# 10000 shots spent



## eydryan (Oct 31, 2005)

can you imagine it? ten thousand shots. all digital of course, not adding the extra thou or so on film... and all in the course of what, 8 months... wow. the pitfalls of digital. 7,145 remain of the 10000+. 3000 wasted shots. hell if that were film i'd have sold my car by now. and of the 7000 4000 are unedited; unsorted;unlabeled and keyworded. hell, i don;t even know if even 100 are keyworded really... what does that lead us to? well the bottom line would be:wasted shots. clicks that meant nothing, done just for the sake of clicking. sure there are the coincidences when someone puts his arm up in exactly that second, but those are few. we're talking here of thousands of pictures!... jesus. how much waste. how much haste... i swear, if i had a nickel for all the bad shots, why i'd be a millionaire by now.  and for the shots i never could take. 10000 shots... the number surprises and scares me really. not even the software for the camera was designed for so many pictures. at first i didn't know what went wrong, why the pictures were no longer in chronological order; and then it hit me. the little number on the bottom of the screen indicated 0001. wow... i'd reached 10000. you know it's probably nonsense to you but think about it. how would it be to pile up 10000 printed photos? just normal 10*15cm ones. man, that's a lot. and i've got a lot of brilliant shots just hidden in that folder which i rarely have time to see. i mean it does take a while to view 10000 photos. 

on another note my first 00 shots (already 0500, make that 0837) have been enjoyable and i think quite nice... give'em a try: www.emaportrait.blogspot.com

and on even another note i've started my first photographical podcast, find it at: www.podcaster.go.ro and don't worry about the pop-ups they're harmless, please just use a pop-up killer or something so they don't buzz you. hope you like it, if you do i'll make more!


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Oct 31, 2005)

So how is your success rate? 


i.e good shots/bad! 

On film mine right now is probably about 1/7.  on a roll of 36 exposures I'll usually get 4 or 5 I'll be really happy with.  The rest I won't print and maybe re-shoot to get them better!:blushing:


----------



## mentos_007 (Oct 31, 2005)

in 2-3 week I'll score 10 000 pics taken with my fuji s5000... after 1,5 yr.....


----------



## eydryan (Oct 31, 2005)

yeah well on digital my success rate is unestimable but probably in the low-5% area

film is another thing, i even got about 60% success rate on film once. with film, well because of the cost i have to think what i'm doing first... then shoot. your success rate is good also but probably you have more money


----------



## eydryan (Oct 31, 2005)

well you do have some cool shots as well on your site and judging by the time it took you i'd say your success rate is a bit higher than mine...


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Oct 31, 2005)

mentos_007 said:
			
		

> in 2-3 week I'll score 10 000 pics taken with my fuji s5000... after 1,5 yr.....


 
Do you guys have the button taped down or something!


----------



## mentos_007 (Oct 31, 2005)

hehehehe but imagine that I took about 350 pics in London, Chris...  and this was one week only....


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Oct 31, 2005)

I took 3 rolls/36 exp but I did get an unusually high hit rate from the day! (for me anyway!:blushing: )  Must have been a mixture of the company & the many willing models available!


----------



## mentos_007 (Oct 31, 2005)

hahahaha yeah... Saffron Walden rate was 100% ... even more... coz I took a few pic with your camera, with Tony's... and..lol... I think that I tried everybody's camera


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 31, 2005)

Not mine 
You were not even remotely interested in my little compact digital :cry:
Or the Canon...

Mind, I tend to take very many digital photos myself, too. Like I took "only" some 250 in Hamburg IN ONE AFTERNOON ALONE... :roll:


----------



## AIRIC (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm a high shooter. On my New Orleans trip I took 1,876 photos in 8 days. As you can see by my posts I have a hard time deciding what not to show. I shoot a lot but throw very few away, maybe from experience I know what I like when I shoot. My first D-70 is 16 months old and I have 18,000 images on it and my second D-70 is 7 months old and I have 9,000 images on it. At an average 3 day airshow I will take about a 1,000 pics and this did not change from my slide and film days.  

Eric


----------



## LittleMan (Oct 31, 2005)

hehehe, I'm going to brag... because this was the only time that anything like this has happened to me.. 

The week I went to Germany I took around 12 rolls of 36 exp. photos.  I only had to throw out 3 of the photos. :mrgreen: (and two of which I didn't take.) :lmao:

The rest I put in albums and left in stacks to let my friends sort through them. :thumbup:

That's a pretty good success rate there... 

I'm a perfectionist though, so normaly I won't take the photo if it's not the way I like it...


----------



## darin3200 (Oct 31, 2005)

You digitial people are crazy, over 10,000 shots?! I would run out of things to take pictures of. For the most part my max is one roll of 36exp a week.


----------



## jstuedle (Oct 31, 2005)

When I shot bands I would shoot up to 800 frames a night. You were at the mercy of the bands lighting, so maybe 50 were really, really good. Some weekends I shot 2 bands over 3 or 4 nights. I could easily shoot 10,000 frames in a month. Had my camera been any less of a camera, I would have worn it out long ago. We did this for almost 2 years, it got very old. 
Now, on the other hand when I shot film, I still shot a lot. I had an instructor in collage that told me the photographers best friend is the trash can. Shoot 10 to 20 time more than you think you need to, and you might keep half as many as you thought. It's a rule that has served me well. At the Dayton Air Show in the mid-'80's I remember shooting 30 rolls of 36 exp. Most turned out OK, many stunning. At the time I worked for one of the main exhibitors and sponsors of the show so it was good PR for me. 
As far as your cataloging problem is concerned, this is one of the biggest headaches with digital. Try to establish a good workflow that includes archiving your data and work it. Religiously! This takes discipline and resolve, but it must be done or you will loose everything when you least expect it. Good Luck.


----------



## jadin (Nov 1, 2005)

I try to have a 1% keep rate. This keeps the quality of the keepers top notch etc. Basically ones you'd be willing to show in a gallery.

10k a month jstuedle? How many total? Looks like I have quite a few years left on my baby...


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 1, 2005)

> 10k a month jstuedle? How many total? Looks like I have quite a few years left on my baby...


 
I have about 110K on my D1, something over 70K on my D1X. I beleive the shutter in the D1 series is the same as that of the F5. It seems I read they are rated at 150K exposures. Good thing the D1 is just about retired. I'm thinking of converting it to a IR only body to get some more use out of it.


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Nov 1, 2005)

mentos_007 said:
			
		

> hahahaha yeah... Saffron Walden rate was 100% ... even more... coz I took a few pic with your camera, with Tony's... and..lol... I think that I tried everybody's camera


 
You're just a photography whore aren't you!   

If you people are taking thousands of shots per month, what is your main subject? I only have a few and could stretch to a film a week if I could get the time to go out!

If you do photography for a living then I could understand it! 

Unless it's down to heavy use of continuous mode?


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 1, 2005)

I shot promo for bands that my kids knew for a couple of years. Yes, shot a lot of continuous mode to catch THE shot with the bands lighting. Wore on me and the camera a lot. I am a lot worse for the wear than the Nikon is. The D1 was a better camera for that venue than the D1X was, faster frame rate and higher ISO made a difference. I used the 1X when shooting for CD case covers and promo posters, it did a great job there. When we go somewhere we won't be back for a while I shoot a lot, and when shooting pets and kids I use continuious mode then too. It all adds up.


----------



## LaFoto (Nov 1, 2005)

PlasticSpanner said:
			
		

> ...what is your main subject? ...
> Unless it's down to heavy use of continuous mode?


 
Well, I have a good many "continuous themes" running in my head, several of which got inspired by this very forum here, such as fence posts or textures.
Over all, what I CAN (could) photograph every day is landscapes galore, but for those I am (have always been) waiting for the right light, time of day, atmosphere or some such things. And many of my photos are boring. I save them on an external hard drive (well, several of those by now, cough-cough), but don't "touch" them again, like bumping contrasts or saturation, cropping or whatever little things I do (can exclusively do, since I am too silly to understand Photoshop) to pictures that I like.

And sometimes I also just take "boredom pics"... something I would most certainly NEVER do with the 35mm Canon. Remember the dust on my CD player in the car? That kind. Just so I can DO something while I wait for my daughter to come out of the pool/her ballet lessons etc.

And sometimes I go on something special, like a trip over to England, Essex to become more precise, Saffron Walden to become VERY precise, to meet you guys there, and on those occasions I tend to photograph lots, for my own memories as well as for the attempt to capture "The Good One". One that "speaks" and has some "meaning", other than a snapshot of a gathering.

Or my trips into Hamburg. I really was on a "mission" then, and on those I spend some more film + room on the chip than usually. If I would make it to the zoo again one day, I'd certainly not be thrifty with film and room on chip, either.

But I am beginning to try and reduce my "waste" and think and compose more beforehand, something that digital cameras tend to make you "un-learn". The Leica is leading me back along that path of being more careful. (I hope ).


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 1, 2005)

> But I am beginning to try and reduce my "waste" and think and compose more beforehand, something that digital cameras tend to make you "un-learn". The Leica is leading me back along that path of being more careful. (I hope ).


 
I look at digital from another perspective. It permitts me to experiment more than I ever did with film. For no reason I will pick up my bellows, attach a reversed 50mm lens and shoot bread, then a bird feather, then the shutter from and old camera I tore appart years ago. Stuff I would not waste film on before has made salable images for me now. I now have the freedom to experimant with abandon. Well, almost that much.   I think I will post my feather pic, just to see if anyone likes it. Let me know if you catch it in the other fourm.


----------



## LaFoto (Nov 1, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> It permitts me to experiment more than I ever did with film....


 
Actually, I wholeheartedly agree on this.
This is exactly what I am doing with my little compact digital, and I am enjoying it. The instant gratification factor of digital photography helps me to learn about a couple of things that I had known in theory but never tested for fear of wasting too much film, and it gives me the chance to experiment (I called it "play") and try out things that I had never thought of before. So yes, I am quite enjoying that aspect of digital photography.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 1, 2005)

first of all i have to say i'm quite surprised by the number of posts in such a short time and i'm amazed at the fact that some people shoot more... 

nowadays i shoot a lot of crap as i take the digital to school and all my female colleagues just want pics more for expressions rather than artistical value... and that burns 512Mb a day. at least 

but 180000?! man where do you keep all that stuff? and for how long have you been shooting?

it's hard for me to follow up on all that has been written here but i see this is kinda turning into yet another digital vs film discussion so let's not sidetrack.

and littleman, no matter what you say if you got 3 wrong from 432 then you didn't get such good pictures per total. no one can achieve a success rate higher that say 80%, no matter what. it's the usual problems and also you simply cannot do that unless you're too good a photographer. by sucess rate i mean here the rate of very good photos, not the rate of acceptable ones.

if i dropped a point from around here target me to it and i'll discuss that one too.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 1, 2005)

> but 180000?! man where do you keep all that stuff? and for how long have you been shooting?


 
I have albums with DVD's of all raw images, CD's and DVD's of all edited/finished for print files and a bank of external hard drives with it all online at the flip of a power switch. I purchased a used D1 in 2000, a new D1X in early 2002 and a used D1H in mid 2003. I have shot film since 1965. Did I miss anything?


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 1, 2005)

> no one can achieve a success rate higher that say 80%, no matter what. it's the usual problems and also you simply cannot do that unless you're too good a photographer. by sucess rate i mean here the rate of very good photos, not the rate of acceptable ones.


 
Yea, I did miss something. I worked part time for a studio photog in the early '70s. I can honestly say he might have blown one shot in the 9 months or so I was there. But then that is a different situation. All the lights were "string" measured from the subject, the posing chair and camera locations marked on the floor, it was almost idiot proof, and very boring. But for a mobile photog, %80 I would say is exceptional. But then even with film I would bracket, try moving a little to make another perspective work, or try another shot laying down or standing on a fence or ladder. Always "play'in" around for THE shot.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 1, 2005)

aproximate number of gigabytes the content takes up...


----------



## eydryan (Nov 1, 2005)

and about the success rate yeah that's what i thought...


----------



## LaFoto (Nov 1, 2005)

When my sister flew to Namibia a month ago, she had to do some explaining to the customs officers in the airport, like why she was carrying 50 (!) rolls of film in her hand luggage?

She filled 46 of those 50 rolls within a fortnight there.
Plus two complete 512mb flash cards. The latter by spending EVERY single night in her hotel room editing out things that only remotely seemed to be out of focus, blurred, too dark, whatever.

Why?
Because she knows that she won't get back there any time soon. Re-shoots are impossible.
So she tried to capture what she saw as best as she could and from various angles. Or she snapped away out of the moving bus, hoping to get a couple of "good" photos with some kind of meaning. Whether only to herself of others, too, doesn't matter for the moment. 

Technically, there were only as few "bloopers" among her photos as LittleMan is saying that he is having (counting the prints ... like I said, she deleted a good many of her digital photos that went wrong technically every night).

And I found each of the ones that I saw interesting enough to spend some time with it. In the end, however, when we started to think about which ones would be worth shown (up here, for example), I chose about a 9 % of her prints, for there was always one "best" out of a series of photos.

So yes, especially in situations that won't repeat themselves, we need to photograph "in abundance". I am sure also the pros who get published in the big magazines do that. There is no one around who takes ONE photo of something and that ONE photo is THE BIG HIT, and he takes another ONE photo of something else and that, too, is the SECOND BIG HIT and so on.

However I come to thinking that digital should not revert us into "snappers".
I sometimes see that kind of danger in it.
Though I am definitely not one who says "either...or". I am not fanatic about "only film" or "only digital", I do both and accept both, and I can be careful (about composing, framing, lighting, DOF) AND careless (or "playful", or "experimenting", whichever word you prefer). All in one.


----------



## LaFoto (Nov 1, 2005)

And I am now thinking that this thread has turned so much into an "ON topic"-thread that it would belong in the Photography Discussion Forum!
Shall I move it?


