Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,269   Posts: 1,534,361   Online: 852
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I use both, but the digital is for utilitarianism. I don't own a D. D. C.* but I have a couple of scanners. One of them was very useful in saving and preserving my grandfather's 5x7 glass negatives made before 1905 and stored in abominable conditions. I can make duplicate negatives and reprint them to my heart's content.

    Ed is right I think. Snapshots may have been completely taken over by the DDC's that are built into cell phones. Unfortunately, that used to be a large part of film and finishing business.

    * Damnable Digital Camera.
    Gadget Gainer

  2. #12
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by gainer View Post
    Ed is right I think. Snapshots may have been completely taken over by the DDC's that are built into cell phones. Unfortunately, that used to be a large part of film and finishing business.

    * Damnable Digital Camera.
    Yes, I think you are correct, and I think that has resulted in a "depreciation" of photography in general, at least to the general public. I have a DDC (I like that term!) in my cell phone, and it was absolutely free! I got it merely by renewing my contract with Cingular (or whoever they are this week...), something which I would have done anyway. So if I can "take pictures" for free, and I can "show them to my friends" for free... why on earth should I ever consider paying some professional photographer to take my picture?
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    17
    I can scribble a quick sketch on a napkin in crayon. Why on earth would I ever pay for a camera?

  4. #14
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by eddym View Post
    Yes, I think you are correct, and I think that has resulted in a "depreciation" of photography in general, at least to the general public. I have a DDC (I like that term!) in my cell phone, and it was absolutely free! I got it merely by renewing my contract with Cingular (or whoever they are this week...), something which I would have done anyway. So if I can "take pictures" for free, and I can "show them to my friends" for free... why on earth should I ever consider paying some professional photographer to take my picture?
    There may portend an enormous irony that will cause the "real" camera manufacturers to rue the day they fully embraced digital and abandoned film gear.

    The cell phone is rapidly becoming the "snapshooter" for most "ordinary" folk. As you point out - they now just throw one into the phone for no extra charge.

    So no longer can Nikon or Canon or (fill in the ________ ) count on basic P&S cameras to "cover the overhead" and finance the R&D for higher-end gear.

    If I were Nikon or Canon - I'd be trying to figure out a way to build a cell phone into my P&S w/digi zoom BEFORE the cell phone manufacturers figure out how to do it the other way! :o

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    852
    Images
    10
    Amazing how this point came up -- the prevalence of "cellphone photography" as a portion of the overall digital photography market. Now, I haven't done any research on the matter but as a former telecoms marketeer who's kept close track of this area out of interest, I can point out a few basic things... Cellphone manufacturers, i.e. Nokia, have put digital cameras into their cellphones as "feature marketing" -- it's a "feature race" where you lure buyers to your brand with cool new features (in cellphones it's been music and photo capability so far, with TV a whacky one on the near horizon). Cellphone cameras, although they've reached 3 Mpixels I believe just recently with a few new models, aren't anything more than toys. Even the basic "family man" snapshooter will prefer a basic point-and-shoot digital camera that's built for the purpose -- he already has one, and is thinking of upgrading to a better one. There's no evidence that the cellphone camera capability is cutting into the digital camera mass-market, which is still growing enormously. Of course the cellphone manufacturers will market their digital photo capability as "You don't need a separate digi camera! You've got one on your phone!" but it doesn't wash. They're not addressing the real market in trying to be all things to all people. People have the digi camera on the phone, sure, but on the whole they aren't used enough to even consider as part of the digital photo market. The same is true of the cellphone manufacturers' attempts to bring MP3 music to their cellphones in an attempt to muscle into the music market. This is more complicated, again I haven't looked into it properly -- some people are using their hybrid cellphones to listen to music -- but generally this is also a very particular market where people want their portable music device to work specifically on that job (iPod). So, basically, Nikon and Canon don't need to worry about cellphone manufacturers taking away their basic point-and-shoot market. The cellphone manufacturers are working at a huge disadvantage there and know it. They're just trying feature-marketing (a technique old as the hills) to increase market share. Nikon and Canon shouldn't, however, ignore this development, but probably they need to focus on pricing mainly. They're good at this. No worries.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    106
    The whole cell phone camera thing seems almost some kinda big brother setup, tricked into keeping an eye on ourselves. How do we know that the aliens are not somehow watching us with our cell phones? Maybe it has become in fashion to watch us on another planet. Diane Arbus on acid for sure. Sounds like a bad idea.

  7. #17
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I suppose they might think they were watching us now if they had given us our cell phones a number of years ago.
    Gadget Gainer

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,066
    My thinking -
    Cell phones, I agree with the above, mostly marketing, P&S digi cameras are replacing the commercial photofinishing business for family, vacation, etc. I am about to finally buy a reasonably good D-camera (one that will take my Nikon lenses) for vacation and family stuff, just because I no longer have time for darkroom hours for this kind of photography.
    But my serious work, black and white, will always be film and wet process until I can no longer buy the materials. For one thing, it's too much fun, bringing up the image in the tray (even if I explored the negative with PShop to give me a creative start with the image).
    Someone's byline says something like "Digital has no soul". It is that almost tactile quality of grain in an image that makes it analog for me. I've seen software available (a pluggin for PShop, I think) that creates a look of grain for B&W photographers who desire a total digital workflow, but the look of film. Goofy, if you ask me, but it will be interesting to see if it survives.
    I think that for the fine art market, the wet process print, archivally processed and toned, will fall somewhere in the craft-oriented class occupied already by Platinum and Paladium prints, Bromoil, and other alternatives. If enough of this is still done in the world to support the market, we will find suppliers of the materials, even if we are reduced to a small number of companies left standing and committed.
    And organizations like APUG will allow us as a group to continue to flourish, at least as a market force. (No "We happy few" speech intended"...)

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,045
    There are some parallels between the painting to silver photography and the silver to digital photography transitions. At times, where photography was "the thing," painting supplies became hard to find and the prices went up. Since painting was such a different and such a versatile medium, however, things stabilized and art supplies are generally readily available. A big difference is that silver photography requires a much larger, more expensive, and more technical industrial base. The question is whether there will be enough demand to support this base in a way that gives quality and variety.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,835
    Interesting thread,

    I am absolutely convinced silver based photography will continue : Why ?, because the ultimate quality will always be needed by the practitioners who use it, value it, learn how to do it, make art from it and the buyers who collect it.

    Nothing else can look look like an image recorded on film by YOU, why ? its the way YOU take it, the way YOU develop it, and the way YOU print it and the film YOU choose to take the shot and the paper YOU choose to print it.

    Two photographers at the same time time and place will produce two different images, even in colour, but for the real difference look at monochrome.

    Its why I love my job... and I am proud of the products my company makes...

    Regards

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin