 Tony Peckman |
Are there any digital vs film user comparisons? Does anyone know of any online "digital vs film user" comparison charts? I have to prepare a college course business report, and I wanted to do it on the growth/decline of film users to digital users. Any comparison charts/graphs of digital camera sales/use compared to film sales/use, etc. would be great. Please just provide a website URL in your responses. Thanks for your help,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ronald Ponkey |
Frankly, Professional Digital Photographers are digging their own graves. In tregard to Weddings, pretty soon Churches and Reception Halls will wise up and install their own Digital cameras for wedding clients. Why should someone pay $5000 to get their wedding shot in Digital when Uncle Fred can use his digital camera from Best Buy. Film is the best format to shoot a wedding as a professional. Digital certainly has its use after the wedding has been shot in Post Production. But a true Photographer controls light, composition, and tells a story in film Any moron can use digital to record anything at all. The, the pictures is so doctoredup it is no longer a Photograph. Not to mention the technical difficulities and risk of recording a wedding day as an Electonic Image. Film captures the quality, beauty of what is there with no fakery or computer magic tricks. Bartenders are shooting weddings on the side to make easy money from clients who stroke their ego becuase they paid $5000 for a wedding photographer. But the economy is in films favor. Traditional Photographer, true Photographers can offer services to clients who are on budgets and want the quality of their Proofs and finished prints. Let the Digital Morons who are crafty enough to service the Upper Class who blindly dow out the money without really knowing they are paying 1000% Markup. Thank goodness for the budget Brides who want traditional photography which is created by a true Photographer and not some Bartender, Housewife, etc who needs some easy money shooting a $10,000 wedding on a electronic image gathering mechanism. Digital Photography has its use in Commercial applications, and cheal family gatherings but professionals like Ansel Adams would turn over in their graves to see this new generation raping such a wonderful skill with cheap electronic images. The retailers of digital cameras like Cannon, Nikon,etc are lauging all the way to the Bank as these so called Digital Photographers shoot thenselves in the foot. But the economy will stay in the favor of Brides and Grooms who want that special attention and an image a traditional Photographer created and not some cold unfeeling computer controlled by someone who does not have the sense or motiviation to learn what real Photography...Digital Photography is simply an extension of K-Mart or Target or Sears one hour photo...No Brains required...just a need to keep busy...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Amy M. Parish |
I am having a really hard time figuring out how exactly Ronald answered your question, Tony. Seems he is just using this as a bashing platform. Tony, I don't have an answer for you either, other than to suggest you directly contact companies like Nikon, Pentax, and Cannon who market and sell both digital and film cameras. I am sure that they have oodles of marketing research, and if you ask nicely maybe they will share it with you. If I come across something, I will certainly pass it on. So, sorry Tony, I am noe going to get on a platform too, I can't let this go unanswered... Ronald, you seem really angry. I also don't feel you truly know or understand digital photography and/or digital cameras. I would suggest that you go to any of the links here on BP that review cameras. On these links, you can access all images created by those cameras that have been posted on this site. Try looking at the Dig Rebel, the Nikon D70, and other pro SLR types of camera images. You will see that there is a HUGE range of skill--as there would be if you compared film images from various photographers. Anything from the basic auto mode point and shoot users with no skill in light control or composition, to serious and thoughtful photographers who manually control their cameras and take care in their photographic situations. I think Ansel Adams would be intrigued by anything new in photography, digital or whatever may come next. As for output of images, my clients (not wedding, but portraiture) recieve real photographic proofs from a real professional lab on real chemically processed photographic paper, and real professional finished prints. The labs that I used are also used by many film professional phtographers across the country--I know because I asked around to as many as I could for recommendations. Once the image comes from the camera into a processor, there is absolutely no difference from that point on between a film neg and digital image file. The quality of the finished prints is just as lovely and outstanding as anything I could produce with film. I am of the mind, as are many dig photographers, that the "doctoring" in the digital darkroom should only go so far as to reproduce what can be accomplished in a real darkroom. I don't do anything that couldnt be done in a darkroom--contrast adjustment, dodging burning, aren't these traditional darkroom techniques even employed by the great Ansel Adams? You can bet he never left the negative alone once he got it into the darkroom. Darkroom techniques are held as a standard for marking artistry among photographers, and digital isn't really any different. Those of us doing this in the "digital darkroom" aren't taking any shortcuts, just as much time is invested in perfecting these images as well. Anyway, I am getting the feeling that maybe this bitternes from you is because you are losing jobs to digital photographers. That may not have as much to do with film/digital as it does your technique or style---not having ever seen your work, it's hard to tell. Also, as I understand it, wedding phtography itself has changed drastically in the last several years due to client preferences and expectations, and not necessarily equipment used by photographers. As a side note, I think you would not meet many digital photographers who would so completely bash film photography. Those of us in photography, do it because we love it, and the challenge and thrill of learning and using new equipment is just part of the love. You don't have to go digital, nobody is going to make you, there is always going to be film photography, and film photographers--and that is a great and respected art, especially if you are doing your own darkroom work (which I think most wedding photographers probably don't do as a matter of fact, takes too much time). Digital is just another means to producing great art as well. Long, long ago, painters were threatened and upset about what photography was going to do to the world of fine art. As a professional photographer, what would your response have been if you had been given the chance to talk to those artists? Go borrow a DSLR, give it a try, you will find it is exactly like shooting with a film SLR---EXACTLY---lots of brains required..........some of us even have degrees in addition to being housewives............
