Digital or 35mm film

[Morse]

I have been contemplating buying a Digital camera, only trouble is, when I checked some of these flashey looking things out in my local camera shop in Cambridge I was amazed at just how plasticy and cheep they all feel, cameras costing almost £1000 to.

I have been using Nikon F3's for about 15 years now and the build quality is like a tank, pic quality is A1 also. The pics that i have seen so far from Digital cameras have been very poor quality indeed.

Whats going on here, am i just missing the point or are we all just falling for this Digital bull***t with dodgy pic quality. My girlfriends £75 35mm film compact (Canon sureshot) wipes the floor with all these plasticky Digital jokes.

Please someone tell me that once you get to the £3000 Nikon and Fuji Digital SLR's that it is a different ballgame.

[tim.callaghan]

Hi Morse,

Lower end digital cameras do not have as good quality pictures as 35mm SLR's. The £700 - £800 market has some excellent performers namely the Nikon 990, Olympus 3030 and the Canon G1. The quality does compare with 35mm and in some conditions is worse, some the same and some better. I have blown images up to 8x10 on my G1 and compared the same shot on the same paper with my old Canon T80 and I honestly thought the G1 had the sharper image and had better saturated colours. But the shot did have loads of light, and digi cameras in my experience don't do as well in less light conditions.

Now the real advantage comes on cost. I can take on a good month around about 400 photos with my G1 at a camera club and around about. Imagine the film and processing costs of that out of my monthly budget. Cost per performance my G1 rules! It might be a large initial outlay, but as that bollocksing buzzword that's being flying around for the last 4 years, 'its all about total cost of ownership' It costs me less to own a digital camera and I'm very pleased with the results. It's took a lot of getting there as it's a completely different format, and I'm still learning, but it's been so worth it.

As for the upper market digi cameras I can only say if you have the money then 'yeh'

It's like DV, why don't we all shoot on S16 or 35mm, because it's too damned expensive and fiddly. But, there is a place for both technologies, and it's not about which is better, it's about which is more suitable for the job at hand.

In my case, I've got a sturdy little performer that enables me to achieve all that I want, and it fits in my packet. My T80 certainly won't.

My 2p anyhow

Tim

[John Farrar]

Morse
Have you considered a film scanner? You could buy a really good one for about the same price as a decent digital camera and have the best of both worlds.

Unless you go for something of the quality of the Nikon Coolpix 990 you will be very disappointed with the results, if your previous experience is anything to go by.

[Alan Roberts at work]

Here's the story.

I have used 35mm for decades in a variety of cameras, never as a professional or using a camera that cost the earth. Original a Pentax Spotmatic, that sort of price. I'v also used Minox and other very small kit. I've got thousands of slides and negs in wallets, they all cost me plenty in processing.

I now have an Olypus C3030, 3.34Mpixels, 2048x1536 images that will comfortably print to A4, and to A3 if the subject warrants it.
I also have a HP film scanner that will go to 2400dpi, so I can scan negs and slides at 3600x2400, rather better than the digital camera.

I did some comparions a while ago and was surprised at the result. We all "know" that 35mm film beats electronics in imaging quality, so I went to some negs shot over the past 30 years and scanned them. Without exception, they all were grainy and soft when compared with images from the digital camera. Film stock ranged from Kodachrome25 and Ektachrome to modern Kodak 400 neg (and some on very very fast B&W film, but that's another story). In hindsight, I shouldn't have been surprised because the limit on image quality in a film camera is rarely the equipment, but is usually the photographer (camera movement, exposure errors etc).

