Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,925   Posts: 1,556,793   Online: 1010
      
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 78
  1. #41
    clogz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    114
    I'm afraid that most of the analogue vs.digital debate has very little to do with photography, the beauty of light that sometimes hits you when you're off your guard.
    It's about fear, fear of losing what has been familiar for so long and fear of not belonging to that crowd that supposedly knows what it's all about and where it's headed. You fork out a load of money just to be in with the in-crowd and worries and doubts about this financial sacrifice are translated into agression towards the stick in the muds. Am I right, or am I right? Convince yourself and read the many commercial photo magazines that are less and less dedicated to the beauty of light and those photographers that try to catch it.
    Whichever way you decide to go, make sure to reach your destination and once there I hope you can say...I have seen.
    Hans
    Digital is best taken with a grain of silver.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Bennett
    ... why will manufacturers continue to make $3.00 rolls of film and $10.00 jugs of chemicals, when it's evident that many photographic customers will tolerate having to shell out big money on an on-going, neverending basis in order to keep "current." .........
    The Big Dogs are Big because they have been clever enough to stay in business for not just 5 yrs or so, but *decades*. And this is no easy thing.

    The reason they will continue to produce film, is because they are wise enough to know that markets have a 'collective intelligence' and eventually they *wise up*. Eventually when the market comes to the understanding that, when you view all costs with some pragmatism, and having the latest and greatest features has lost it gloss, digital is not cheaper than film. You pay a premium to stay on the treadmill of keeping up with the latest features that doesn't actually give a premium return.
    I now buy a microwave for not much more than I used to buy a toaster. Bill G's wish of a PC in every household is now nearly reality, and cheaper to buy than a washing machine (when they used to be 4 times the price). This is all driven by markets. And for this reason I personally don't believe that photographic customers will tolerate having to shell out big money on an on-going, neverending basis in order to keep "current."

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,647
    The digital zealots who were former photographers are so adamant about trying to convert others to their ways for at least 2 reasons: if all portrait or wedding photographers in an area use digital, then lower quality/longevity of digital has to be tolerated by the clients ( since marriages don't last as long now, they can be safer in saying the digital prints will last for the life of the marriage). The expense of quality digital workflow ( and increased skill requirements in non-photographic aspects, ie. digital manipulation) ensures that fewer professional photographers will remain in the business.
    van Huyck Photo
    "Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"

  4. #44
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,086
    Images
    195
    doughowk wrote: "( since marriages don't last as long now, they can be safer in saying the digital prints will last for the life of the marriage.)"

    that's funny!! (cynical too...but...more important...FUNNY!). les's comment about the value of consumer willingness to shell out big bucks for the quick obsolescence of digital equipment which 'advances' the industry is, i think, inadvertently cynical too.

    photography was doing extremely well before the word pixel was ever coined. i think back to photograpy magazines and annuals from the seventy's and marvel that advances in technology have not 'improved' one iota on the quality of image making of that era. that such imagemaking is arguably (and only that) easier and/or more efficient now doesn't diminish the enormous skill that workers of that era were able to bring to bear on their craft. but the popular literature of the time pushed, with relentless fervor, the quantum leap in creative freedom that the SLR, auto exposure, and auto focus would bring to users of the then 'new' technology.

    to be sure, zillions of folks shelled out big bucks to equip themselves with the 'latest'. and took bazillions of pictures..and were, no doubt, happy with their results. i have no idea if their 'creative freedom' was released by their investment. but what they did buy was equipment that has lasted the entire interim...at least 30 years. their photography was whatever it was, but they invested in...not speculated on...technology that had "legs"!! and it's still standing on 'em!

    is that the case now? will the hapless tourist or family chronicler have something to show for his/her effort 30 years hence? will their digital images on cd rom or drug store printout last? well...i'm no swami...but i'll speculate that the answer will be a resounding NO! that cynical industry insiders are already aware that those poor folks will be stranded eventually is unconscionable in my view. their greed in allowing consumers to foot the bill for their profit generating experiments in prototype machines with nano-lives is unforgivible. to permit them to foist this hoax on a naive market without an outcry of protest is not an attitude i'm willing to sustain. i am dismayed by those who should know better but are willing to be industry flacks.

    I had an apple IIe, and then an apple IIGS. the bastards knew that the mac would totally eclipse those machines and they would go unsupported but yet courted new buyers till the last day. i never forgave them the theft of my trust and my hard earned cash. i have never bought (nor ever will buy) a mac since. the same swindle is afoot. beware!!!
    John Voss

    My Blog

  5. #45
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by jovo
    I had an apple IIe, and then an apple IIGS. the bastards knew that the mac would totally eclipse those machines and they would go unsupported but yet courted new buyers till the last day. i never forgave them the theft of my trust and my hard earned cash. i have never bought (nor ever will buy) a mac since. the same swindle is afoot. beware!!!
    Don't forget the Lisa...

    I managed an internet start up's 'new media dept' back in the mid 90's. One of the graphic designers pleaded with me to stock the graphics portion of the dept with Mac's. Our production needs did not require MAC's and our integration requirements made me lean toward PC's. The designer's biggests argument was that the corporate ethics of Apple were so much higher than those of mickysoft. In that point I felt (and still do feel) he was correct.

    *

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Getting off the topic a bit (and might be dicing with fire) - but is the difference ethics or acumen?

  7. #47
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Getting off the topic a bit (and might be dicing with fire) - but is the difference ethics or acumen?
    As far as the story I was telling is concerned, I think ethics would apply -- in that the designer felt that Apple had a conscience and Microsoft was the corporate equivalent of a sociopath. Acumen might have also applied in that Mac's were more adapt at some of the tasks we required.

    *

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    So Mac - more acumen and better ethics. M'soft - delinquent - figures. By the way, (another tangent) your tag line has ever broadening relevance given events of the last few days (!?)

  9. #49
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    So Mac - more acumen and better ethics. M'soft - delinquent - figures. By the way, (another tangent) your tag line has ever broadening definition given events of the last few days (!?)
    Every time I reread my own posts and see that tag line I instinctively go to "Report this post."

    *

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    LOL !

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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