Monte,

Maybe you are just looking too hard to find imaginary buggaboes to excuse you from really jumping in?

I have a friend who just sent me a notice she graduated with an OMD with a 4.0 GPA, and at the top of her class. When I met her many years ago she was doing office work (accounting) and had never gotten past her freshman year in high school. For a long time she had no confidence in herself, but little by little her incredible intelligence and her success at everything she did encouraged her. And now at about 40, 20 years after meeting her, she has made the first step in recognized accomplishment, that I believe will not be her last.

In other words it is all a matter of believing you can do anything you put your mind to. If you really want to make great digital photographs you can do so, you don't need a $20,000 camera.

A few months ago I did some shooting with a Sigma SD-10 with the Foveon chip. I believe the output MPX is 10.2, plenty to make sharp, high quality 12x18 inch prints on 13x19 inch paper.

Shopping around a bit I think you can find the Sigma SD-10 kit with two fine zoom lenses for a little over $1,000.

Considering when I was still doing film only 15 years ago my yearly film and processing bill was 15 to 20 times that. Considering you can shoot endlessly every day with digital for just the cost of a thousand dollar camera, what's your real reason for sitting on the fence?

If you really need to be convinced send me the cost of shipping you a couple of 13x19 prints and I'll think you'll be convinced, or you'll need to think up a new excuse<G>.

I hope you know I'm ribbing you a bit?

David,

You kind of get me at every turn. I have to respect the time and experience you have because I know that is where we learn. It is true when I figure up what the exspense is to get what I want in a print I have invested quite a bit in film,processing and the print. In all honesty I am finding in this area film is becoming more expensive to process and for good quality prints I have to send away and pay the price. Scanning is my only alterative to using digital cameras, but there is also problems like dust and time comsuming files to work with. Also the cost is still there for the film. It is just I cannot get over the fact of resolution when comparing film to digital. When I used 35mm loved 8+10 prints I got, but when I went beyound 11+14 they sarted to lose something. I finally jumped to 645 format and discovered 16+20 prints held more of what I wanted and 11+14 was great. Now I admit there has been some trade offs there shallow depth of field even more cost per image, but i have justified it because a few great prints were what I would have for my efforts. Sometimes it all does not add up too well. Now I look around and I see everyone telling me it is silly to spend the investment in film when you can invest in digital and so;ve the problem. Where I differ from many others is I am not looking at this with a closed mind, I just want the quality in my images that breaths life into what I see. Here a while back i was in Des Moines at Best Buy store and picked up A Canon 20D just to get the feel. It felt cheap. Old school of thought I know, but the fact was my first impression was this will not last. Then My next thought was ok here with this camera is a lens and how good is it. It comes with the camera as a kit. I had to wonder if you really wanted to invest into a good prime lens witht the camera how much cost would you have then. My next thought was what is a good lens for digital does it differ from using film. Then there is the 1.5 factor to consider. You see David all of this concerns me because nothing is cut and dry here. There is so much I do not know here, I do know at this point if I was to invest into a digital camera I would be looking really hard at the lens I put on it Cameras have become like computers, that which was good today is replaced in six months by something better. Whats wrong with that nothing except it is hard to jump a fast moving train. I will stay open here and you let me know the cost of shipping those prints and I will send it to you. I would like to see for myself just what everyone is telling me I am missing. Thanks for your sincere input. Monte Johnson.

Full frame camera purchases are limited to just one Canon model since Kodak has gone out of the dslr business. Does this signify that full frame really isn't neccessary for many/most applications?
I saw an advert for Hassie, buy the back and the camera is free! What signifigance to the need/viability of MF does this equate to?
Why have many manufacturers go from an 8mp consumer camera to 7mp cameras? Is ther too much artifact with 8 mp on the small chip?
Do pictures, properly edited in PS or another program with bicubic or other interpolation methods, effectively rival film based images?
None of these actions on the part of manufacturers can be accidental. what is the REAL DEAL???????

