SportsShooter.com - Newspaper Finally Going Digital : Equipment Questions

	Bloomington \| IL \| United States \| Posted: 8:32 PM on 12.05.02
	->> If you print color and are going with the CCD sensors, be sure to include something to white balance with.

Ron Scheffler, Photographer

Toronto area (Hamilton) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 8:44 PM on 12.05.02

->> I work part time as a photo-tech at the local newspaper. In the last year, the entire photo department has gone digital but it wasn't all at once. The transition started when the D-1X was available but not the D-1H. However, the transition was completed recently with D-1H cameras. Which means there is a mix of the two cameras being used daily.

It seems that the more critical photographers on staff prefer the X for it's extra resolution (coincidentally, these are also the guys who hustle for freelance work on the side where higher resolution would be beneficial for non newsprint applications). However, no one has yet complained that the H is inadequate for the daily assignments. You just need to watch your composition and not resort to too much cropping if you can help it (with the H).

From a photo tech's POV, the X does offer better large scale reproduction. However, we have successfully printed full page images (12x20") from the D-1H and the results are fine for newsprint. Standard four column and smaller images are arguably identical from each camera once on newsprint. The type of sharpening that needs to be done to a D-1H file for large reproduction is a bit different than from the X, but it will still look good.

As a photographer (and long time Canon user in my newspaper's Nikon environment), I would suggest the Canon 1D, as it is the best compromise for news work.
However, I can imagine that such a suggestion is likely unrealistic due to the amount of Nikon gear already in use at your newspaper. It really would mean starting from zero both in terms of equipment and learning curve. But, if the opportunity presents itself, it might be worth pursuing.

That said, stick with two H's per photographer for the reasons listed by the other replies. It handles low light work at 800 and beyond much better than the X, which the photo-techs at your paper will appreciate when they try to breathe life back into a marginally exposed low light image. Get four 256 MB cards, and at least two batteries per camera. Even better: five per photographer. Make sure the batteries are all given the recommended three charge/discharge cycles (at www.robgalbraith.com and
elsewhere). 17-35 is a must. A couple pool 14s would be a good idea. I'm not convinced the 28-70/80 is that useful. It might be better to get a 50 1.8 or 1.4 to fill the gap and for occasional low light work. Make sure you request the AFS 80-200 (as opposed to the non AFS version) and, as mentioned previously, make sure everyone gets a 1.4x TC to use with that lens (and whatever big glass you have or will be getting).

Regarding laptops, if your paper uses Mac computers, I would recommend the iBook over the Powerbook G4. A drawback to the iBook is the lack of a PCMCIA card
slot, but it's only a minor issue which a card reader will solve. In general, the iBook is more robust than the G4 and seems to get better battery life. I second the suggestion to run Photo Mechanic. It is a stellar editing and captioning application.

Thad Parsons, Student/Intern, Photographer

Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:20 PM on 12.05.02

->> I was in your same position last year with The Chronicle here at Duke. I took the photography department from mainly film (we had a D30) to full digital (Nikon). My biggest suggestion is that you stay with the system that you have, don't do like we did and change systems at the same time.
As far as for cameras, I would go with two D1H's. If you have the D1X's for pool use, then it should be fine for those times that you need something larger. One the other side of things, I have used a D1 to shoot covers for our magazine and with some careful editing - they can be used.
1 gig of cards is more than enough for all most anything that you are going to be doing. I currently use a 520 with 1 gig of cards and do not run out of space. This includes basketball and football games.
As far as the number of batteries, at least 4. Nikon batteries do not always give the best performance - be sure that you have plenty of chargers available for everyone.
Hope that this helps...

Dan Powers, Photographer

Appleton | WI | USA | Posted: 10:46 PM on 12.05.02

->> Andrew,
We went full digital last year. I will list what we did initially and what we will add this year to suppliment last years conversion. Hope it helps and here we go...
EACH photographer receives a digital kit that consists of the following...
1. Two Nikon D1h bodies
2. Nikkor 14mm f/2.8
3. Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8
4. Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8
5. Nikkor 1.4x II converter
6. Two SB28DX flashes
7. Dynalite 400jr light kit with Jack Rabbit batts
8. Mac G4 laptop
9. Six batteries for the D1h bodies
10. Six Lexar Media 160MB cards
11. Nikon SC-17 off camera TTL cord
12. Lowe Pro Stealth Backpack
13. Monopod
14. Pocket Wizard Plus kit
We have 5 shooters with this outfit...one shooter who does only simple advertising stuff with a Coolpix 5000 and a photo editor who has a condensed version of the above set up. We also have a pool D1h, two Nikkor AFS300mm f/2.8'sII, a AFSNikkor 400mm f/2.8II, a Nikkor 60mm micro, 17-35mm f/2.8, Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8, extra batteries and SB28DX flashes, Digital Camera Battery, numerous softboxes, grids, gels, snoots, backdrops, barndoors etc...
We also use Photomechanic.
This year we will hopefully replace all of the Nikon batteries. We will also add another 400mm and a 600mm and maybe a 500mm. Each shooter will get 2-3 Lexar 256MB cards and 1-2 Lexar 512MB cards as well. Also, each will get a tripod (we already have some), fanny pack, 50mm f/1.4, Digital Camera Battery with all needed cords, accessories for their Dynalite kits and various misc stuff. We also HOPE to get a couple D1x pool bodies. I can't remember all of our updates for 2003 but you get the idea. The items for 2003 are part of a capital request. Not sure what the reality will be. Hope this helps...cheers...Dan.