Even so, I was surprised because 35mm film has a resolving power that far outweighs the performance of my digital camera, on paper. The MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) of film (the curve that describes the film's ability to carry modulation (contrast) as a function of frequency (detail)) falls off more rapidly than does a Gaussian distribution (the limiting performance of a square pixel). So, an electronic camera is able to capture more contrast at high frequencies than film within the bandwidth that's used in the result. That caveat is essential because film MTF just goes on and on (like I do) whereas tv and electronics have hard frequency limitations defined by the sampling structures. We're talking of low-level modulation here, only a few percent, but at frequencies way beyond the limits of tv and domestic printing. But, even more pertinent is that electronic cameras contain a surprising amount of signal processing to make the most of what they record. A film camera just converts the light into density on the film, but the electronic cameras have gamma correctors, noise reducers, detail correctors and so on. And the detail correction is intelligent, it looks for edges and enhances them if they're not noisy, by amounts that depend on the contrast, and that's controllable too (my 3030 has 3 settings for this). And so on.

So, while the high-end consumer cameras, like the 3030 and Nikon units, don't apparently have the resolution that 35mm has, in practice they make sharper and cleaner pictures than does 35mm when used in a non-professional camera. In my experience.

When you get up to the full professional kit, the story may well be different, but I can't afford it so I can't comment.

Hope that helped more than it confused.

[This message has been edited by Alan Roberts at work (edited 30 May 2001).]

[Keitht]

I might add my four penn'orth to this debate. I am still dedicated 35mm user and have started scanning using Acer Scanwit scanner. From my own experience its best to use slow film unless you want to have to scan at very high res to avoid obvious grain. The one item not mentioned so far is good software to manipulate the image after scanning. Most images tend to be a bit on the dark side initially. Photoshop ain't cheap !! Total cost of ownership may be lower but with film you always have the original to go back to. High res images are massive and memory cards expensive. Yes you can reuse the cards but once you have done so the image only resides on the hard drive plus, of course, on the backup that we all take religiously !! Printing via PC is also slow and expensive. Film, particularly transparency, gives the best of both worlds in my view. Unmounted it is cheap, prints can be made cheaply if not as conveniently as from the PC. I'll stick to my present set up until speed, quality and cost all move further in the right direction for digital.
Also most digital cameras seem to have very short zoom ranges. I'm talking about optical zoom not the mickey mouse digital variety.

[Alan Roberts at work]

Spot on, Keith. There are lots of reasons for staying with film, exposure latitude and depth of field are but two.

Digital cameras generally don't need the exposure latitude that film has because the control of exposure is much easier in electronics, you get the finished picture up front.

The small image formats of the electronic cameras make for large DoF, so you have to change your shooting style to isolate foreground/background.

And I'm with you on the cost of graphics packages. Photo Shop is overpriced in my opinion. I use Paint Shop Pro 7 for almost everything (because I've been using it ever since it was version 1.01, distributed on a 720k floppy as shareware) and can't fault it. I divert to Photo Shop for professional work just because my peer group exchanges in that format. But I still prefer Paint Shop for lots of reasons (it's cheap(er) and has a vast array of file formats to work in, and does all I ever need to do in stills, including animation sequences).

There, I'll shut up now.

[tom hardwick]

Can I join in? I scan my 35mm negs and transparencies using my Minolta Dimage II and generally I've been very dissapointed at the amount of retouching I have to do in Photoshop before I feel able to print these out to A4.

The main culprit seems to be imperfections caused by the processing of the film, and this includes scratching and dirt pressed into the emulsion while wet and soft. I also suspect the emulsion itself; not all films are evenly coated with a perfect surface, they can't be.

In contrast pictures taken up to A4 from an Olympus E10 show no such aberations and need no correction in Photoshop. This doesn't stop me tweaking here and there, but it does mean I can tweak rather than rectify, and the difference is pretty basic.

It's a bit like projecting Super8 and watching DV. Real film has to be squeeky clean and fed through a projector that has a polished to perfection film path. If these requirements are met then maybe - just maybe, the film viewer will not be distracted by emulsion damage and foreign body contamination.

No such worries with DV. There's no hair in the gate, no damaged frames at splices, no emulsion scratches, no need to clean the tape. The sound track smoothly extends beyond our hearing limits and the picture stability is rock-like on a 100Hz TV.