Monte,

Sorry, but I think you are still inventing a lot of excuses. In addition I get the impression you are trying to make some correlation between film resolution and digital resolution. There is none, film resolution is about how much detail and fineness is recorded on film, digital resolution is about the size of the image in pixels. Apples and oranges.

One day you have to trust someone and yourself if you want the advantages, particularly in material costs, digital provides.

Einstein said: We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

Ronk,

The larger, full frame chip is mostly an advantage to photographers who have an investment in Canon lenses, like the sports shooters and their $7,000 2.8 telephoto lenses, as well as others who shoot wide angle stuff or use perspective correction lenses.

As there are more "digital" lenses for the APS chip their will be less demand for full-frame chip cameras. Nikon with the D2X is showing the way, as is Fuji with the S3 Pro and even Sigma with the Foveon chip.

Actually for a given pixel resolution the smaller the chip the better up to a point, in terms of image quality and what the chip industry can produce in quality versus cost. In other words, big is not better in digital technology, often just the opposite.

Einstein said: We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

David,

Ronk said it best . What is the real DEAL. I am making up excuses, but I feel I have some valid concerns. Image quality. So is it true what you were saying that if you pack more pixels in a smaller chip your image quality is better! Like the S3 Pro Fuji. Does jumping the resolution to 12 meg in the S3 Pro chip increase the image quality that much? Is that Why the higher price for the Fuji and Nikon DX. Aples to Oranges I understand that. Resolution of film and digital are not the same, You used film for many years and I know you must have made many RC and fiber prints. All I want to know is do you feel digital cameras make prints on digital paper that equal or surpass the quality of RC or Fiber based film prints. Size being equal. True I am running out of excuses and also true I need to trust myself here. Putting all of this aside I will say I am learning more here on this forum then anywhere else, but I am the kind of person who will beat a dead horse until I am sure in my mind he is dead. Not always a good character of mind. Monte Johnson.

Quote:
Monte,
I get the impression you are trying to make some correlation between film resolution and digital resolution. There is none, film resolution is about how much detail and fineness is recorded on film, digital resolution is about the size of the image in pixels. Apples and oranges.

One day you have to trust someone and yourself if you want the advantages, particularly in material costs, digital provides.

The only advantage I see for digital (and it's a stretch to find even 1) is as a "test shot" before shooting with real film & cameras. Rather than having to use all that Polaroid film in the past, and special backs etc.

Additionally, it has only helped the phenom known as eBay, by getting low resolution images of what you're selling to the public, faster.

Joe A. Sasser

Monte, one does not need to have prints made on digital paper! Real RA4 and b&w papers are used by some labs. I use www.mPix.com
David, thanks for clarifying the full frame sensor questions I had.

>>All I want to know is do you feel digital cameras make prints on digital paper that equal or surpass the quality of RC or Fiber based film prints. Size being equal.<<

The answer based on what I am experiencing is a resounding yes. There are two factors involved. One is that area array sensor chips "quality" is how efficiently and acurately they respond to the light focused on them and record the information cleanly. With digital the main "quality factors are just two, an absence of noise (which is random pixels recording erroneous information) and the other is pixel numbers. The more pixels per square millimeter of recording area the more precisely complete the image reproduction possible.

Print quality involves an entirely separate and distinct technology relative to the final print image quality. That involves ink and its application to a substrate (paper). Over the 15 or so years I have worked with digital the inkjet printer has been refined to a very high state of capability, with extremely fine and high numbers of jets per channel/head which apply so many very small droplets of ink they are individually invisible to unnassisted human vision. In color the curent Epson pigment inks applied to archivally rated paper produce prints that will remain unchanged many times longer than any analog color reproduction in the past in images which have a very high fidelity to the values of the original subject.