Jeff Stanton, Photographer

Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:01 PM on 12.05.02

->> I would like to echo Ron's statement on going with Canon. I mentioned my recommendations for Nikon as it seemed and perhaps the staff there in Austin had decided to go that way. I always felt that the EOS 1 camera bodies molded with my hand and style much better than the D1 system has. I feel the EOS 1 film based systems were always higher quality in construction and endured some radical conditions in my experience. I think it would definitely be worth a look. Just FYI, the staff at the Arizona Republic is going all Canon.

Andrew Loehman, Student/Intern, Photographer

Austin | TX | USA | Posted: 12:48 AM on 12.06.02

->> Wow. Thanks for all your comments so far. You guys are great.

Actually Jared, I'm the intern here and I'll be gone in less than a month, so unfortunately I won't be around to enjoy the new gear. The staff was kind enough to let me sit in on the meetings to represent the interests of the future interns.

The switch to Canon was discussed. Myself, one of the shooters, and one of the editors all have our own Canon gear. The discussion had been brought up to make the switch, but I believe it was decided that the paper has too much invested in Nikon gear (big glass, accessories, a couple of 620's and a couple of older D1s) to make the switch.

Ron, the the staffers sided with you and decided that a 28-70 was the least important lens in the bag. It was argued that each staffer would rather have their own 300 2.8 if they were forced to choose between the two. I can't attest to this, because as a film shooter, I'm not sure how the magnification would alter my lens selection (I use my 28-70 on a daily basis). Also, we probably will not be getting our own lighting kits. We have a plethora of Elinchrom monolites. We did add a couple of Elinchrom Ranger battery lighting systems to the pool budget. I've heard good things about these kits from Bill Frakes. At least this way the accessories will be compatible with the systems (speedrings, etc...) Other than that, our list is right now is almost identical to Dan's. Also, Dan, tell Kirk Wagner I said 'hi'. Let me know if the Post-Crescent ever brings back their internship program.

One other little debate we're having. PowerBooks vs. iBooks. With the new iBooks as powerful as they are, is it really necessary to have the more expensive (granted, really cool and really fast) PowerBook? I've heard of the titanium's not holding up that well in the field. We bought a new iBook and the thing seems to work fine. Having little exposure to Macintosh laptops, I was wondering if anyone had any strong arguments for either one.

Thanks again for all your help. Keep the comments coming. I'm printing out this list and bringing it to the honcho's this Monday.

Kevin M. Cox, Student/Intern, Photo Editor

San Marcos | TX | US | Posted: 3:01 AM on 12.06.02

->> Andrew, I've used both the PowerBook G4 and the iBook for editing.
I'm a computer-guy so I like having the extra speed of the G4, even though it probably isn't needed most of the time.
The iBook is definitely much easier to handle, the PB can be too big at times.
You can probably do without the PCMCIA slot. Just carry the Nikon Firewire direct connect cord as a backup for the FW CF reader.
But what I love most about the PB is the wide aspect screen. I really like having the extra real estate while editing. So much so that sometimes I use the PB instead of the desktop (which just has the standard aspect display).

Ron Scheffler, Photographer

Toronto area (Hamilton) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 3:02 AM on 12.06.02

->> I've never been a huge fan of the 28-70/80 range zooms. And, as you might guess, I've never owned one, even when I was shooting film.
I felt I could adequately fill the gap between the 16-35 and 70-200 with the 50 prime. The 16-35 is what I would consider my "standard" lens. So far it has worked well. I have used the 28-70 2.8 (Canon) and thought it was a great lens in terms of image quality. However, I just was never keen on carrying another big lens around. I too would rather have a personal 300 2.8 than 28-70.