This aptly demonstrates the differences between film and digital Morse. The cameras may be plasticky as you say, but it's the end result that matters. That's all that matters.

tom.

[Alan Roberts at work]

Of course you can join in, Tom. I'm surprised you kept quiet for so long. All your comments are right; we were talking only of digital stills versus 35mm stills, but it all aplies to movie as well.

[buckers]

IMO - Digital photography is fundamentally different to normal photography.

I bought a Fuji2400 about two months ago (by no means an expensive camera), I've taken about 3000 photos since then and some of the A4 prints (mostly of my kids) have really surprised me and I often get very positive comments from family/friends. The printer is an aged Epson600 (i do use good paper), I use Micrografx Publisher to touch things up.

I like the 'instantaneous' nature of digital cameras, I could never be bothered with film (I'm 37 and I've never had a 'real' camera). I get bored too easily to wait for development, and then to find that you only want to keep three of those 36 prints....

To me, it's a little like the CD vs Vinyl discussion. Vinyl may well be 'better' in every way from an audiophile POV, but CD's perfectly suit the other 99% of users out there.

My 5 year old son happily uses the digital (he's not exactly wasting film) and he likes the immediate feedback. There's a whole generation just like him on the way - what does film mean to him ?

The biggest downsides for digital photography from my experience are :

o Poor performance in darker conditions.
o Battery life (Fuji much better than my old Sony)
o Printer is still the weak link (hopefully getting a Canon next)
o You need to take a few Smartmedias (or a laptop) on holiday with you.

Adam

[David]

One thing in favour of the digital camera is, as Adam mentions, the fact that it's instantaneous - so perhpas we should compare to a polaroid? If we did - this discusion would have ended several scrolls back up this thread ..... possibly.

One back-packing holiday to NE Thailand about 15 years back, I was advised to take (along with 2 x 35mm and 5 lenses!) a polaroid. I looked puzzled at this advise until I was told that in such parts of the world you can get overnight board and lodging in exchange for a couple of polaroids of the family. So - even taking your notebook and printer would be pointelss to achieve this in places a couple of hundred miles from electricity!

However ....... recently in India I discoverd that you were more likely to have the locals (and particularly the kids) allow you to include them in your pics if they could see the results! And with the Nikon 990, where you can swivel the screen so that they can see themselves, you get some totally cracking head and shoulder pics. With 35mm you'd never get such good closups with such big smiles!
The reversible screen on the TRV900 achieved the same, too, with some great dialogue in the local language!

OK - so it's not all good news, this digital still world.

As it happens, I normally always travel with notebook PC (the umbilical to to office!). And, with just over 2000 pics in the three weeks in India, it's a good job. Just imagine how much one would have to pay to buy the 30 flash cards needed to store that lot while you are away! In fact - more then the total cost of the holiday!

So - moral? If you want the digital camera for pics of your holidays and travels in far off places - thnk twice, or buy a notebook if you don't already have one!

D

[tim.callaghan]

Hi David,

I spent 6 months in India touring on an Enfield Bullet 350, and in all that time I never taken 2000 photos. But if I had my time again......ah bliss I would have!

Anyway, you can get the portable storage devices now so you don't need a laptop. Even the microdrive on my G1 if you knock the Res down to 1024 x 768 will get over 2000 pics, very impressive.

In film terms that would equate to about 55 rolls of film and a whopping great big processing bill and about 30 years scanning them in. And, you are totally right about the capturing the locals when you can play it back to them or show them the photos.

What an amazing place India is!

Tim

[Morse]

Thanks for all the great help here guys. I am taking Johns advice about buying a film scanner (Nikon £750 one possibility)I think i am too much of a purist for the digital camera market at the moment, maybe in a year or two when quality at the sub £1000 improves. I already have Photoshop 6 on my PC, so no problem there. Canon G1 and Nikon 990 sound interesting, maybe i will try and hire one for a weekend and see how i get on.
Thanks again for your in deaph views.