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 1, 2005)

I think you are right, if might be of some help to others.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 1, 2005)

yeah well i believe that's where i wanted to put it first  i just found this one with discussion in it so i jumped to  so pls move it to its rightful location...

jstuedle u still haven't said how much space the collection actually ocuppies. (in gb and why not in actual space)

snapshooters it is i am afraid. but it's only on compacts i think. i don't think that if i had an eos digital i would shoot so much. it's bigger bulkier and not that automatic... i dunno really, but i think this trigger happiness is characteristic to compacts only. gosh i wish i had the cash for a dslr  would cut the hell out of my costs...


----------



## jadin (Nov 1, 2005)

LaFoto said:
			
		

> There is no one around who takes ONE photo of something and that ONE photo is THE BIG HIT, and he takes another ONE photo of something else and that, too, is the SECOND BIG HIT and so on.


 
I'm not so sure. I read (probably here) about a guy who got tired of taking so many photos all the time, and chose to take a photo a day for a year. The catch was he could only take that one single photo for the entire day. I can't remember if all the photos were in his book or just the best ones, but it wouldn't surprise me if all of them were. So I think it is possible.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 1, 2005)

we're not talking about social experiments... we're talking about normal photogs who take a relatively moderate at least number of pics. otherwise you cannot be a photog in the professional sense...


----------



## jadin (Nov 1, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> we're not talking about social experiments... we're talking about normal photogs who take a relatively moderate at least number of pics. otherwise you cannot be a photog in the professional sense...


 
Is this at me? I was replying to the text I quoted only, not the rest of the thread.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 1, 2005)

well if you reply to it inside the thread you reply to the thread. otherwise just write OT: (off-topic) in front of it. 

and what's wrong with discussing the whole thread? why limit yourself?


----------



## jadin (Nov 1, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> well if you reply to it inside the thread you reply to the thread. otherwise just write OT: (off-topic) in front of it.


 
Not exactly, quoting many times means you're replying to just that. Topics shift and change as they progress, so quoting allows you to reply to something out of context of the rest of the thread.



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> and what's wrong with discussing the whole thread? why limit yourself?


 

There's nothing wrong with discussing the whole thread. I was simply explaining my post since you said "we're not talking about social experiments... we're talking about normal photogs who take a relatively moderate at least number of pics."

Why limit yourself? Sometimes you are motivated to respond to a specific point and nothing else, which is what happened here.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 1, 2005)

I thought it was completely relevant - the first post of this thread is all about taking too many photo's.

Also, isn't there something slightly pro about publishing the photo's in a book?


----------



## panzershreck (Nov 1, 2005)

you people are nuts

reminds me of two years ago in europe, two trips in one month... first trip, just my sister and I, with a compact automatic 35mm camera... we did 3 countries and stayed in 4 cities in 2 weeks, never stopping or relaxing (we're young and expendable)... total number of photos shot? maybe 3-4 rolls... then another trip with a large group, to a different country, only 2 small towns + countryside, and one city in 2 weeks... much slower... and not as much... they all brought brand new compact and high-end digital cameras, and between them all, probably each shot 50 photos per day! most of which was nonsense... the end result? whereas ours were of stuff like the interior of the spanish riding school in vienna, various old cathedrals, historic and landscape shots, odd ball stuff like guys surfing in munich... theirs were of trees, doors, signs, the group standing around like 200 times... roads... etc. (of course, constantly moving fast vs. constantly moving slowly might do this)

call me crazy, or masochistic, i'm going for the opposite - as few shots as possible... buy bulk, and only load the rolls with 10 or less frames... if i could, i'd cut a section out of a roll and tape that section - just enough for one frame - behind the shutter... only one shot baby!


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 1, 2005)

> jstuedle u still haven't said how much space the collection actually ocuppies. (in gb and why not in actual space)


 
My external hard drives is where I keep old images on line. I have 3 120 gig and 4 160 gig externals. All are archive stroage. In my computer I run 2 240 gig drives. Drice C: is boot, operating sys, program storage, and images in process storage. Drive D: is camera download, temp space for Photoshop and temporary storage for finished pics ready for print. So in total I run almost 1 1/2 terabytes. Soon I will need to add another external drive. This is not storing every image captured, many, many have been deleted. Almost all captures are RAW files and all my ready for print files are TIFF stored in final print size at 300 DPI.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 1, 2005)

> call me crazy, or masochistic, i'm going for the opposite - as few shots as possible... buy bulk, and only load the rolls with 10 or less frames... if i could, i'd cut a section out of a roll and tape that section - just enough for one frame - behind the shutter... only one shot baby!


 
No, you are not crazy. You just have a different way of looking at things than I do. In my opinion I would rather shoot 100 frames and keep 5 than shoot 2 and wish I had shot 3 more. Electrons are cheaper than air fare or fuel and my time is worth more than another hard drive for storage. If I am going to invest in 3 digital bodies, 60+ lenses and the time to shoot, I'm going to make it work for me, not the other way around. I felt the same way when I shot film. Why invest in that then new F3 and motor drive, or what ever camera I slung at the time if it was not going to work for me.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 1, 2005)

wow...1 1/2 terra. just pure porn


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 1, 2005)

> wow...1 1/2 terra. just pure porn


 
Only a lot more interesting.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 1, 2005)

heheh


----------



## Jeff Canes (Nov 6, 2005)

I was a high volume shooter with film and still am with digital. Been taking weeklong photo vacation one a year for few years now. 3 to 4 rolls of 36 explores a day is very typical for me when on vacation. With a high percentage good shots and few very good ones per roll. Going digital has also cut my cost down big time, IMO my 10D paid for itself with in a year and haft.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Nov 6, 2005)

jadin said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure. I read (probably here) about a guy who got tired of taking so many photos all the time, and chose to take a photo a day for a year. The catch was he could only take that one single photo for the entire day. I can't remember if all the photos were in his book or just the best ones, but it wouldn't surprise me if all of them were. So I think it is possible.



i have that book, somewhere:meh:, and yes it has a photo for each day of year, but some are two per page


----------



## panzershreck (Nov 7, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> No, you are not crazy. You just have a different way of looking at things than I do. In my opinion I would rather shoot 100 frames and keep 5 than shoot 2 and wish I had shot 3 more. Electrons are cheaper than air fare or fuel and my time is worth more than another hard drive for storage. If I am going to invest in 3 digital bodies, 60+ lenses and the time to shoot, I'm going to make it work for me, not the other way around. I felt the same way when I shot film. Why invest in that then new F3 and motor drive, or what ever camera I slung at the time if it was not going to work for me.


 
i'm not a professional and don't have a lot of time or money, so i guess i reacted differently to the problem than you, trying to get the most quality vs. the most quantity, because i had no real option for getting a lot quantity

in that sense, the medium (film) is the least of my worries, i paid $50 for my camera and 3 lenses, and another $100 on another lens, film, developer and so on, i've got an infinite amount of time to develop it and tinker with it... so there's not a cloud hanging over my head

in your shoes i'm sure i'd go digital, but i do not have the needs


----------



## eydryan (Nov 7, 2005)

i am going digital because the costs are just driving me mad. a full processing is about (+film cost and scanning) 10euros right. my salary is about 50euros a month. i am a student so that;s about all i can get part time around here... and you can see how the sheer cost of film is aching me. and my parents don't like it too much either


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Nov 7, 2005)

When photographing stars I do tend to use a few films!  Probably even more now I'm processing them myself.  But each good shot is usually compiled from several shots stacked together so 10 shots of Orion might make 1 photo.


