
very darkroom-related anymore.


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 7:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D25D80063A4LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
> Frank Vuotto <deepthrob@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:48tdt0hcal2gvqdrcjojq2kfe8is5al4fs@4ax.com:
>
>>
>>
>>>>>but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p 
>>>>
>>
>> Postprocessing has always been a major part of photo-GRAPHY. It use to
>> be in the darkroom and now it's in Photoshop, either way, there's a
>> skill to be learned.
>>
>>
>> If your not doing post then you're either a photojournalist or just
>> taking snapshots .
>
> the type of post-processing taking place in most photoshop workshops is
> not
> very darkroom-related anymore.
>
>
> --
> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

I don't know which is worse, a MAC snob, a Linux snot or a Film snob. All
three think that if you are not doing it THEIR way, you're just not doing
it.

Don
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 10:59:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> writes:

> Frank Vuotto <deepthrob@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:48tdt0hcal2gvqdrcjojq2kfe8is5al4fs@4ax.com:
>
>>
>>
>>>>>but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p 
>>>>
>>
>> Postprocessing has always been a major part of photo-GRAPHY. It use to
>> be in the darkroom and now it's in Photoshop, either way, there's a
>> skill to be learned.
>>
>>
>> If your not doing post then you're either a photojournalist or just
>> taking snapshots .
>
> the type of post-processing taking place in most photoshop workshops is not
> very darkroom-related anymore.

Well, "most photoshop workshops" is something I can't comment on; not
having sat through them to see what they actually teach.

But the thread isn't about *most* photoshop workshops; it's about the
place of post-processing in photography. Which is entirely, of
course, a matter of opinion, and hence a matter we can debate
endlessly.

My own work, and what I see in friends' work, is *mostly* entirely
darkroom-like stuff; just carried on in more detail and at a much
higher level of sophistication. And much more quickly. I'll
routinely use 3 or more curves adjustment layers with layer masks --
but that's just dodging and burning and contrast masking done in more
detail than most people bothered to in darkrooms (perhaps more detail
than was feasible, even). I'll sometimes adjust keystoning -- but you
could do that to a limited extent by tilting the easel or enlarger
stage, subject to depth-of-field issues in the enlarger. Or, of
course, by using a shift in the original camera.

I do retouching to faces that's fairly conservative by film-based
portrait standards. But I never got the nack of doing it on film very
well (in fact I never dared try on the *film*; I was merely kinda
clumsy at it on prints), whereas I'm tolerably decent in Photoshop.

I *do* "extend" blank walls sometimes (say when a cropping and
rotation leaves me a small empty corner), which was something *I*
couldn't do very well in the darkroom. I've been known to remove an
electrical outlet from the middle of a wall if it was distracting,
which, unless the wall as plain black or white, was pretty hard in the
darkroom. For some purposes -- like architectural documentation --
some of these are even inappropriate practices.

I'm perfectly willing to consider head transplants or eye transplants
-- to get *everybody* looking good and with their eyes open in a group
photo, say, I might combine bits from a couple of takes of that
group. You actually *could* do this in the darkroom -- if you were
doing dye-transfer printing, at least. It takes multiple sets of
transfers, and might take a couple of *days* to make the first print.
But it's a "valid darkroom technique" in the sense that some people
actually did do it in the darkroom. (Mostly that sort of use of dye
transfer was, as far as I know, made for advertising studio photos,
not actually for portrait jobs by ordinary photographers.)

Seems to me, though, that the discussion of what was and wasn't done
in film, while interesting, isn't definitive. Something is neither
automatically right, because people did it in wet darkroom commonly,
nor automatically wrong because they didn't. I'm interested in what
was possible in the darkroom, especially the things that most
photographers didn't know about or at least didn't do very often, but
that doesn't define my idea of right and wrong!

All these post-processing things are now much *easier*; and we have to
face real decisions about whether they're suitable for our personal
and professional work in cases where, before, the questions were only
theoretical since we couldn't afford the time (or lab fees) to
actually do them in most cases.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
January 3, 2005 12:29:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:m2zmzrw9w5.fsf@gw.dd-b.net:

> I'm interested in what
> was possible in the darkroom, especially the things that most
> photographers didn't know about or at least didn't do very often

It's hard to conceive of things that are not "possible" in the darkroom,
given enough time. Something that I found hard in the darkroom was to match
different speed films. Like to cut in a 400 speed subject to a 100 speed
background.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 1:05:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

according to cnet.com shutterfly.com lets you print your photos without
corrections. i havent used them but they are supposed to be very good.