[Chaifox]

Maybe have a look at the Scanwit and Minolta models as well. If you don't mind slightly slower scanning you will get superb results with models costing well under £500 (Oh yes and roughly 10 million pixels per scan if you want it) Breathtaking results from Kodachrome!

Rob

[Keitht]

Before you purchase any scanner insist on a demo. Price and spec don't always tell the whole story. Jessops tend to carry a good range and should be able to demo if you arrange a time and avoid Saturdays.

[buckers]

(2000 photos in India) - Maybe slightly off-topic, I use a 32Mb and 64Mb Smartmedia in the Fuji and you get 77 and 155 photos from these in Normal 1600x1200.

I've taken well-lit photos of complex subjects (A packed fruit bowl, a very colourful bunch of flowers) and can see no difference when using Fine 1600x1200. Since the files are twice as big, there seems little point in using this mode ?

Adam
ps - You can definitely see degradation when using the highest compression@1600x1200 but you effectively double the capacity, for well-lit holiday snaps this is perfectly acceptable. Certainly more so than taking a laptop on holiday http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ubb/smile.gif

[Keitht]

What price to you have to pay for the cards? As they hold approximately 2 and 4 36 exposure films and I currently buy process paid for about £6 per film you would need quite a lot of use before you start getting a return. Best prices I have seen are around £40 & £75 respectively so for 2000 frames you are looking at around £1000 for your media. Equivalent film costs about 1/3rd of that, less when purchased in bulk. I appreciate that in most instances you wont necessarily have 2000 images before you can process but that only makes the comparisons worse as you will have a number of smartmedia cards not being used. On your India trip the cards will have the advantage of being more compact than film so I guess, as this whole thread indicates, there are pro's and con's for both.

[Alan Roberts at work]

I recently bought a 64M card for £49 from a supplier mentioned here (can't recall the name). But there's a point to remember when doing these sums: when you shoot 35mm, there's nothing you can do after pressing the button, you've got to pay for the processing, eventually. When you shoot digitally, you can review what you've got and junk the rubbish, so you go home with only the shots you want. I've found that I shoot about 1/3 the number of frames in digits that I would in 35mm, just because I throw away the other 2/3 when I see what they look like on the camera. So storage costs aren't as high as you might imagine.

I've now got the original 16M card that came with the camera, 2 32M and a 64M. So, in just these 4 small cards I've got the equivalent of 100 3.5" floppies. That alone makes it look good value when you consider that there are still folk using the old Sony Mavicas with floppy drives inside. And I can mix the resolutions, shot by shot, to optimally use the storage, can't do that in 35mm.

[tim@work]

IBM Microdrive 1Gb will set you back about £400 and you can easily fit 2000 pics on it at a very reasonable quality. That price would be comparitive of your film costs, but with the added bonus, you can use the Microdrive again.

Anybody taking a serious amount of images should consider the microdrive rather than multiple CF flash cards. The only problem is then you have all your eggs in one basket, and if you get a fault you're knacked. But the same would apply to your camera!!

Tim

[buckers]

64Mb Smartmedia, £36+vat from Scan.

I got a Toshiba 64Mb for £47 inc (internetcamerasdirect.co.uk) a few weeks back so the price appears to be dropping nicely. You can now get a 128Mb for under £100.

Adam

[buckers]

I spoke to soon.