As mentioned in my first post, my laptop preference is the iBook. Maybe I'm biased because I've owned one for almost one year and it has worked really well for me (get the one with the DVD combo drive so you can watch some movies if there's time to kill. I also put about 800 mp3 songs on one DVD disc and take that with me to play through iTunes. Using the DVD saves HD space. And, since they are company computers, it might be frowned apon to fill the drives with personal junk). The G4 books are cool, but I can't think of anything they can do that much better for a newspaper photographer. Maybe if you were doing video editing or working on 16 bit files from the Canon 1Ds (at about 70 MB a pop)... But, D1H files are only 7.5 MB when opened, which is a piece of cake for any modern laptop. At my newspaper, photographers are encouraged not to do much editing to their photos due to the difficulty of accurately judging color and density on the laptop displays (plus, that's the job of the photo-tech). So, the laptops they use (combination of iBooks and G4) are never pushed to the max.
What bothers me is how much the G4 books flex, especially the screen. I often carry my gear around in a Lowe Pro Stealth back pack (also highly recommended). While it does have a removable padded pouch/satchel that can be pulled out of the pack and carried with its own strap, if everything is packed in the backpack, there is probably enough pressure on the laptop to cause some concern. Again, after one year of this with my iBook, no problems so far. I've also heard that the G4 book doesn't fit the Stealth's pouch quite properly due to it's length (perhaps someone can confirm this). Another knock against the G4 book is that it runs very hot, probably due to the limited space inside the housing combined with a more powerful processor. I think I mentioned better battery life with the iBook, but no card slot. Just have to use an external card reader (firewire recommended). A firewire reader such as the Lexar unit will download an entire 256 MB card in about 2 minutes when coupled to the iBook.
Also, my newspaper installed an Airport system so that photographers can file directly from their laptops while in the newsroom without having to either transfer files to a workstation (usually by using the laptop in target disc mode connected by firewire) or by having to pull the ethernet connection from a workstation. So far it has worked really well and it saved the IT department the hassle of running extra ethernet cables to each photographer's desk. While it's not encouraged, the Airport connection is even strong enough to allow for filing from the parking lot. For the ultimate in filing techniques, you can't beat grabbing a latte at Starbucks and hooking into their Airport network (if available in your area)....

Rob Kerr, Photographer

Bend | OR | US | Posted: 9:44 PM on 12.06.02

->> Our paper is going down a strange divide...we've planned on half Canon and half Nikon. We have 2 D1 kits, and a D1H kit and 14 thru 300/2.8 invested. Stuck in Nikon it seemed. Our photo editor, however, frustrated with poor Nikon battery performance and several wierd malfunctions and lengthy/expensive NPS experiences, then purchased a Canon 1D kit for our newest staff member, a Canon 1D user from her previous paper. With one more kit to buy, a Canon, we're hedging our bets on a continuous Canon, Nikon leapfrog in the years to come. Three Nikon kits, two Canon kits. It's unbelievable the number of changes and new models only three years have brought.

We're hoping our split will carry us through the ebb and flows of the Nikon/Canon battle in the years to come. For now, the no-delay Canon shutter release, of course the 8fps, better file size and far less durability/software malfunction griping on the internet sites, like www.robgalbraith.com and this site, is a clear and dominate winner. Canon also, for our paper, nailed the correct megapixels.

On another viewpoint, I personally own the D1X and use it frequently instead of the company D1 when quality is of serious concern for me. I use it for high ISO stuff. I use it because its awesome. I love its files and believe the better quality in, the better out...even with newsprint. A 4x5 print off of a 6x7 negative is superior to an APS-sized negative. 'nuff said. I think the D1 and D1H missed the mark on megapixels. Good on screen, okay on newsprint, but inferior to the X or Canon. Our paper runs a 150 line screen and the future is only going to get tighter. Many papers will be looking at new presses down the road and who knows how much screens are going to change. The cropping benefit is obvious, as well. When I've used a D1H and a D1X side-by-side, the resulting D1H files were disappointing, only making me grab the D1X more.

We also addressed the iBook/G4 question head-on. The paper set me-up with the G4 a couple of years ago with the D1 kit. I personally bought the iBook and really love it. BUT, I'm currently at the Atlanta Photojournalism Workshop and just finished listening to Rob Galbraith talk about "colour"...add to the list for the G4 that the newer model monitors can be reliably caliberated and they hold it. With color correct viewing light on location, you can work a photo with accurate color and send it tightening-up deadlines if you don't have an imaging department. The pc card slot, the screen size, color, storage and added horsepower make the G4 a superior machine and the right one for now, as things only grow in the future. Yes its hot. Yes its too large for the Stealth backpack. Yes titanium does not join to other materials well. But, as far as durability, mine has held up really well under heavy use. My iBook at home has too, but I would rather work off of the G4 any day.

Buy lots of cards, in all sizes. Buy recovery software. I learned today that PhotoRescue has an OSX version.