----------



## BadRotation (Nov 11, 2005)

I have about 25,000 on the 20d right now...

Like you, (at least in the beginning) most were wasted, just clicked for the sake of clicking.   Now I have calmed down alot, and my keeper rate is almost 95%.   I have learned ALOT over the past two years.   I started out as your average college student with a camera, taking stupid pictures of absolutely nothing, now to getting paid to take photos.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 11, 2005)

well gimme a 20D and i'll get 60% at least... but the dsc is just so... limited, so unergonomical... i want a digital slr...(


----------



## LaFoto (Nov 11, 2005)

Well, when I was 18, the world did not even know there once would be digital photography.............................................. And we also got by.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 11, 2005)

Corina not only did we get by, we got by very well. We got by without cable TV, CD's, DVD's, VIDEOTAPE!, remote controles, microwaves, digital clocks,and the internet, We got by with only three TV channels, and the TV off the air after the evening news. We got by with half the programing in B&W. We got by with hand held light meters and no program modes. We got by without any automation in our cameras at all. Gee, how did we live like that? Very well, very well indeed.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 12, 2005)

and when i'll be your age i'll probably be saying the same thing about all those old things, like remember the D70, wow what a kiddie camera that was, unlike the cameras today which fly above your head and take pictures by themselves 

it's progress and it's good. to quote discovery channel:


> If you think that all good things come to those who wait, where on earth would you be today...


 

to the future!

  	:cheers:


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 12, 2005)

Yes, its progress. I can't help but think how many are starting photography today and missing out on all the fun we had "back in the day". I really believe the best foundation in this craft is built on manual cameras, hand held meters, and Dektol stains. But, I digress....


----------



## eydryan (Nov 12, 2005)

well, you are right. but the most important thing in photography still is here. the fun you have while taking the pictures, the spiritual journey with all the models you photograph, and the experience of recording a moment in time... it's trully amazing what photography offers you. it's like everybody looks at the world but only us see it...

automatic systems take a lot from the experience at first but after a while, you start overriding the automatic systems, you fiddle with the lenses and after yet some more time you return to the old konica 35mm with fixed shutter speed and 3 available apertures... and don't worry the old photography is not lost. it's just for less people.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 12, 2005)

> and don't worry the old photography is not lost. it's just for less people.


 
You are right. I said in an earlier post that wet photography well only be for the elite, the well healed artist in a few decades. The one hour labs will only do dry digital, the single use cameras will all be digital. Film will be lost for the masses and available only to those who want a walk down memory lane.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 12, 2005)

and one more thing could happen: film could evolve... for all these decades film has evolved only slightly, bringing small details into the picture but nothing really amazing... i mean a film revolution would indeed be something, making film remain for the elites and/or for specific tasks and such. i mean i dunno smth like sunset film or some inimaginable feature that digital would fail to achieve... the future belongs to the digital and that is inevitable. everybody will, sooner or later go digital no matter what. but film will maybe stay there for at least a while. but it will vanish in time, unfortunatelly... as all great inventions have when greater ones appeared...


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 12, 2005)

Film and buggy whips. As for film evolving, it would take a massive influx of research cash I believe, and the money is in digital. Oh well, a deep subject for the shallow mind.


----------



## jadin (Nov 13, 2005)

I'm looking forward to digital evolving! Maybe something like the sensors using selective ISO to capture all available light in an image. Everything from the bright sun, to the darkest shadows, and being able to adjust everything to how you want it. The way digital works with pixels offers so much possibility. Wait... maybe they could make a giant single pixel sensor that mimics the way film works. See? There's so much possibility in digital!

Film has exsisted for around 200 years. If it hasn't evolved yet, I think it's pretty unlikely it will evolve now. Especially as jstuedle pointed out all the research money is going into digital now.

Ironically I learned to shoot in manual, and am only now learning how to use automatic. It's kind of hard to get it right!


----------



## Mercury149 (Nov 13, 2005)

I've taken about 1000 pics with my D70, and I have had it for a 4 and a half weeks!!!:lmao:


----------



## eydryan (Nov 13, 2005)

mercury my man you shoot quite little. i shoot 300+shots a day. what can i say the girls at university dig photos 

and about digital well yes it's evolving. it'll go where no man can even imagine. trust me on that one. it will be such a resolution that zoom lenses will be superflous, colours will mimick human retina perception and all that will fit in the corner of your eye or maybe as a contact lens, huh?  film will die soon but not yet, now it's still quite strong with so many pros still shooting film. it's still a trend. but it'll pass. in 10 years everybody will have pocket compacts like the t7 capable of doing so much more and a photolab in every home. and nobody will shoot film anymore except a few old people remebering the good days. it's sad but it's true i think. digital will win. like the otto engine over the steam engine...


----------



## Mercury149 (Nov 13, 2005)

Wow eydryan:hail: .... I wish I had the time to shoot that much!:hail:  Dude what do you shoot?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Nov 13, 2005)

This is why I prefer 5x4 and 10x8 - you do it in one (that's 100% success rate).
But my shooting rate depends upon what I'm shooting. When it's people you have to pop off a few rolls, but with still life or landscape - I only shoot 1 (3 at the most) but then I know what I'm doing and also what I'm trying to do.
If you find yourself shooting silly amounts then you might as well go the extra inch and buy a cine camera.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 13, 2005)

heheh well i just integrate it into whatever i'm doing. these 300pics\day are with my class and such, mostly non-artistical stuff so it doesn't really take up much time... 

i've had this window open for an hour now so i'll just hit quick reply and close it, apparently i have no time for it


----------



## jadin (Nov 13, 2005)

eydryan said:
			
		

> mercury my man you shoot quite little.


 
Especially considering you have a brand new camera! I took photos like crazy after getting mine!



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> and about digital well yes it's evolving. it'll go where no man can even imagine. trust me on that one. it will be such a resolution that zoom lenses will be superflous, colours will mimick human retina perception and all that will fit in the corner of your eye or maybe as a contact lens, huh?  film will die soon but not yet, now it's still quite strong with so many pros still shooting film. it's still a trend. but it'll pass. in 10 years everybody will have pocket compacts like the t7 capable of doing so much more and a photolab in every home.


 

Maybe in 100 or even 200 years. But not 10. Take a look at everything that was predicted for the year 2000. Most of it isn't even remotely close to reality, or even 'on the way'.



			
				eydryan said:
			
		

> and nobody will shoot film anymore except a few old people remebering the good days. it's sad but it's true i think. digital will win. like the otto engine over the steam engine...