I just checked Scan's site :

32Mb £18
64Mb £35
128Mb £74

Adam

[Keitht]

This is getting worrying. Cost of cards dropping, camera price/quality ratio improving, only keep the images you want and can see the result immediately, but where's the fun in that. You never have the "thrill" of getting home after a fortnight of fabulous weather in the Scottish Highlands - Yes it is nice up there a lot of the time - to discover the metering on your camera was knackered, so you have over a dozen films all over exposed by at least 2 stops and virtually unrecoverable !! Neither do you have to scan the trannies in and manipulate the image to correct the colours. This digital lark is just too simple - it can't possibly be proper photography.
My main concern would be in using something like the 1Gb drive. As said, if the drive fails you are knacked. True faulty film or camera bu***** things as well but it would be unusual to lose 2000 shots before discovering something wrong. I lost around 400 but that was my own fault for not noticing the meter readings couldn't possibly be correct. I'd used fully manual camera's and meters for long enough to be able to realise something was wrong. Drop a camera and the film can still be usable; drop a 1Gb drive and you are probably well and truly screwed.
For the time being I'll stick to 35mm, in part because my kit is fairly new, but it's entirely possible that the next purchase will be digital. The recent launch of the new Canon printer which is claimed to be up to 6 times faster than anything of comparable cost and quality also brings that day closer.

[red]

I'd be interested to know if any digital users actually sell their photographs.

I notice all the professionals round my way are still using film not digital.

This must be because film, at the moment, is the proven technology and the prints from it are more likely to stand the test of time.

Digital certainly gives more versatility but could you hang an inkjet print on a wall for 10yrs?

Red

[This message has been edited by red (edited 01 June 2001).]

[tim.callaghan]

Remark about the concern of the Microdrive fragility.

I have dropped it, onto concrete while showing off to a few mates. I also dropped a few kittens too, but all was alright.

They are quoted to withstand up to about a 5G shock, which would mean throwing it at the floor, or dropping from a great height. If you were to take it out at such height or playing a game of catch with it, then you'd probably deserve it.

There is about as much chance of losing your HDD on your PC as these babies, so take the same precautions but it's unlikely to fail, as also you never take the bloody thing out cos there's no need to change it with you never filling it up.

One thing too, CF flash cards are not supposed to last as long as the microdrive to as Flash ROM has a finite amount of times you can write to them. Fair do, this is a stupidly high figure and you would have to be taking about 1000 shots per say for 5 years, but the microdrive, will outperform the duracell bunny....and goin...and goin.

IBM are also in the process of creating a 6Gb microdrive as they have found a new way to write data on all there drives achieving 100Gbit per Sq Inch, that includes the big beasts, so expect 400Gb pc drives in the nearish future. DV heaven!!!

Tim

[buckers]

Re: Fading prints

I took a selection of photos and printed them out on my Epson600 (Photopaper) and hung it in the kitchen where it gets loads of indirect sunlight (and quite a warm room). This was nearly 4 years ago and the colours are still very good, slight fade.

I have all the images on CD, so I guess if it faded after a given time, you'd just reprint it on the technology of the day ?

Adam

[red]

That's interesting buckers.

The reason I ask is because every football season my local community centre ask me to photograph their teams, presentations etc.

I always done film but it would be much easier for me to inkjet them out of Photoshop.

Trouble is we sell them to parents to raise funds.

I've got this horrible vision of hundreds of angry parents knocking on my door in a couple of years time with faded prints in their hands (if I inkjet that is).

Personally I think this side of things lets down digital badly.

Red

[sepulcre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by red:
I'd be interested to know if any digital users actually sell their photographs.

I notice all the professionals round my way are still using film not digital.

This must be because film, at the moment, is the proven technology and the prints from it are more likely to stand the test of time.

Digital certainly gives more versatility but could you hang an inkjet print on a wall for 10yrs?

Red

[This message has been edited by red (edited 01 June 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Have a friend locally who uses a Fuji S1 Digital SLR camera with 1GB IBM micro drive.
He sells pictures that he takes with the camera, he was a ‘Scene Of Crimes Officer’ and is now looking to put a digital back on his Hasselblad, and so he must see money available in this line of work.

Our graphics technician here at work uses a digital camera and does lots of private work including packaging commissions for local firms, the pictures used for them originating from a digital camera.