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Digital grave diggers are doing weddings during the weekends. But it's another gross misuse of the overly stated "Ansel Adams would be turning over..." yada yada.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Roberts, Jr. |
First, Mr. Ponkey apparently does not believe in modern innovations like digital photography, or SPELL CHECKERS. It's very difficult to make a credible argument for, or against anything minus either rational thought, or proper spelling and grammar! Second, I wish you neo-purists would stop dragging poor Ansel Adams' name into the fray. Using him as an example of someone who didn't manipulate his photos shows a gross ignorance of Ansel's work. His genius was largely displayed in the darkroom, not just behind the camera. Or maybe you're one of those who thinks that if manipulation is done with chemicals and an enlarger it's kosher, but if it's done digitally, it's not. As I said earlier, you need a rational argument and correct spelling before you start ranting against something. Third, one has to wonder where all this anger is coming from? No one said you have to give up your film camera if that's the way you want to continue to make photographs. Why does it infuriate you so much that others prefer digital? Is the real reason for your anger the fact that without film and processing costs, "Uncle Fred" and "the bartender" can afford to shoot more, and so have become better photographers than you? Hmmmm? (signed)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Sorry Tony - that your question has been taken over here by a debate between film and digital. Amy's suggestions to contact companies directly is a good one, also check out photography magazines, they can be a great source of information. Google is also a wonderful tool. Ronald, your message is very offensive. You obviously have your head stuck in the sand and have no clue as to what is going on in the world. Wake up and smell the coffee!! Shoot film if you want. But don't be surprised if not everyone wants you to or agrees with you. There is no reason to call everyone who uses a digital camera a "moron". That's like me saying anyone still willing to spend money on film and development is stupid! I'm really a novice but I like the immediate feedback of digital - and the opportunity to try again if I didn't quite get the picture I wanted. I love the endless possibilities of what I can do in the digital darkroom. Hate to tell you but a "moron" would have great difficulty figuring out how to open a picture in Photoshop, let alone how to enhance it. I think your bitterness may come from the fact that you are losing clients to digital photographers, but if you took on this tone or attitude with me as a potential client - you can be sure I would pick someone else! Tony, again - sorry for taking over your thread!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Just one more thing... Thanks to the wonderful world of Internet I was able to find your website Ronald. http://www.oncallphotography.com/index.php It seems that you have no problem with using the digital darkroom - it is only what you capture the images on that bothers you. Oh yeah - and that the average Joe Blow can pick up a digital camera and take a picture. Guess what -the Joe Blows of the world were always able to do that with a film camera too! Good luck in your business.