 
Film will always be trendy. There will always be enthusiasts to keep it alive, not just old people, but college students and such.

p.s. how does everything somehow turn into film v. digital??


----------



## eydryan (Nov 13, 2005)

100 years jadin? look at the rise of resolution and new systems in the past ten or twnty years. it's like from the old cameras to having a digital system capable of reproducing almost film-like resolution. and you see that all digital systems evolve rapidly and especially together. so it's actually a continued boom nowadays with technology. 30years top and no one will be using film (statistically i mean, sure there will be enthusiasts).

film will die that is my opinion and i keep it. maybe not in 10 maybe not in 20 hell maybe not even in a hundred but it will vanish. just think of everything else that evolved. the new stuff always takes over. and for remaining for everyone, i doubt it. maybe for some students yes. some nostalgics but that's about it. i mean, nowadays think. would you really want to go send a letter in the post wait 3 to 5 weeks for it to arrive or would you use email  that's what digital offers. a cheaper simpler way of doing what you want with none of the minuses.

now i dunno why either but maybe we like it like sci-fi just what will it be?  but no matter what, even if film dies (and i love film just not costly...) the future looks mighty sweet for everybody...

EDIT: and you say about prediction. well in digital systems the growth had been actually mathematically predicted bythis guy in the 80s and it evolved exactly by his formula for the past 25 years and he sais will bottom out (due to spacial limitations) around the year 2018. now this is pure math and the limitation is that you reach atom size and well you'd have to come up with another technology. like the optical chip. you heard about that? they made one of those optical computers. a laptop. and the chip is smaller than a coin. so the technology is already available.but it;s not cheap enough yet.


----------



## jadin (Nov 13, 2005)

Yeah 100 years.

You must be referring to the doubling of speed every 18 months. While that maybe true, it's all based on the same technologies. In order to achieve the kind of jumps you're talking about you'd need to start from scracth on brand new technologies. It can't be based on current designs.

I realize what you're saying about the advances in technology, and I agree they are impressive. But it seems to take forever for them to be implimented in consumber products. The optical computer for instance. How long do you think it will be before it is purchasable by you and me? That's what drags technology down.

The potential is there, but it takes forever to be fully implimented.

Case and point. The first digital sensor (CCD technology) was made in 1970. That was 35 years ago and we're _still_ using the same technology in digital camera's. 35 years! In 1973 the CCD size was 100x100 pixels (10 kilopixel). In 2005 the largest commercially available digital camera (excluding medium / large format) is 16.6 megapixel. A size that should have been reached in 1989 based on the 18 month doubling prediction. Today we should have 20 gigapixel cameras. How long do you think it will be before we see one?

We won't. Not until the current technology is abandoned and new technologies are developed. That's my opinion anyway.


----------



## eydryan (Nov 14, 2005)

first of all no i'm not referring to the doubling every n months that is folklore. what i am referring to is an actual mathematical theory which has foreseen this development. it was once on a show on discovery so i can't quite remeber who said it but trust me it's there... and the growth was exponential. 

and what jumps am i saying? if i can think of it then we do have the technology. maybe not to make them fly or fit in your eye but otherwise, it's all there... jumps would only be necessary for film. that's the cool thing with digital, you have one superchip which can do anything  link more of them together and voila you have a revolutionary thing.

of course as a sf lover i am optimistic but you must agree that it is possible. and the optical computer, well the laptop i was telling you about has a 6GHz processor and 1TB RAM 2TB HDD and it cost just 1800$ ! now if that is a lot i don;'t know what isn't. so you see it is there. and let's see a canon bla bla mark II is 7000$. so the technology is here and is readily available(well not for me but if i woul even make 5$ with it i'd buy it). implementation is a bit of a ***** but otherwise all is possible.

and do not forget that the ccd was not made for capture. and also that now there are CMOS sensors. and i don't get it why they don;t just make bigger sensors.

well the point is to see all opinions and not just argue like madmen  but it's interesting to argue too  it's interesting to discuss in this thread.


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

I've never heard of the equation you speak of from the discovery channel. I'd be interested to know more...

You didn't say anything about jumps in technology. That was my opinion that they would be needed to achieve the results you spoke of. Current techniques will only go so far before they have to be retired.

You're right about having a superchip and it's limitless possibilities. But there is problems with current technologies. (This next paragraph is pretty much from memory from several years ago. Things could've changed, and I could remember things incorrectly. So take it with a grain of salt.)

CPU's would be significantly faster if heat wasn't a factor. You send an electrical charge through the silicon or whatever is in your cpu to make it work. Adding electricity will speed up the processor but also heats up faster. The end result is you can only send so much electricity through before the chip overheats and becomes unstable. The reason CPU's are continually made smaller is so that they can run faster with the same amount of electricity without raising the amount of heat generated. Eventually however it becomes so small that you run out of room and therefore have to start over in design. Thus creating differences in CPU's. (pentium 3 vs pentium 4 as a quick example)

The big jumps in speed will come with abandoning old technologies completely to avoid these limitations. The optical computer you speak of for example. By abandoning the design of silicon / copper etc to make the CPU, they are able to achieve much greater speeds without the old limitations. $1800?? Did you forget a zero or two zeros?? 1800 bucks is a STEAL! What's great about the optical is it will be able to achieve much better results (1TB ram etc) than the old technologies it overtakes.

The mark II is still based on the old principles, however. CMOS is the next step above CCD but the results are pretty much the same (5-10 MP vs 16 MP). I don't see CMOS taking us even close to the results you are talking about. Eventually someone will discover a whole new way to capture the images to digital. Only then will the next great jump occur.


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

I was interested in the optical computer so I did a quick search. Wikipedi had the following -



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> No true optical computers are declassified or otherwise known to exist.


 
This is exactly my point. Not only are they not ready for mass production. They aren't even known to exsist!


----------



## eydryan (Nov 14, 2005)

firstly http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page4.html i can't find the commercial page. so wiki needs to rewrite some stuff  so the laptop i speak of is here, i'm not bul****ting. and wiki has flaws. google doesn't. 

the equation i'll search. although i have no idea how... and nothing comes up right now. but i'l keep searching. i remember it was one of the really big mathematicians, but i can't put my finger on it... 

you speak of current technologie being retired. why? and which ones have retired? 

well the heating is not an issue. you already have computers running on liquid nitrogen as coolant so... that isn't the problem, just maybe a minor setback. and yes platforms need shifting and changing but technology in its whole moves in the same direction. i mean the pentium 4 is an evolved platform of the prescott chip if i remember correctly and so on. they all evolve. old chips are dumped for new chips. but that's just evolution. bigger better and smaller  

and about performance; the optical can reach 6.5GHZ. pentium 4's platform can techincally go up to 10GHz before becoming obsolete... however opinions about this optical computers are split. some say it is a hoax, but there is a lot of info to back their story up. i mean i've seen the atom flow charts. they're talking of using a magnetic trap to trap electrons and use them as ones and zeros. i can;t find the page with the principles but i've read it and it;s for real. also there has been another optical computer i;ve seen in the german chip or smth when i went there about such a computer. that one is real real  but it;s a bit big. like 2-3times your desktop computer. so it's bulky. 
this is the optical RAM: http://atomchip.com/db4/00366/atomchip.com/_uimages/512GBram.JPG

AHA: i've fund the site for the foudation. check out the research page. you'll be amazed... http://pi1.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/physi/atph/index.php

don't let cmos down so fast, it;s only beginning. give it a year or two to grow and then we'll see. but you are right about other means of digital recording. unfortunatelly as pixels make up the digital world it is very hard to think of anything else...


and in the end something you know but which fits into our little discussion:



> Bill Gates once said "64k should be enough for anyone"


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

You missed the key word - No *true* optical computers are declassified or otherwise known to exist.