------------------
Gary MacKenzie
Audio Visual Technician
(email me if you want a quick reply)

[tim@work]

If you think the paper you use will fade take it to a printers.

[buckers]

http://www.epson.co.uk/options/consum/lfast_875dc.htm

10 years...

www.epson.co.uk/options/consum/lfast_90series.htm (http://www.epson.co.uk/options/consum/lfast_90series.htm)

Some stuff here about 20 years ligthfastness.
http://www.epson.co.uk/options/consum/lfast_2000p.htm

100 years !!!
http://www.epson.co.uk/options/consum/lfast_graphics.htm

200 years !!!!!!!!!!!

Adam IHNCWTAC

[red]

Very interesting and encouraging information.

Thankyou, Red.

[peter millard]

Be very wary of Epson's claims for "lightfastness" - they are based on very restricted circumstances e.g. prints must be displayed under glass - hence the weasely phrase "lightfastness" rather than, say "fading".

Epson have had very major problems with their ink and media fading due to environmental and atmospheric conditions - particularly relating to ozone levels in any environment where the print surface is exposed to the air (hence "display under glass") - so-called "gas fading".

Naturally, as photographers we have little or no control over how prints are displayed, or the ozone levels of any given room, which has led to a widespread disaffection of Epson amongst photographers who may want to sell prints.

Ultimately, all prints will fade - a Cibachrome is only rated as good for 27 years, for example - and most photographers I know (myself included) do not use inkjets to print pictures for sale, preferring relatively old technology like dye-sub printers, or newer stuff like Fuji's pictrograph printers, or have prints made by labs on Kodak or Fuji LED printers, which print to regular photographic paper.

Lots more info about fading inkjets at www.wilhelm-research.com (http://www.wilhelm-research.com) if you're interested.

Hope this has helped.

Best



------------------
Peter Millard
www.petermillard.com

[red]

I thought for a minute that Epson had made leaps and bounds in progress since the last time this topic was aired.

I guess the answer to the original post by Morse is;

'It depends on what you are going to do with it'

As for me I'm sticking with film for now.

[tom hardwick]

Firstly thankyou Peter M for your very detailed reply to the next caller - re vignetting in Photoshop. Most useful to have these tips 'n tricks explained by those who know.

But as to print permanence I can say that I've had many cibachrome prints on display (not behing glass) for over 21 years now. Some of the original transparencies haven't lasted as well (and they've been kept in PVC free pockets in a filing cabinet).

The Cibachromes look as good as the day they were printed yet I was a beginner back then and so too was Cibachrome. Polluting, smelly, expensive, but the prints have stood the test of time well. That's nearly 8000 days in daylight and I'll bet my El Nikkor they have another 21 years in them.

tom.

[peter millard]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tom hardwick:
...But as to print permanence I can say that I've had many cibachrome prints on display (not behing glass) for over 21 years now....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom.

Glad to hear it - me too!

However, the (independent) boffins at Wilhelm rate Cibachrome as having a life of approx. 27 years, based on the same criteria they apply to inkjet prints.

Obviously, it's all based on extrapolated data from accelerated tests ("educated guesswork") and yes, I also hope they're erring on the cautious side, since my original pre-E6 trannies haven't fared so well either!

Of course, a real archival image is digital (no atoms, just bits) - provided that in 100 years time you have something that can read those funny CD things...

As always, enjoy taking pictures.

Best.


------------------
Peter Millard
www.petermillard.com

[peter millard]

Morse.

Sorry if this comes a bit late, but also look seriously at the Microtek Atrixscan 4000T - a friend has one and he says it rivals his Flextight scanner (about £9k when he bought it) with 35mm. It's also particularly good at handling colour neg - some scanners can struggle with the heavy orange base used in colour neg film.

Also, Nikon have recently introduced a higher-res Coolscan, so look out for discounts and "specials" on the older version.

Best.


------------------
Peter Millard
www.petermillard.com

[red]

This is interesting stuff.

