| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Need Your Advice....Issues faceing Digital Photographers
Jana C, Photographer
 |
Ottawa | ON | Canada | Posted: 6:25 AM on 09.05.03 |
->> I'm going to be doing a presentation (I'm a guest presenter) at a Digital Imaging course. The topic I'm presenting on is: "Issues digital photographers face compared to film photography". This is not a pros and cons discussion, but rather what issues that are specific to digital photography do pro shooters face (that they may not/would not if they were using film). For example, one issue could be shooting in low light conditions using 1600, 3200 ISO and the noise. Another issue would be bulb exposures and the increased noise etc etc.
I need your advice as to what else would you see as some other issues we face. I have about 3 weeks to preapre a presentation so I thought I'd start my research here.
Thanks in advance. |
|
Micheal Hall, Photographer
|
Sacramento | CA | USA | Posted: 6:32 AM on 09.05.03 |
->> Ummm ... Off the top of my head:
Public view of Integrity of Images
Color Management - Camera, Monitor, Printer profiling.
Proper environment for accurate color management.
Post Production - Color Balance, Exposure, etc. as opposed to a lab doing it.
Shooting Format - RAW or JPG?
Output (longevity of inkjet or dyesub prints - RA4 prints?)
Archiving - CDs, DVDs
Image organization - Image Databases, etc.
Cropping factors that come with smaller sensors.
Moire on high frequency items - clothing patterns, etc.
Lower dynamic range - easier to blow highlights.
Anyway, just some thoughts ...
~Micheal |
|
Dan Crawley, Photographer
|
Cumberland | RI | USA | Posted: 7:49 AM on 09.05.03 |
->> Two words........"white balance".
-Dan |
|
John Marshall Mantel, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:55 AM on 09.05.03 |
| ->> Chimping: is it an important tool that we are lucky to have or a dangerous crutch that erodes our instinctual confidence in how to make the picture ? |
|
Phil Wever, Photographer
|
Aurora | IL | USA | Posted: 9:49 AM on 09.05.03 |
->> "but rather what issues that are specific to digital photography do pro shooters face (that they may not/would not if they were using film)."
I think that one concern is that there is a lack of a "standard"
A 35mm film camera with a 50mm lens, was pretty much the same - i.e. angle of view, amount of data caputred, and so on.. One issue confronting digital photographers is file size and how to capture that file (RAW, JPG, TIFF) Digital chips are smaller than film, not all digital chips are created equal.
Michael covers a lot in his post - all good.
Another issue is exposure, photographers that were using primarily negative film have been able to glean a useable image out of a crap neg. Digital is closer to Trans. so the shooters shooting trans for a living have been making a much smoother entry into digital..
Phil |
|
Colin Corneau, Photographer
|
Brandon | MB | Canada | Posted: 9:58 AM on 09.05.03 |
->> Archiving is key, I think. So many people still think a CD will last as long as properly stored negs...it's more like 5 or 10 years. Upgrading to new media (DVD's and whatever comes next) is going to be an ongoing concern, at least if we still want to be in possession of our own work in the future!
Colour management is important too, with digital it's become more of our concern, whereas in the "good old days" of film it was someone else's problem, for the most part. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Amherst | MA | USA | Posted: 11:47 AM on 09.05.03 |
->> Archiving and cataloging.
People (even a women who lives under my roof, and mothered my child) think that adding dates and keywords in to the IPTC header takes to long. These same people get frustrated when they cannot find a photo on a CD, and look in vain for hours (or two days, as was a recent case).
Remind them that 10 minutes adding dates and keywords can save them hours or days later when searching for a photo.
A news photographer I knew only adds IPTC info to his edited photos. He burns the raw images, but leaves all the IPTC header info blank. Considering in 2 minutes Photo Mechanic can batch caption everything I am at a loss for why he does not add the IPTC info, other than he says "it takes to long."
So a major concern is finding your photos later. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Paris | TX | USA | Posted: 12:07 PM on 09.05.03 |
->> Here's a third from Corneau's and Frischling's archiving point. I shoot way more digitally than I ever did on film, and, considering that for most of us hard-drive space is not as plentiful as desk drawer/filing cabinet space, digital shooters need to invest time into carefully archiving their images.
- g - |
|
Ben Chen, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 09.05.03 |
| ->> Post production digital workflow! Most photographers avoid digital because they are not familiar with the digital workflow. Starts from downloading the images to PS to print and finally archive. |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 1:02 PM on 09.05.03 |
| ->> I'd probably included the added risk of copyright infringement due to the ease of image duplication. |
|
Thad Parsons, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 2:13 PM on 09.05.03 |
->> Another slightly different one is the business side of digital...
The myth that digital is 'free'!