Jeremy wrote:
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> news:l76dnTjB7-kpS0_cRVn-1A@wavecable.com...
> >
> > "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:uuAAd.4432$yV1.1451@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to
tinker
> > with
> > > the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make
prints at
> > all
> > > they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that
> paradigm
> > > for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That
is the
> > > market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be
respected.
> >
> >
> > That is true. The Kodak EasyShare cameras I gave away this
Christmas were
> > very well received. The only thing recipients new to digital
photography
> > wanted to know was where they could get their pictures printed. I
told
> them
> > Costco or WalMart and they were happy.
> >
> >
>
> Kodak seems to have automated the printing process, via their
PerfectTouch
> process. The algorithms are now so sophisticated that they can even
> identify and remove red-eye. They also use this on prints made by
their
> online OFOTO subsidiary.
>
> Frankly, this may give better overall results than having to rely
upon the
> skill of an underpaid technician operating a high-volume printer. I
still
> remember that moron at Sam's Club that printed my photos with tree
leaves
> and grass coming up Kelly Green.
>
> I'm looking for another online lab that does not interfere with my
edited
> files. PerfectTouch may be great for consumers that don't edit, but
it
> completely defeats the purpose of editing for those of us that do our
own
> and do not require being second-guessed.
>
> Anyone know of any online labs that print on real photo paper (not
inkjet or
> dye sub) and that do not "improve" the customer's file?
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 3:46:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob <usenetMAPS@2fiddles.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:m2zmzrw9w5.fsf@gw.dd-b.net:
>
>> I'm interested in what
>> was possible in the darkroom, especially the things that most
>> photographers didn't know about or at least didn't do very often
>
> It's hard to conceive of things that are not "possible" in the darkroom,
> given enough time. Something that I found hard in the darkroom was to match
> different speed films. Like to cut in a 400 speed subject to a 100 speed
> background.

Yeah, I can imagine that would be hard. Never tried it myself.

"Possible" is certainly a word with a very very broad meaning. There
are lots and lot of things that I knew were possible when I was doing
darkroom printing, that I never tried. I'm sure there are lots and
lots of things I never dreamed were possible which were, too.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 6:06:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:m2zmzrw9w5.fsf@gw.dd-b.net:
>
>
>>I'm interested in what
>>was possible in the darkroom, especially the things that most
>>photographers didn't know about or at least didn't do very often
>
>
> It's hard to conceive of things that are not "possible" in the darkroom,
> given enough time. Something that I found hard in the darkroom was to match
> different speed films. Like to cut in a 400 speed subject to a 100 speed
> background.
>
> Bob
>
WEll, I don't know how it would be done in the darkroom, but I suspect
it would be a LOT easier to transfer open eyes in one photo to cover
closed eyes in another in Photoshop than in a darkroom. Much faster too.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:59:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> bob wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:m2zmzrw9w5.fsf@gw.dd-b.net:
>>
>>>I'm interested in what
>>>was possible in the darkroom, especially the things that most
>>>photographers didn't know about or at least didn't do very often
>> It's hard to conceive of things that are not "possible" in the
>> darkroom, given enough time. Something that I found hard in the
>> darkroom was to match different speed films. Like to cut in a 400
>> speed subject to a 100 speed background.
>> Bob

> WEll, I don't know how it would be done in the darkroom, but I suspect
> it would be a LOT easier to transfer open eyes in one photo to cover
> closed eyes in another in Photoshop than in a darkroom. Much faster
> too.

Faster and easier, *yes*, absolutely! And in many ways that's a more
important difference than possible vs. impossible.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
January 5, 2005 1:01:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:m2r7l2t66p.fsf@gw.dd-b.net:

>> WEll, I don't know how it would be done in the darkroom, but I suspect
>> it would be a LOT easier to transfer open eyes in one photo to cover
>> closed eyes in another in Photoshop than in a darkroom. Much faster
>> too.
>
> Faster and easier, *yes*, absolutely! And in many ways that's a more
> important difference than possible vs. impossible.
>

Yeah. I read a book on darkroom technique once that has all sorts of really
complicated procedures involving pin-registration and masks.

One of the most intriguing bits covered how to make color prints by making
separation negatives (with three filters) and then making a layered
emulsion with encapsulated pigments. Color with the permanance of B&W.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
!