|
|
|
|
||
|
RoxAnne E. Franklin |
Tony, You're doing a very interesting study. It will probably be time consuming but fun to find out the answers to your search. So sorry you had to deal with Ronald using your question to vent the obvious anger he has over loosing wedding photography business. I shoot weddings, I shoot film for those weddings. I love my digital camera too, at this point, I'm not forunate enough to have added a DSLR to my equipment collection, so I cant shoot weddings in digital format. One thing digital has done for me is to force me to expand my creativity in pricing, showing value, and shooting. Yes, there are some who purchase a new digital and go out as a weekend warrior shooting a bunch of weddings. However Ronald, if you are loosing business to these types of shooters, then shame on you, you deserve to. I love shooting film, I also love the freedom of digital. I'm not a moron or a housewife for that matter. However, there is a well respected photographer in my area who shoots nothing but digital and he is a stay at home dad. I seek his advice constantly. So, hmmm morons???? I dont think so.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karma Wilson |
Hey Tony, what a great idea for a business report. I wish you luck in your endeavor. I think it's safe to say that you will find that many people are flooding over to the digital world. Rondald is right--if Uncle Fred can learn how to operate a $2000 camera and take better shots than some overpriced film photographer who wants the over priced photographer? Uncle Fred knows the family, knows their quirks and what would appeal to them, and frankly might do a better job. I know that I can take better portraits of my children than the high priced portrait photographers in town. I've learned to work my camera and touch up my pictures and I create digital art. The portrait studio creates static, uninteresting and obviously "posed" portraits. They don't have enough creativity to appeal to my tastes. So I'm buying a 20D and various lenses. And just to really piss Ronald off I also offer to take portraits for all my friends and I'll eventually offer to do weddings. And I'll also do it for FREE because I LOVE working the camera, don't need the money, and will dontate my skills to those who could never afford a professional photographer anyway! Why should I let my friends and people I know keep getting ripped off by Sears and Walmart when they want to record memories of their children. I TAKE BETTER PICTUREES! They will get professional results as I continue to grow in my craft, and I will get the joy of being able to capture beautiful memories on film. I do it for love, not money. I also plan to illustrate my own picture books with my photography. And call me naive, but I believe I will offer a more creative photo that compliments my text than some hired photographer. And Amy is EXACTLY correct in her assesment of the situation. People who get their panties in bundle over digital are usually afraid of the technology. Budget brides are going to go with Uncle Fred or me and they'll be glad for it. Good day and good luck. I wish I had more answers for you. Here's a link I can't verify but it looks interesting. http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html Karma
|
|
|
|
||
|
Leanne M.E. Boyd |
Any wedding that I have attended to, the professional brought both a digital and a film camera with them. And yes, Uncle Fred, maybe able to take some great snap shots, but that is not what the bride and groom is paying for, it is for the person with the eye, and not the camera. As far as film verus digital, I'm a film person myself. I love my SLR! But, I am thinking more and more about the digital. It would save time and money with film proccessing, and the missed opportunities would be fewer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
I'm sorry about getting into this when it is not what your question is about, I just wanted to say that my girlfriend's sister's photographer was amazing. That being said, it is because he and his assistants were chosen because of their style of photography. Uncle Fred probably will not be in as many places as the professional photographer for a wedding. It seems as though it would be better to have somebody who won't get too emotional take the pictures and not want to be directly involved in everything. Uncle Fred doesn't want to waste his nieces wedding walking around all day taking candids like what I would like during my wedding. The fact that he uses digital is just a way that he can get pictures back to his clients faster. Great job RG.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karma Wilson |
I've attended several weddings and here's something you might all not be considering. MANY PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD A PHOTOGRAPHER! I couldn't. My friends couldn't. They had to rely on others, usually just somebody who didn't know much about photgraphy who had a point and shoot. So uncle Fred with a 20D and some knowledge and desire would be a welcome addition to many weddings. Literally a God send. And if I was the bride and the pictures of that special day turned out nicely it would mean a lot more to me if it was done by Uncle Fred than some photographer that I had nothing to do with. There is a place for pro photographers at some weddings, and then there is a place for Uncle Fred. The friends I have cherish ANY picture of their special day. Beggars aren't choosers. That said, I would love to take pictures at a relatives wedding if I was an "aunt". But not as a mom. I wouldn't want to be "in everything" if I was an aunt. As a mom I would. But I want to hire a photographer that knows my family. I'm weird that way. Of course I've been burned by several "pros"--even those that came highly recommended. They just don't take the kind of pictures I like. I'm probably too picky I suppose. Karma
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Tony: Going back to your original question, try a Google search. It may take a while but you will find what you are looking for. I can tell you that there are many more digital cameras being sold than there are film cameras but there are still more pictures shot with film than digital. (You can't use this info from me because you will need to cite your sources and my info to you is second hand.) Keep looking and you will find what you need. You may also want to check on ask.com. You will probably find other studies done there. Sorry this thread west "south" on you. Personally, I am a film user by choice but I don't bash digital users.
|
|
|
|
||
|
RoxAnne E. Franklin |
Hey Tony, It would be fun to see some of the results of this study. If you want, why not post them on q&a, not the entire study, just some figures.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||