Konica - Minolta getting out of the camera business

[MICKEY88]

"the beauty of digital is I have better control over everything, I can edit on my pc, make multiple backup copies, and send my files via the internet to a professional lab for the best photo finishing available..

I used to be old school also, and fought the switch to digital, but once I did, I haven't looked back.."

Thats interesting, you failed to mention one single thing your can't do with your film camera. And your film camera will take a superior picture. Useing programs such as photoshop and the like only take away from your photograph because your become dependant on them and fail to capture the images to thier fullest posibility because after all, you could always edit them. You can bring your roll of film into a lab, have it processed and put onto CD without printing anything. You could take those images and edit them on your computer, email them, and even have them printed. But then again, you could always have the negatives printed which is a superior source then a CD is, and have a true photolab do corrections based on each individual negative, and pay very little more then you would at a drug store/warehouse store which has employee's who are undertrained and just print them on the auto setting of thier minilab. I have access to any digitol camera I would possibly want, but I still shoot film. Why? Just look at the pictures. They are sharper, considerably sharper. They do not lose all detail in bringt highlights as do digitol camera's. And they have more deapth then any compressed digitol file available. The only thing that digitol can do that film can't is give you instant gratification, which there have been film cameras that were even capable of that untill the other camera's got together and basicly squashed the technology. After all, why allow a superior camera wich cost maybe $250 give you the only thing that their $1,000 camera has over it? Why not make people think that they need that $1,000 camera and increase thier own profit?

unfortunately you made an incorrect assumption, I do not rely on my ability to edit, I still shoot the same way I did with my 35mm cameras, most of my pictures are printable as is, I only correct in the situations where I goofed or lighting was really bad, or uneven, but when the need is there it's so much easier to make corrections myself than to get a lab to do it exactly the way I want them to...


when I referenced editing I meant artistic editing, basically doing the same types of manipulation that people have done in the darkroom in the past...

as far as sharpness difference digital is every bit as sharp when using good equipment with a steady hand or tripod..



we could debate this forever, and we both could get people to back our points of view, bottom line is, film will go the way of 8-track tapes and beta video, and very soon vhs...the average person, will buy digital for eae and cost effectiveness, more and more pros are going digital, there will be no profit for companies to make film for the low percentage of holdouts..

 

[Charade]

"the beauty of digital is I have better control over everything, I can edit on my pc, make multiple backup copies, and send my files via the internet to a professional lab for the best photo finishing available..

I used to be old school also, and fought the switch to digital, but once I did, I haven't looked back.."

Thats interesting, you failed to mention one single thing your can't do with your film camera. And your film camera will take a superior picture. Using programs such as photoshop and the like only take away from your photograph because your become dependent on them and fail to capture the images to their fullest possibility because after all, you could always edit them. You can bring your roll of film into a lab, have it processed and put onto CD without printing anything. You could take those images and edit them on your computer, email them, and even have them printed. But then again, you could always have the negatives printed which is a superior source then a CD is, and have a true photolab do corrections based on each individual negative, and pay very little more then you would at a drug store/warehouse store which has employee's who are undertrained and just print them on the auto setting of their minilab. I have access to any digital camera I would possibly want, but I still shoot film. Why? Just look at the pictures. They are sharper, considerably sharper. They do not lose all detail in bright highlights as do digital camera's. And they have more depth then any compressed digital file available. The only thing that digital can do that film can't is give you instant gratification, which there have been film cameras that were even capable of that until the other camera's got together and basically squashed the technology. After all, why allow a superior camera which cost maybe $250 give you the only thing that their $1,000 camera has over it? Why not make people think that they need that $1,000 camera and increase their own profit?

Unless you develop and print your own film (primarily negative) and you take it to a consumer (or commercial) processor, your image has some automatic color and exposure correction applied to it when it's developed and printed. It might even be cropped a little if you happen to fill the frame. Something you might not want.

I will agree that the dynamic range of digital has not (yet) reached the level of the film but for the most part, it's got plenty of range. OTOH, high megapixel digital cameras (prosumer and professional DSLRs) have come very close to the resolution of 35mm film. So close that I'd bet that with the best processing/printing, most people would be unable to distinguish a print from a digital source versus a film source. So sharpness isn't really an issue IMO.

If you shoot film and want a digital copy (CD), it must be converted to digital via a scanner. Most times when you go from one source (analog) to another (digital), some loss of quality occurs. Is it noticeable? Probably not but you must make sure that any dirt is removed from the original. Most higher end scanners have digital ICE built in which is a dust/defect removing tool. IOW, it digitally processes your analog original.

So unless you don't use DICE, a commercial/consumer processing/printing, your analog source is being digitally process and automatically corrected without your control. If you want to be a purist in the film world, shoot in manual mode and process/print yourself or use a professional lab ($$) otherwise some automatic correction/digital enhancement will occur.

Plus you've got the additional cost for every film shot you take. You've got the cost of the film and processing. Printing costs are probably about the same for both digital and film so it's a wash unless you always get prints when you shoot film. Who wants to go through the hassle of looking at a negative strip to see how your pictures came out?. It's pretty tough unless you print a contact sheet or have them digitally scanned (additional cost) during the processing step. Slides are easier put still a bit of a pain.

In regards to the cost of a film body versus a digital body, in the long run, the film body will cost many more times the digital body because of the external costs such as film and processing.

