Work/Jobs - - Digital Photography

thomasgeorge · #1 08-23-2001, 05:27 PM

Do any of you do photo work for clients utilizing only Digital cameras? What type of equipment do you use and what do you see as a possible future for this in combination with the Image Processing programs. Does "digital" offer any clear advantages? Do you do the "clean up" on the images yourself or have someone who strictly does the computer work? Tom

DJ Dubovsky · #2 08-23-2001, 06:07 PM

I hope you get a response because I am interested also. I know there are some using digital cameras instead of scanners. I would love to know if the details they get are significantly better.
DJ

Ed_L · #3 08-23-2001, 06:30 PM

Good question Tom. And the question about quality that Debbie brings up is also of great importance. While I have a digital camera, it would not be satisfactory for most business purposes. But there's no doubt - the day will come when professional digital equipment will be affordable in the future. I just wonder how far they will be able to go. Will they ever actually be better at capturing detail than traditional cameras? It seems unlikely, but I wouldn't want to bet on it. I think we just have to wait a while.

Ed

DJ Dubovsky · #4 08-23-2001, 06:37 PM

From what I heard Ed the cameras are very high (mega pixel) res and special for this process. Also not cheap either. But that's the extent of what I know about it.
DJ

Ed_L · #5 08-23-2001, 06:40 PM

Yeah, I heard the same thing. Big bucks! But I'm guessing that they still can't match the traditional film.

Ed

DJ Dubovsky · #6 08-23-2001, 06:46 PM

No I doubt they can either. But with the growth of technology, I bet it won't be far down the road before they can.
DJ

thomasgeorge · #7 08-23-2001, 06:57 PM

My experience has been limited to one photographer using a Nikon 990 for sports team pictures. 3.25 mega pixel I believe. In HI RES mode the 5x7 were indistinguishable from a 35mm neg scan print. The BIG BOYS and GIRLS , as I understand it use Sinar Backs, Hasselblad lens; some use the Scanning back type ccd assemblies, All in the $20,000 and up range. The images I have seen in print from them are ,to me anyway, indistingushable from film. CAVEAT here, LOTS of image touch-up involved after the shoot as I understand. I was hoping to hear from those using the Kodak series , Canon cmos type or the NIKON D-1 or any of the other 3 plus megapixel units out there. Hope someone is looking or knows someone who might give us some input! Tom

chris h · #8 08-30-2001, 12:24 PM

I've shot hundreds of photos for a friend who handles obsolete diesel engine parts but of course he is looking at the image as information for clients not as as item of art or family record. He's happy with quality and all the stuff he takes in the form of monochrome images, he thinks the detail is better then colour. All this stuff has been shot on 'amateur' digicams.

I recently gave my mother an Agfa CL18 digi very basic point and shoot with 2 quality settings and non removable memory. She goes out shoots 30 snaps at tea parties, weddings etc She calls at my house, 30 minutes later using Quimage she's got everything printed out on the deskjet at 4 images to an A4 sheet for herself and her friends with reasonable quality.

Personally I think conventional film will be dead in ten years except among die hards.

thomasgeorge · #9 08-30-2001, 02:46 PM

Chris h, I am inclined to agree that traditional film photography is going to be declining in popularity as time progresses, especially as the new generation comes of age who "cut their teeth" as it were on all things digital. What are the most popular types of digital cameras over there and how has the general public responded to them? tom

chris h · #10 08-30-2001, 03:57 PM

TG,

I was talking to one of the staff at Jessops which I think is the Uk's biggest retailer just after Christmas and asked him what proportion of his camera sales were digital models ( expecting 20%) he told me they had done 70% over the period. Admittedly Christmas may show a marked increase in sales but I think percentages should remain constant pa. I was quite surprised.

Gateway computers has just bailed out in Europe presumably the markets saturated. More computers mean more use of digicams I suppose.
You can get a film turned round at a processing shop in an hour in the UK but you still have to get to the shop either on foot or by car. I prefer to shove the smartmedia card in the reader and start looking at the images 2 minutes later on my monitor.
I used to think if you got 2 good shots from a 36 exp 35mm film I was doing well and I dont think that average has changed, but of course with a digicam you could take 80 shots and delete 70 but its not consumables dumped in the bin its just magnetic data consigned to the void.

I've no hard data on sales but I would think Canon have the biggest chunk of the market over here followed by Olympus and Nikon. Pentax seem to have lost their way over here in the past few years. Perhaps some other 'over the ponder' might correct me !

Regards

thomasgeorge · #11 09-02-2001, 09:39 PM

Chris h. How are the studio photographers taking to digital over there? Is it becoming popular and if so who does the computer work on the raw files, the photographer or someone who only runs the image editing programs? Thanks, Tom

chris h · #12 09-15-2001, 04:17 PM

Apologies for the late response but I'd no 'hard' information to give you at the time. I called at a friend of mine who does a lot of T & B stuff for magazines and he has a digital back on the rear of a Sinar 5 by 4 studio camera. ( A rare beast these days ) He sends the raw stuff to customers ( On a VERY fast optical link) who play with it in house.
I don't suppose there's much point in him tweaking his product if some mag graphic designer/layout fella is going to play around with it anyway.

Hope this is of some use. I used to do a lot of stuff on plate cameras but its not a solo job really. I used to get students from the local art college to do the carrying in return for the experience.
Out all day and 5 shots to show for it.