The laptop seems to use optical to enhance current electron based systems. Which is great since the results are stunning, but a true optical computer would leave that thing in the dust. It seems the keypoints of the laptop are storage size and ram size, but seem to be limited in speed due to it's electron based components.

I'll give you the fact that CMOS is fairly new so it may yet take us leaps and bounds into the next era of digital photography.

I disagree about the pentium 4's being able to go to 10Ghz before becoming obsolete. I think 10Ghz is somewhat of a pipedream for that CPU, perhaps with liquid cooling (which I want to add will take a long time for it to be an accepted component of computers). Truth is the CPU's we see today are running at the very maximum the chipmakers can get them to run stably. If they could get them to run faster we would see them on the market. Instead their engineers are continually looking for ways to tweak the current designs to gain an extra 100Mhz here an extra 100Mhz there. It's impressive what they are able to accomplish, but I would bet my firstborn there will be a new chipset that will take over long before the 10Ghz mark is reached.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 14, 2005)

How many megapixels do you guys need?  You can work with 4 but 16 is plenty for a full frame 35mm sensor.  And 40???  Give me a break.   Yes, I'd love to have a play with it but unless I have a specialist need for it, it can stay in the shop.

Digital is more neutral at handling colour than film IMO and you get far more colour resolution than you can see - even when you take heavy processing into account.

So why do I want to use film?

Film is warm and has character - digital is cold and clinical.  Of course, this could also be a reason for shooting digital. 

Digital is just way too expensive - unless you're budgeting to a 5 year plan.  

So I think as long as film has a warmer character and is 10 x cheaper, it will always be the prefered option for some - even if the rest are playing with 192bit gigapixels.


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> How many megapixels do you guys need? You can work with 4 but 16 is plenty for a full frame 35mm sensor. And 40??? Give me a break.


 
Uhhh, as many as I can get my hands on. The bigger the pixel the bigger you can enlarge.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 14, 2005)

The more you enlarge, the further it should be viewed from which is why we don't look at billboards/posters and say "that's rubbish - I can see all the dots!"

Unless you want to present a large photographic collage type of thing that is meant to be viewed in closer sections;  But then I'd call that quite a specialist work and could be done easily, anyway.


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> The more you enlarge, the further it should be viewed from which is why we don't look at billboards/posters and say "that's rubbish - I can see all the dots!"
> 
> Unless you want to present a large photographic collage type of thing that is meant to be viewed in closer sections; But then I'd call that quite a specialist work and could be done easily, anyway.


 
That's just it, you don't have to view from a distance with enough megapixels. And I wouldn't consider that specialist work either.

What about all the medium and large format shooters out there? Do you think they are wasting all that film? I don't. It allows them much more flexibility as to what sizes they can and cannot print.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 14, 2005)

> How many megapixels do you guys need? You can work with 4 but 16 is plenty for a full frame 35mm sensor. And 40??? Give me a break.  Yes, I'd love to have a play with it but unless I have a specialist need for it, it can stay in the shop.


 
I can remember "back in the day" when talking of breaking the 640K ram barrier in the PC, being asked "just how much RAM does a guy need?". Technology will always grow, and we will always look back on it in amazement and ask "how did we get by with such limitations?".





> Digital is just way too expensive - unless you're budgeting to a 5 year plan.
> 
> So I think as long as film has a warmer character and is 10 x cheaper, it will always be the prefered option for some - even if the rest are playing with 192bit gigapixels.


 

There will come a time when digital will be cheap, much more so than film. All too soon film will loose it's "economy of scale" as more and more manufacturers shut down and move on to "new and better" technologies. Film will go the way of the buggy whip and will be reserved for the elite artisan, well out of reach of the weekend point and shooters.

To bring the thread back on topic. If you shoot a lot, and many of us do, digital is already cheaper than film. Economy of scale has already entered into the equasion. I shoot things that I may not have with film, just because the camera is always with me and there is no cost per frame untill I go to print. To shoot 10,000 frames is really not a lot if the camera is an extension of you, the person. What I see with my camera. Pushing the shutter is just a reflex.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 14, 2005)

jadin said:
			
		

> That's just it, you don't have to view from a distance with enough megapixels. And I wouldn't consider that specialist work either.


When I do a print, it's intended to be viewed as a whole. If it's viewed to closely then the essence of the image is gone. There may well be smaller elements to the picture but they are meant to be seen within the context of the whole picture - not as sections in their own right. If I wanted that, I'd do a seperate photo for it.



			
				jadin said:
			
		

> What about all the medium and large format shooters out there? Do you think they are wasting all that film? I don't. It allows them much more flexibility as to what sizes they can and cannot print.


They're shooting film aren't they? Shooting a larger format reduces the grain.

I think the ones shooting with 40MP digital backs are waisting there time though - unless they have a specialist agenda.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 14, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> Pushing the shutter is just a reflex.


It's the same with me when I shoot digital - that's why I get better results from film. 

The point I'm making is that technology has already reached the point where the MP's are big enough for people to swap over from film;  But it's not just about the MP's.


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> When I do a print, it's intended to be viewed as a whole. If it's viewed to closely then the essence of the image is gone. There may well be smaller elements to the picture but they are meant to be seen within the context of the whole picture - not as sections in their own right. If I wanted that, I'd do a seperate photo for it.


 
That's your personal perception of how photography should be displayed. I love images that look beautiful on whole and yet I can stare at the smaller elements for hours. Photos within photos should be praised, not shunned!



			
				Marctwo said:
			
		

> They're shooting film aren't they? Shooting a larger format reduces the grain.
> 
> I think the ones shooting with 40MP digital backs are waisting there time though - unless they have a specialist agenda.


 
I highly doubt the only reason they choose larger formats is grain reduction.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 14, 2005)

jadin said:
			
		

> That's your personal perception of how photography should be displayed. I love images that look beautiful on whole and yet I can stare at the smaller elements for hours. Photos within photos should be praised, not shunned!


If you're talking about doing extremely large photographic prints then that in itself is specialised.

If you're talking about billboard/poster campaigns then no-one will waste so much ink in printing them that resolute anyway.





			
				jadin said:
			
		

> I highly doubt the only reason they choose larger formats is grain reduction.


I'm sure you're right - but it's still film.


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> If you're talking about doing extremely large photographic prints then that in itself is specialised.
> 
> If you're talking about billboard/poster campaigns then no-one will waste so much ink in printing them that resolute anyway.