-rob

Dave Cheng, Photographer, Assistant

	Toronto \| ON \| Canada \| Posted: 8:29 AM on 12.07.02
	->> Consider outfitting each shooter with a Digital Camera Battery. The 30W model is more than enough juice to run a body and flash for at least a day's worth of assignments. On a 28DX, it'll give you much faster recycling times and eliminate the hassle of a carrying around dozens of rechargable AAs. Food for thought: http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2001-06/2001_06_08_dcb.html

Jeff Stanton, Photographer

Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:41 AM on 12.07.02

->> Rob and gang, Rob made an interesting observation concerning newspapers going with new presses down the road. "Our paper runs a 150 line screen and the future is only going to get tighter. Many papers will be looking at new presses down the road and who knows how much screens are going to change," Rob wrote. The one passage that I feel that is definitely going to be in question is "papers looking at new presses down the road." I'm sort of hedging my own bet that regardless of the line screen numbers, newspapers will be looking AWAY from actual newsprint and relying more and more on the Internet for content delivery. I have heard this discussion at my office on numerous occasions. How this will help the advertising dollar is a mystery to me. A good press doesn't come cheap and a trend toward farming out a paper's press needs has already begun. Example, the Anderson Herald Bulletin in Anderson, Indiana. I believe the circulation is somewhere between 20 and 30,000 daily and more on Sunday. When consideration was given to replacing an outdated press (I'm told), the decision was made to contract with Home News Enterprises, who owns The Daily Reporter in Greenfield, Indiana, a 30 minute drive south, to press the the daily Herald Bulletin product. The Daily Reporter only circulates 10,000 six days a week in the afternoon, but the company invested in two presses and does a lot of outside job work and the operation runs 24/7. I believe newspapers are going to look at every possible knook and cranny to shave dollars from its operating costs. (Gotta keep those executive bonuses coming in, ya know). Buying a new high tech press will not be for the faint of heart and I look for newspapers to continue to examine alternative ways to survive, even if it involves a lot of gimmicks.

Rob Kerr, Photographer

Bend | OR | US | Posted: 12:26 PM on 12.07.02

->> Well, Jeff, it just goes to show that different regions have different economies.

In Oregon, at least, two papers, two new presses in the last five years, and, in our case, the old press sold before we were done with it. I've heard of two Washington State papers getting new presses as well. Populations and demands are growing.

Understanding paper prices and tightening belts, new, and much better presses make sense to many number people for the savings in paper and ink. And, it seems, outshopped jobs are more business for the best and most efficient presses.

I agree with the wonderment of the oncoming web world, but know community papers, nickle ads, monsters like NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, USA Today and lasting financial preference of shelf life of print ads, the web domination is just talk. Sure its spiking in growth and numbers are tough to ignore. But it remains that fifty cents gets several readers a few days to read, or every person has to have access to the internet, and public libraries can only have so many machines, and not every household can have one. Papers will live as will TV. Companies will buy better presses and those press companies will sell themselves on savings and improved print quality. I don't know much about it, but technology in print dot is changing and continuous tone is in effect at some places. That's resolution.

-rob.

Jeff Stanton, Photographer

Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:48 PM on 12.07.02

->> Rob, perhaps instead of resolution, it should be evolution. My question has always been, if a paper is so driven toward its web product, what is the advantage of that over print where the advertising plays the 100 percent role of income generator. Someone can advertise a banner ad on our site for significantly less than they can in the newspaper, but then again, you are so right. The shelf life of print is so long. I believe there will always be a market for used equipment, hence, the discussion on those used presses being bought up quickly. Of course this doesn't mean no new presses will be purchased. There are always those who can afford to buy new toys. If I can liken this to the 1973 oil embargo and the rising fuel costs of the late 70s. There was a huge push for people to run out and purchase fuel efficient cars. Some did. But people like myself had a different mindset. First, my car was paid for and the insurance was cheap. Secondly, I can buy a lot of gasoline for the cost of a new car. So buying a used press or keeping your old one makes more financial sense to many. Remember, the bean counters are always lurking in the shadows. This has been a great discussion, thanks Rob.

Shawn Knapp, Photographer

	Burlington \| IN \| USA \| Posted: 8:20 AM on 12.09.02
	->> Well on the subject of getting new presses. The Indianapolis Star, a Gannett owned paper, spent something like $70 mill on a new press and builing to put it in. From what I understand, they're fulling calibrated from the cameras to the press with profiles to do it all. If you're ever in the area, I recommend picking up one of their papers. The reproduction is amazing.

Jeff Stanton, Photographer

	Tucson \| AZ \| USA \| Posted: 11:38 AM on 12.09.02
	->> Shawn, the Indianapolis Star has incredible advertising revenue and circulates a million papers throughout Indiana. Plus, they enjoy the deep pockets of Gannett.

Return to --> Message Board Main Index