For film, it is easy to see where your per assignment costs is/was (film, chemicals, and other PHYSICAL materials) but with digital, it is harder to see that because of the lack of materials being used on the job. (Aka for materials, i am talking film/chem/paper, as opposed to equipment) |
|
Pat Vasquez-Cunningham, Photographer
|
Albuquerque | NM | USA | Posted: 2:32 PM on 09.05.03 |
| ->> Since moving to a desert, keeping dust off ccd's is a constant battle for me. Archival permanence of stored images, and access to files originally stored using an archaic OS system many years prior is a major concern of mine. Negatives, can always (if they don't fade) be scanned or enlarged, but I'm not so sure about accessing my dit archive from today - 10, 15, 20 years down the road. Also, copyright infringement of dit images is of great concern to me. |
|
Hassel Weems, Photographer
|
Locust Grove | GA | USA | Posted: 2:33 PM on 09.05.03 |
->> Similar to what Thad wrote...
With digital photography, almost all costs are paid up front, as opposed to over time as the need arises. With film, I had 2 F100s and purchased film and processing as work warranted. With digital, I have to pay for everything up front, whether I have the work right now or not. I purchased my cameras used, but I could have purchased 6-7 F100s for the money I have in DSLRs, have over $1K tied up in CF cards, and hard drives have become an impulse purchase. Then, after all of this, some retail clients think "digital is cheaper."
My other issue is what to do with the time I save by not having to scan film. Now that is an issue I can handle. |
|
Jason Orth, Photographer
|
Raymond | NE | USA | Posted: 11:10 AM on 09.06.03 |
->> I'd have to echo Hassel and Thad's points.
Also along the lines of John Marshall Mantel (and this is a question I've been asking myself - so forgive me if I spin this thread off-topic): From what I've read, I think it's fair to assume that digital shooters are taking a lot more pictures than they did with film.
Is this degrading or enhancing the overall quality of the work? Does the digital photographer try more creative ideas that they wouldn't have wasted film on before, or are they just "shotgunning" and hoping for the best...maybe a fix in Photoshop or leaning on the latitude of a RAW file? I think that those with the talent are in the former, but what about those coming in to the profession and what habits are they learning? Just curious. |
|
Francis Specker, Photographer
|
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 12:19 PM on 09.06.03 |
->> Another issue is the constant software/hardware upgrades and its related learning curve. New cameras, computers, operating software, image software releases, everything changes every six months and you have to be on top of everything including non-photo related stuff like worms and viruses.
I have gone through 4 different Canon digital cameras, 5 computers, countless operating system changes, 6 major changes of Photoshop, all withing the last five years. That adds up to a lot of hours used to educating myself.
Digital photography also takes you into areas sometimes your weren't anticipating like web page development, wireless networks, pre-press production, servers, and Unix.
Film was a lot simpler. But because of digital it frees you up to work anywhere in the world and you become in essence your own wire service, marketing your work from New York to Honk Kong. |
|
DJ Werner, Photographer
|
Beaufort | NC | USA | Posted: 12:10 PM on 09.10.03 |
->> "But because of digital it frees you up to work anywhere in the world and you become in essence your own wire service, marketing your work from New York to Honk Kong."
Francis-
very good point- can you expand on how to do this?
become your own wire service? etc how do you do it what programs or web sites can help with this?
----
yep I do think we shoot more[digitally] and for me some of this comes from shooting the nc 2000- which had no
montior to chimp on - and due to strange things that would show up-I would overshoot to compansate for the wierd things...mostly digital artifacting and that magenta cast that would magically appear.
I think-many of us who learned on film and the shoot for peak of action- still work that way- most of the time- it is a rhythem or timing we work by- not firing off 8 fps...but I don't want to speak for all old timers---
I have a love hate with digital-- I love the speed and quick turnaround time--and hate the post production time- love the control of a darkroom so to speak- over my work- but hate being stuck behind a computer so much-
love shooting chromes and sending off the film-
but then it's lable and caption- time-
it really is a tradeoff- what you gain on ther front end you lose on the backend---
it is all relative and how one looks at things-
I love photoshop, but hate being behind the computer all so much....