 
I'm talking about _any_ photograph! Even a 4x6! I really don't see how having multiple levels of elements is considered specialized...



			
				Marctwo said:
			
		

> I'm sure you're right - but it's still film.


 
You asked who needed more than 16 MP. I'm answering. Surely the photographer's using med / large format might want to use digital if it had comparable resolution to film...


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 14, 2005)

jadin said:
			
		

> I'm talking about _any_ photograph! Even a 4x6! I really don't see how having multiple levels of elements is considered specialized...


That's already been covered.





			
				jadin said:
			
		

> You asked who needed more than 16 MP. I'm answering. Surely the photographer's using med / large format might want to use digital if it had comparable resolution to film...


16MP is comparable in real terms.  But as said, it's not just about the MP's.


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

16MP is comparable to 35mm. You'd need well over 200MP to compare to a 4x5 camera.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 14, 2005)

The point is that there's no real need for 200MP - unless for specialist purposes.


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

We're going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 14, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 14, 2005)

> The point I'm making is that technology has already reached the point where the MP's are big enough for people to swap over from film; But it's not just about the MP's.


 
This point has been made over and over. Once the pixel density get's to about 10 MP in DX format, digital has overtaken film if you compare them at digital min ISO ratings. Six to eight MP equals film to most shooters eyes. The pixel density of the D2X is the highest today. It already is pushing the resolving power of the best lenses available in 35mm format. At full frame, 20MP would be about the same pixel size. To exceed that would require an advance in lens technology that I don't think we can afford. Just a little trivia and personal observation. We do keep going OT, don't I, er, a, we?


----------



## panzershreck (Nov 14, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> We do keep going OT, don't I, er, a, we?


 
i often wonder if construction guys sit around arguing over the future of the nail since screws are so plentiful, cheap, and better vs. quantity of nails and the nail gun, or the nail gun vs. the "obsolete" hammer :scratch:


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 14, 2005)

The nail will be dead in 10 years and we'll all be using 'no more nails' industrial glue.


----------



## jadin (Nov 14, 2005)

panzershreck said:
			
		

> i often wonder if construction guys sit around arguing over the future of the nail since screws are so plentiful, cheap, and better vs. quantity of nails and the nail gun, or the nail gun vs. the "obsolete" hammer :scratch:


 
Of course not! They never went to college! They can't figure out things like that!

.
..
...
....

:er:


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Nov 14, 2005)

panzershreck said:
			
		

> i often wonder if construction guys sit around arguing over the future of the nail since screws are so plentiful, cheap, and better vs. quantity of nails and the nail gun, or the nail gun vs. the "obsolete" hammer :scratch:


 
OT Again!

Each fastener has it's own job and for some jobs you must use a nail & others you must use a screw!

Oh and *NO* liquid nails glue will ever be adequate for the job!  If you're supposed to nail or screw it then do so!  Actually I should be promoting the use of liquid nails as it keeps me in work replacing & refitting stuff the DIY guy stuck to the wall! 

Back on topic though there is a job for everything whether it's as simple of using something obsolete just for personal enjoyment!


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 14, 2005)

> Back on topic though there is a job for everything whether it's as simple of using something obsolete just for personal enjoyment!


 
Unless one or more of those "things" has such a lack of demand that manufacturing is ceased. Like the buggy whip, we could still hand manufacture film and chemistry, but at an extreme cost and investment of time and effort. At some point, no manufacturing production line can continue if sufficient demand is not there.


----------



## icondigital (Nov 15, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> That's already been covered.16MP is comparable in real terms. But as said, it's not just about the MP's.


marctwo? just out of curiosity what is the highest mp camera that you have experience with? :meh:


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 15, 2005)

That I've used myself?  5MP
That I own myself?  3MP
That I've played with shots from?  About 25MP-ish (I think?) but this was before I really understood what MP's were about.  I don't know what kind of huge I was expecting but I remember being a bit disappointed with the actual pixel dimensions.


----------



## jadin (Nov 15, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> That I've used myself? 5MP
> That I own myself? 3MP
> That I've played with shots from? About 25MP-ish (I think?) but this was before I really understood what MP's were about. I don't know what kind of huge I was expecting but I remember being a bit disappointed with the actual pixel dimensions.


 
25MP? Was it a digital back??

I know what you mean about the actual dimensions. People assume 10MP is twice as big as 5MP, which it is in pixel count. But in order to double the actual dimensions, it would have to be a 25MP not simply 10.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 15, 2005)

Wow - that's timing.  I just opened this thread to post this link to an article that may (or may not) be of interest to any big MP fans.





			
				jadin said:
			
		

> 25MP? Was it a digital back??


I'd think so.  I didn't know anything about cameras at the time and was actually searching the net for info on MP's to help me choose a digital camera.  After a lot of reading I eventually decided that 3MP would be fine for the occasional 10 x 8.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Nov 15, 2005)

There is always a limit to everything - and digital is no exception.
The more pixels you have for capture, the more complicated the chip becomes, the bigger the file being outputted becomes, the bigger and faster the computer handling it has to become, the more ram you need, bigger HD, bigger capacity DVD's for storage. 
And that's even before you start looking at printing.
All of this increases costs to the consumer - and the more expensive you go the fewer people buy. Which in turn means less incentive to the manufacturer to develop and make bigger cameras.
Look at the world of film cameras.
Of course you can get bigger, better and more expensive cameras - but how much of the actual consumer market do they take up? The top-end professional stuff occupies barely 5%. Something like 50% of the market is held by simple point-and-shoot and disposables.
So ask yourself - how many average consumers are ever going to need a 20Meg plus camera? Not enough to bring the price down to an affordable level, I think.
The response is more likely to be 'my 5 Meg is good enough for what I want'.
It may even become 'the camera in my 'phone does all I require.'
It will certainly be 'I'd love one but it's out of my price range'.
This isn't to say that pixel size will not slowly rise over time as manufacturing processes get more refined - but I think the days of big bumps in pixel size are getting near their end - certainly in the mass market - and manufacturers will start concentrating more on the software side to make gains there.


----------



## icondigital (Nov 15, 2005)

i disagree! digital cameras based on digital technology will continue to improve just like computer technology. price per pixel has already come down and these 12mp nikons and 16mp canons will be in the 1000 and under price point in the future. and since computer technology will go hand in hand the file sizes will not be a problem. both ram and hard drives prices have dropped.

i can't say i understand why anyone would be against more pixels. that's kind of like saying computers should stop improving it's only overkill. and hi-def tv is overkill. it's technological improvement. why limit technological improvment? not that it matters because digital cameras will be continued to be manufactured with sensors with ever increasing amount of pixels. my first digital had 3.3mp, my second had 4.9mp, my third had 8mp, and they were all the same price. my fourth however i have already been hit by the increase in technology only a couple months after puchasing my nikon d2x 12mp. now you can get 10mp for 1/4th the price in a smaller lighter form factor. or i could have gone to canon and gotten aprox. the same mp for 60% of the price and had a full frame sensor to boot!

the only problem i see with the ever increasing technology is the shorter period to obsolesence of the equipment we buy. the higher end digitals should be based more on a modular system where the parts can be replaced to keep up with the increase in technology w/o the need to purchase a whole new camera.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 15, 2005)

We still return to the problem with 35mm format. At about 22 MP in full frame, the sensor will outstrip the best lens ability to resolve that fine a detail. The D2X has already shown us flaws in what we once thought to be outstanding glass. At some point we will see MP count not going higher, but the cameras becoming smaller, lighter, more rugged and faster. This is where the manufacturers will spend there R&D dollars.