I guess what I'm saying is, in terms of quality, there really isn't that much difference today and there will be even less tomorrow between film (35mm) and digital. The convenience differences are clear. Digital wins hands down.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Charade,

how much is the printing cost at a professional photolab in your area? In mine is pretty cheap (the same price as Costco Canada), which is about US$ .15 per print.
This is a photolab even Fujifilm Canada themself go to print their internal and promo stuff (as weird as it may sound, Fujifilm Canada doesn't have their own printing facility). At this lab, the default option is to print as-is with minimal bleed (borderless usually have 3% bleed, they have 1% bleed; with border, obviously 0% bleed).

 

[rhiannonwales]

Charade,
Fiffy has mentioned in another post that he/she works for a pro lab. So i assume that they do print/develop their own film.That does tend to color ones perceptins a bit.But also a lab should not be editing your photos without your consent.There are many people who are students or just trying to teach themselves photography and they will never learn if they dont see what they did wron the first time.
Sherrie

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Unfortunately places llike Costco, Walmart, a bunch of drugstores and convenience stores (even Henry's) WILL do correction (and cropping, especially when your files are 4:3 and you're printing 4x6) as the default. At least that's the case in Canada (unless you go to real pro photolab, then the opposite is true)

 

[Charade]

Charade,

how much is the printing cost at a professional photolab in your area? In mine is pretty cheap (the same price as Costco Canada), which is about US$ .15 per print.
This is a photolab even Fujifilm Canada themself go to print their internal and promo stuff (as weird as it may sound, Fujifilm Canada doesn't have their own printing facility). At this lab, the default option is to print as-is with minimal bleed (borderless usually have 3% bleed, they have 1% bleed; with border, obviously 0% bleed).

I don't know how much a professional lab costs nowadays but when I used one years ago (for my honeymoon pics), it was expensive and I wasn't at all satisfied with the results. Around here, prints from a digital original are pretty cheap and the quality is quite good. So cheap and good that I don't use my Epson photo printer at all. When I was referring to costs, I meant developement/processing costs that digital just doesn't have. When you mentioned a 4:3 print being cropped by the lab when a 4x6 print is requested that's what I was referring to unwanted/undesirable cropping. You only get this with film unless you upload unedited/uncropped digital images to the printer. That's why I like digital. It puts me in almost complete control from start to finish.

 

[MICKEY88]

Charade,
But also a lab should not be editing your photos without your consent.There are many people who are students or just trying to teach themselves photography and they will never learn if they dont see what they did wron the first time.
Sherrie

unfortunately some amount of correction is absolutely neccessary unless a lab wants unhappy customers, a printing machine will go for 18% gray just like a camera does, so unless corrections are done maually, a lot of pictures will look bad even when correctly exposed by the photographer....for example...the typical picture of a baby in the tub, or on a white towel, or any high key photo, the printing machine will try to turn the white greay unless the machine operator makes corrections...
the same applies with low key photos, picture a woman in a long black gown in front of a dark background, the machine will lighten the pic trying for grey. so the operator must do exposure corrections..

 

[Kelly Grannell]

so unless corrections are done maually, a lot of pictures will look bad even when correctly exposed by the photographer....for example...the typical picture of a baby in the tub, or on a white towel, or any high key photo, the printing machine will try to turn the white greay unless the machine operator makes corrections...
the same applies with low key photos, picture a woman in a long black gown in front of a dark background, the machine will lighten the pic trying for grey. so the operator must do exposure corrections..

I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

 

[MICKEY88]

I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

no problem,, I spent a few years working in a camera store, as a salesperson, and also printing pics in the lab...that was one of the first things my mentor taught me..

 

[Kelly Grannell]

So all this time when I asked them to print as is they will still play with my pic? So how do I know that my colour correction is done properly on my side? Any suggestion?

 

[ndelaware]

I would hope that if you asked them not to do any correcting they wouldn't.


I can hope can't I?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

The thing is when I asked them to print the pics as is, the white turned out to be white. Now if the information of 18% grey is true, wouldn't my white turned out to be 18% grey instead?

Now I'm confused.

 

[MICKEY88]

So all this time when I asked them to print as is they will still play with my pic? So how do I know that my colour correction is done properly on my side? Any suggestion?

there is a difference between color correction and exposure correction, if you shoot high or lowkey pics and they don't do exposure correction, your colors would be off, if they print at the proper exposure your colors will be great..
they aren't really making corrections as far as changing things, they are just making sure the machine prints at the right exposure... just as you must do exposure adjustments with high key or lowkey pics when taking them..

 

[MICKEY88]

The thing is when I asked them to print the pics as is, the white turned out to be white. Now if the information of 18% grey is true, wouldn't my white turned out to be 18% grey instead?

Now I'm confused.

are you talking a little white or a highkey photo with white background and subject dressed in white.... there is a big difference..

 

[MICKEY88]

I would hope that if you asked them not to do any correcting they wouldn't.


I can hope can't I?

depends on how you ask, ,exposure comps. aren't really corrections, they are done to make sure the machine prints properly...

 

[Kelly Grannell]

are you talking a little white or a highkey photo with white background and subject dressed in white.... there is a big difference..

BOth, actually. Sometimes a little bit of white, sometimes high-key.

 

[MICKEY88]

BOth, actually. Sometimes a little bit of white, sometimes high-key.

a little bit of white wouldn't matter,, a high key photo printed on a traditional printer would print dark, turning the white grey, without adjustment by the machine operator, now that may be different on newer machines, and with digital images...