But, the capability of the technology is not the most valuable advantage, which is digital technology puts a much more accurate and powerful set of tools to control the process in the hands of photographers than we ever had by analog means in the past. With film-chemical color photographers had very little latitude control, much less than the Zone System provided in B&W, you pretty much had to get it exactly right conforming to the lattiude limits of color film at the time of exposure, there was little room for correction and adjustment supported by the color process. With digital correction and adjustment is almost infinite, so you can accommodate much greater variation in subject characteristics.

This however, puts a burden on the photographer to acquire a knowledge of color and the skills to use software like Photoshop to be able to produce predictable precise results as expected.

Thanks David for the imformation. I will agree by using the Epson R800 I have found my prints not only equal lab prints, but surpass them using Epson paper. That is using my scans to print and not my digital shots. In defense of digital i did some outdoor portraits for a couple last year and I was out of film so I used digital. The 8+10 prints I gave them printed on the Epsom were nice. Okay I admited it I got a nice print from digital. Anyway thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge. It makes me think about evrything concerning film and digital. Thats why I am here. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

It is unfortunate you are not closer to a major city that has a large pro camera dealership with a rental program. The you could rent a good digital SLR for a weekend and obtain some first hand evidence that would allow you to get off of that uncomfortable fence you are on.

That would help as far as giving me a true feel of what is offered today in the way of cameras. Living here in the bible belt, the midwest. You become isolated by a bigger world out there. I like that in some ways. I love the theme of photography it allows me to have, There are very conceritive people here so the latest and higher end of cameras do not exsist here. I would rent a high end digital for a day if I could, but in reality my only real contact is through sites like this. My hope is everyone will bear with my lack of information on the digital end. I am learning a lot here, but I love film and film cameras. For me it is a leap of faith just to be opened to change. So in truth if I seem stubborn I am, but I am also trying to see the world of change with an opened mine. Thanks again Monte Johnson.

Not being able to personally access and see all that is available is a limitation. I would not be concerned that film will continue to be available for instance. In the past for some of my work I did not like modern B&W films because they did not respond to some developers like pyro formulas. However, one company in Los Angeles, Freestyle Sales imported Adox films which were made with thick emulsions and lots of silver like older, traditional brands like Isopan. I am sure such small companies will continue to provide films from small producers in different corners of the world that satisfy a variety of photographer requirements. It may for someone like yourself require a little more effort to identify and locate these resources.

David,
I can see the changes that are taking place so I know I will have to change also someday. In the meanwhile I will be saving and hope if that time comes I can buy what I want. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

In one significant realm you have an enviable advantage, as I tried to suggest in a way. You don't have to change, and I believe no one who loves traditional, manual, film photography should feel threatened, nor will they be neglected entirely.

However, I am involved and committed to consumer magazine writing, and readers are much more excited and interested by what is new than by what is old. The hackneyed saying there is nothing deader than yeterdays newspaper, I am afraid affects people in my shoes no small amount. For me that is easy because by nature I'm a rolling stone, I get bored doing the same thing very many times, especially when I have done it enough to feel I have mastered doing it.

David,

I was told a long time ago, never judge anyone until you have walked in their shoes. I try to remember in everything I do. Sometimes human nature just takes over and I am no different then others. I like to belive what I am passionate about others should be also. I forget we all have walked different paths and found our way here today through many changes. If I remember that then I stay opened to everything and everbody around me. I know there is a new world of photography out there and people are excited about the changes and possibilities before them. It only makes sense to explore and embrace the future. I learned a long time ago change is ever constant and the world stands still for no one. Then I asked myself, why to I fear change? When I found photography it gave me something I had been missing for a long while. A place to express myself,a need to create. Thats why I love BW. It puts things in perspective for me. The dramtic BW image gives me back a moment where I can view the world with a significant purpose. Time stands still for me for just a moment. I look at that print and in that moment I realize how much I take for granted. See you and I and all of us here are no different in what our true goal is because I believe all want to find our place in the world before us. David, I believe you find that being of service to others through the magazine and this forum. I on the other hand just enjoy being a part of this exciting art. One thing about life it has a interesting way of bringing all of us to where we need to be when we need to be there. Monte Johnson.