----------



## panzershreck (Nov 15, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> Unless one or more of those "things" has such a lack of demand that manufacturing is ceased. Like the buggy whip, we could still hand manufacture film and chemistry, but at an extreme cost and investment of time and effort. At some point, no manufacturing production line can continue if sufficient demand is not there.


 
that would freak me out, i'd have to quit photography until i could afford a camera the cost of a car that goes out of date in 4 years anyways

i gave up caring about computers for the same reason, too expensive, as much of an investment as buying food is a "long term" investment


----------



## icondigital (Nov 15, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> We still return to the problem with 35mm format. At about 22 MP in full frame, the sensor will outstrip the best lens ability to resolve that fine a detail. The D2X has already shown us flaws in what we once thought to be outstanding glass. At some point we will see MP count not going higher, but the cameras becoming smaller, lighter, more rugged and faster. This is where the manufacturers will spend there R&D dollars.


why can't there be improvements made in the maunfacturing of lens?


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 15, 2005)

> that would freak me out, i'd have to quit photography until i could afford a camera the cost of a car that goes out of date in 4 years anyways


 
The economy of scale will bring down the cost of Digital. We already see it starting. Who would have thought 5 years ago that a 3 MP P&S could be had today for $150, or a 6 MP DSLR for $700. Heck, I gave 5K for a camera back then, 10 years ago, half the camera cost 25K. Today a "single use" digital is in the works for $25. These reductions in cost are what is going to kill film. It may take 10 years, maybe much longer, but its days are numbered.


----------



## Dollface (Nov 15, 2005)

Just to jump in here:

I'm about the same - 10,000 off pics since Jan this year. I also shoot bands, so there is most certainly a low hit % as you have no control. Also with weddings. But in regards to sorting etc my pics out, I was ahead of myself ( for the first time EVER ) and actually organised my folders etc within the first few weeks of having a digital.. This is how I organise my workflow ( works for me.. might work for you..?)
a) 2005 Photos
b) 4 folders : Raw, Editing, Ready, Web Ready.
c) Under each of the above folders I have another 6 folders - People, Gigs, Places, Artistic ,Studio/Wedding and Animals
d) Then under each of these folders I have the specific downloaded info folders ie: Names of bands, Surnames for wedding, Under Places I have 3 folders - Grass,Beach,City , under People I have Family or Friends, Under animals I have Wild or Pets etc etc

It helps me to atleast be able to narrow down my seach to only a few minutes at that!

And the funny thing is: I have my Final Portfolio due for College, and do you think I can decide on which 10 pics I want... All my other class mates have the opposite, not enough shots.. Me: too many.

Hope this helps someone. It has certainly helped me.

Katie


----------



## Rob (Nov 16, 2005)

Those interested in tech might find Moores law interesting: http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/silicon/moores-law-0405.htm 

To my mind it's kind of like the car - a triumph of engineering over a flawed design. The dSLR cameras are all trying to be a film SLR by emulating the properties of a mechanical camera but using electronics instead of film. 

I tend to think the next breakthrough will occur in the lower more profitable compact arena where the vast majority of the profits are to be had selling to the masses. A camera which uses electronic functions, rather than moving parts to capture the light and uses a lens optimised for the sensor, rather than the reverse.

Just my thoughts.

Rob


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 16, 2005)

> A camera which uses electronic functions, rather than moving parts to capture the light and uses a lens optimised for the sensor, rather than the reverse.


 



Is this not done to some degree now? Our typical P&S consumer digital cameras have digital shutters and an electronic iris. All functions are electronically controlled. The lens is made for the 1/3" or whatever format sensor the particular camera employs. Other than the shutter button and a couple of control switches, my little cool pics has no moving parts.


----------



## panzershreck (Nov 16, 2005)

jstuedle said:
			
		

> These reductions in cost are what is going to kill film. It may take 10 years, maybe much longer, but its days are numbered.


 
no offense, but that kind of sounds like the people who said our troops would be home by christmas following the invasion of iraq...

the only way i'd switch to digital is if they sold good, durable, long-lasting professional cameras for $100, which is what you can already get with older film cameras that do the job nicely, that's what my entire camera setup cost me, and i wouldn't give up my camera for anything, film and lens technology will always improve, i don't need a new camera just for a new CCD, the body is just fine and will always be fine, and the lenses are still extremely good

but everything is a niche market, it just seems like trying to force out the film guys with digital is like trying to force out the truck guys with SUV's - it all seems very utopian

as it is, the point and shooters hold the vast majority of the market, if any big changes happen, it'll be there, not the professional market, which only responds to utilitarian needs


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 16, 2005)

> no offense, ...........


 
No offense taken. I agree with you about the P&S market. And I believe it will happen there. A $25 single use camera will soon be to market. In another 5 years, 1999 DSLR's will be had for $100, they can be had now for $300. JMHO, only time will tell. I really hope I'm wrong, but the market is already moving in that direction.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 16, 2005)

I can't get my head around the idea of a single use digital camera - I mean why would it be single use?


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 16, 2005)

It's like a single use film camera. You buy the little cardboard/plastic box, snap off 12 or so shots and take it to Wal-Mart to have them open it up, plug it in, download and print your pics. They then clear the flash ram and put a new AA cell in it, and sell it to the next looser, er, a dummy who wants pics of their sisters wedding. I read the 1/4" sensor is only 1024X768 at 8 bits. Good enough for 4X6 prints at 150 DPI.


----------



## icondigital (Nov 16, 2005)

the vast majority of the market has always been and always will be inexpensive cameras. with the prices of digitals coming down that just means they are going to be able to tap into that market. it doesnt mean they are not going to further improve the high end market. i dont think they have come close to the potential of what can be acheived with digital imaging. there are too many variables involved that all can be improved on to say we are reaching it's maximum potential.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 17, 2005)

> the vast majority of the market has always been and always will be inexpensive cameras. with the prices of digitals coming down that just means they are going to be able to tap into that market. it doesnt mean they are not going to further improve the high end market. i dont think they have come close to the potential of what can be acheived with digital imaging. there are too many variables involved that all can be improved on to say we are reaching it's maximum potential.


 
Very true. Once we get to the point where our lenses cant resolve the MP's of the sensor, we will get faster frame rate, cheaper, smaller & lighter cameras, faster image writing, faster raw compression, better image quality, and so on. By then we will get a breakthrough in lens technology and the cycle can start all over again. Fun, ain't it?


----------