For me it begs this question;

If you want to do it at home what type of printer would you use to make prints that you can sell?

Are you guys saying the older Cibachrome has not yet been bettered?

Red.

[Keitht]

I think the basic problem in trying to answer the question of which printer to use for home production to sell is that, by definition, the new technologies used in inkjet inks has not been round long enough for definitive answers on light fastness to be available. Until and unless independant tests are carried out on the major manufacturers inks and papers I would suggest that it is risky to produce prints for sale using inkjet. The only other option would be to make it clear to potential purchasers that the print must be stored under glass, out of strong light and may have a limited life.
I know claims for light fastness are increasing all the time but how would you feel if you were the recipient of a print that couldn't be replaced that faded badly after just a couple of years? (Couldn't be replaced for whatever reason, I'm not suggesting that it is not possible to reprint at a later date)

[peter millard]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keitht:
I think the basic problem in trying to answer the question of which printer to use for home production to sell is that, by definition, the new technologies used in inkjet inks has not been round long enough for definitive answers on light fastness to be available...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keitht has basically hit the nail on the head. I mentioned Cibachrome in a previous post because when it was introduced it was hailed as the most light-fast colour process available (and is still highly regarded) - but it is a totally different animal from desktop inkjet prints, which is a relatively new technolgy for producing photographs. It's worth stating again that all photographs will fade, it's just a question of when, and if you're still around to see it happen.

If you do want to sell inkjet prints using standard inks and papers, then again, Keitht's suggestion of making it clear to purchasers that fading may occur is valid. Interestingly, a colleague told me the other day that if you buy a fine-art print from the National Portrait Gallery, they actually supply you with three prints - one to display, and two to store for future use in case of fading...

As for alternatives to inkjet printers, it's only really when you start looking at the alternatives that you begin to appreciate just what good value inkjets are; Dye-sub printers are probably the next best thing - Olympus make a "prosumer" dye-sub (but infuriatingly only make 10x8 media for it, not A4) which is rated highly, but it costs around £1000, and the running costs are not particularly cheap. Professional dye-sub printers start at around £2-3000 for an A4.

There are "archival" inks and media available for inkjets from third parties, but as the inks can't be easily exchanged (lots of fluid and cleaning cycles to purge the old ink from the printer) you generally would have to dedicate a printer to purely producing photos, which is another expense. Also, thanks to Epson's "chipped" cartridges, 3rd party inks aren't available for all their printers, particularly the newer ones - oh, and just to add insult to injury, apparently using 3rd party inks and paper in an Epson printer invalidates your warranty... nice!

Whatever, this is a constantly evolving technology; Hewlett Packard recently announced inks and paper for their printers that have a life of 15 years, or 17 if displayed under glass, so you can bet that Epson, Canon and others will have something similar up their sleeves - who knows what, though, or when we'll have it?

Morse, I know this has rambled off your original topic a bit, but I hope it's been interesting!

Best,



------------------
Peter Millard
www.petermillard.com

[Rich T]

I archive all my digital still files - that way, like negatives I can reprint at a later date.

I'm aware the current ink technology lifespan is unproven, but why should I let that bother me? When my current prints fade I will just print them out again in 5 years time (or when ever they fade)on a printer that will do a better job than printers do now.

I know of professional photgraphers selling photgraphs in digital format with out printing. Eg.The client wants an image for a marketing campaign for example. The photgrapher shoots the image on a D1, emails the client a proof, the client approves, the digital files are sent to the printer, for catalogues, to a CDROM production house for CDROM distribution. After all it's the image the cleint has paid for, that image can then be outputted to whatever medium you want.

Another professional photgrapher friend took some smashing shots of my family, all in digital, he burned and gave them to me on CDROM - I would have paid for them, and I have no issue of paying for a didgital still that doesn't happen to be printed out on paper.