I think so much of it is our own personal perception of the changes....those from the old school may view the progress differenly than the 20 year old who only knows digital..and it is quite natural to him/her.
interesting thread... |
|
DJ Werner, Photographer
|
Beaufort | NC | USA | Posted: 12:20 PM on 09.10.03 |
->> from a health standpoint - I know I feel differntly after a day of shooting digital than film- I suspect it is due to the larger camera size and weight-
this may not be noitced much by the guys- but for us girls - I suspect it is an issue- I have small hands- and can feel the joints etc hurt...also shoulder pain- and of course all the things related to computer work- eye strain- shoulder strain-
even using a monopod- doesn't seem to help -
could just be I am over the hill and a part of natural aging---
I know chemicals and fixer etc was an issue of concern many years ago-
now it's repetitve motion...carpel tunnel etc...
and oh yeah I have a much more in the frustration department-....like when the camera refused to write to the card- or just freezes up and won't turn on- and battery issues plauge us all....
so much more stuff to worry about,and send off for repair....digitasls don't seem to have the ruggedness- of film bodies...
a camera on a monopd is nothing more than a computer on a stick-
and comes with all the inherent problems of a computer...
sometimes I feel more like a computer tech than an artist... |
|
Chris Jennings, Photographer, Assistant
|
Sherman | TX | USA | Posted: 1:47 PM on 09.10.03 |
->> "a camera on a monopd is nothing more than a computer on a stick-"
I guess that pretty much sums it all up!! |
|
DJ Werner, Photographer
|
Beaufort | NC | USA | Posted: 3:56 PM on 09.10.03 |
->> oooops
a "Digital" camera on a monopod.........
when all sytems are go it's great!
but more often than not- my D1 is a paperweight...
we use to call the nc 2000 a brick
I'm out in the field and it goes down and I'm dead in the water... my friends call em boat anchors...
whats a good nickname for a D1 that spends more time on the repair bench at nikon then in my camera bag?
ahhh the frustration level... I can feel it kicking in already.... :)
yet I can go home and pull out a 20 year old FTB or FG
pop in a roll of film and be on my merry way...
film bodies just didn't let me down the way these new ones do...
but really I feel like we are comparing apples to oranges....each has it good points.. and bad... |
|
Hassel Weems, Photographer
|
Locust Grove (Atanta) | GA | USA | Posted: 3:59 PM on 09.10.03 |
->> DJ, I purchased my first D1X from a female wedding photographer who changed to Fuji S2s because the D1X was too heavy for her wrists. Maybe the future will bring DSLRs with high performance (speed of operation) like the D1 series, and weight like the F100 without booster (or whatever the Canon equivilents are, if you are so inclined.)
Jana, you mentioned high ISO pics - I just uploaded new photos to my member page. #9 was taken at 3200 and -.03 exp comp on a D1X. I have not printed any high ISO pics from my D1Xs, but when reduced for www presentation they look as good as 800 speed film and better than 1600 speed film to me. People complain about noise at high ISO, but as far as I know there is no readily available 3200 speed color film.
These photos are from my photo essay web site, www.henryga.com - click on the rodeo story. Everything from the rodeo clown kicking the TNT to the end were shot at 3200, lit only by the arena lights. |
|
Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Yarmouth | ME | USA | Posted: 4:24 PM on 09.10.03 |
->> Monitor Calibration. (part of Color Management).
CDRW/DVD-R (DVD +R) life. How long will this media last? Conflicting reports.
Hard Drive Failure.
Backups
Digital Work Flow: Shoot, transfer to PC, (Archive Original), color balance/correct, Crop, transmit, backup. Shooting in RAW, that is many CDs per event.
Digital is not free, in fact I know it cost more for me.
Ed |
|
DJ Werner, Photographer
|
Beaufort | NC | USA | Posted: 12:52 PM on 09.11.03 |
->> I thought of something else-
during disaster times- floods etc- when power is at a premium...digital goes down - no way to dump your cards etc... when the electricity is out- camera/laptop batteries only last so long-yes some recharge in the car- but when the gas pumps are down- well the whole thing can turn into a nightmare if you are not prepared with a backup method
but I can still go grab my old manual film bodies and shoot all the film I can find- and process later.. via lab or
darkroom if I was smart enough to stock up on supplies etc...
generators, fuel etc...
depends on how far or deep you want to get on this-
but during troubled times-
film may come in handy-when all the battery power is gone and the gas pumps won't work...
coastal living and hurricane season...maybe I worry too much... having gone through this with hurricane floyd and the flood ... |
|
Matt Hevezi, Photographer
|
Coronado | CA | USA | Posted: 3:03 PM on 09.11.03 |
->> John wrote:
"Chimping: is it an important tool that we are lucky to have or a dangerous crutch that erodes our instinctual confidence in how to make the picture ?"
My two cents is this and rides a bit on the above from John ...
As digital continues it march forward -- and the technology, capabilities, software, etc. get better and better -- the danger I see is a mental migration to the hi-tech bells & whistles of equipment and potential loss in the craft side of photography.
If the tech capabilities that are coming along with the digital revolution serve as a safety net (as in: "I don't need to think that much about it anymore because my camera is so advanced that it does my thinking for me"), what is the impact of that on production of quality images and the advancement in general of the craft of image making? |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|