Richard

[Keitht]

Rich T.
I would suggest that inkjet printed images fulfil the requirements of an advertising campaign happily. Image is only required for a comparatively short time so fade isn't an issue. The second example of providing a CD of the images in addition to the prints is also a novel and effective way of ensuring the customer has the 'negatives' and can get 'reprints' to use a photographic analogy. Commercial photographers don't normally provide copies of negatives as they expect a large part of their income to come from repeat orders, particularly weddings and similar events. A previous posting in this thread mentioned a gallery that provides 3 copies of fine art prints to cover the risk of the 'original' fading. Maybe this is another possible work around with inkjet prints.
My main worry with the use of inkjet printing for supply to private individuals is that the expectation would be the same level of light fastness as conventional film processing methods. The initial quality of print can be just as good from inkjet so the customer may be none the wiser as to how it was produced - why should the customer have to be concerned with the process after all.

[peter millard]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rich T:
I'm aware the current ink technology lifespan is unproven, but why should I let that bother me...

Richard<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rich T.

It all depends on what your doing. My professional work is mostly for 4-colour litho repro in magazines and books, and I always supply digital files on CD, plus a "contact print" for reference, and as such, colour fidelity is of far more importance to me than longevity, but it won't be the case for everyone.

If you're supplying "fine-art" photographic prints, where someone is specifically buying a print for display (rather than, say buying the rights to use an image in an agreed way) then your concerns should be aimed much more towards the longevity of that print - the colour fidelity obviously being more subjective in these conditions.

For my personal work and holiday snaps, I'm far happier keeping digital files on my PC, and only printing out the ones I want to keep in a frame - and in these circumstances I agree, if they fade after a year, or two, or five, then I'll just print them again, no problem.

Best.

------------------
Peter Millard
www.petermillard.com

[Rich T]

Hi keitht/Peter Millard - I'm with you all the way regarding worries of selling inkjet prints to to private individuals. I was talking about "me" not joe public - of course it depends on what you are doing.

The inkjet fasteness technology is not mature enough yet, and people shouldn't really be trying to use it commercially for prints to keep as you would on photographic paper. When the manufacturers have cracked ink technology for inkjets that have say the lifespan of Cibachrome, then I won't mind paying for an inkjet print.

Horses for courses - inkjet technology is not yet ready for selling photgraphic prints to the public, while longevity is still an issue.

When I have commissionedd photgraphs in the past I have stated in the contract that the copyright belongs to me. Unfortunately copyright is a little knowm area by the publi,c and often they are not advised about who copyright belongs too. (this statement come from personal experience and from friends and is not a dig at anybody on this board)

Cheers - Richard.

Richard

[peter millard]

Hi Richard.

Errr.. just to be contentious for a second (or two...) manufacturers actually have cracked ink & media technology for inkjets with the lifespan of a Cibachrome - it's just very expensive eg American Ink Jet Pinnacle Gold Iris Inkset for the Iris Graphics 3024/47 printers are rated at 65-75 years on Somerset Velvet papers, but the last time I looked, Iris printers were in the region of $125,000 (USD)...

More down-to-earth "archival" inksets & media are available for more down-to-earth printers from people like Marrut digital (Lysonic/Fotonic inksets), Peizography (inkjetmall.com) MIS Associates (inksupply.com) and Permajet (permajet.com) but whether the added hassle-factor (voided warranties etc...) of using these inks and media is worthwhile unless you can dedicate a printer solely to churning out photographs depends entirely on your circumstances - horses for courses, as you say.

Oh, and as for the copyright thing - well, let's just say that I don't think you and me will be working together anytime soon!

Best.

------------------
Peter Millard
www.petermillard.com

[Rich T]

Hi Peter - well, yes, I suppose if you include $125,000 printers, then yes it has been cracked for the masses...... hardly real world is it.

Damn, just as I was putting you at the top of my list for my next commision http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ubb/wink.gif

Richard

[This message has been edited by Rich T (edited 06 June 2001).]