Slashdot Mirror

TIFF images actually support 16-bits. Higher-end scanners often save to 16 or 24 bit TIFF files which are editable in Photoshop and supported in some video compositing software as well. As for the original topic, if you are REALLY serious about image quality, forget the digital camera altogether. Get a medium or large format film camera and a good film scanner and learn to use those well. 645 format cameras can be had on eBay starting around US$300 for a decent outfit (body, lens, finder, film insert) and a decent consumer flatbed (I personally use a US$400 Epson 4990) will give you stunningly better results than any digital camera under US$10K. A 4x5 camera should run about the same used, and 4x5 transparencies are a thing of beauty. If you decide later to step up, professional digital backs are available for both medium and large-format bodies. Most of the work on my website is shot on medium format; I can print tack-sharp images poster size easily.

I shoot almost totally on Mamiya and have an old Pentax 35mm as a lightweight outfit for hiking and biking. Most wedding photographers shoot medium format (film or digital), product and food photography is often large format, and so on. LOTS of pros hardly ever use 35mm/DSLR gear. Lumigraphics

645 is amazing...you can't touch modern film in this size with anything digital. I have 645e's so I can't swap the backs but eventually I'll move up to a better body and go digital ;) Of course, 35mm/DLSR is MUCH lighter... Lumigraphics

Actually, if you ever want to PRINT your photos larger than crappy 8x10's, uh yeah you still need film. I shoot in 645 format and the limitation is my film scanner, but I still get better results than I would with a DSLR outfit in the same price range (I have about $8k into my Mamiya gear.) I also have bins of transparency film that I can always rescan at higher resolution. BTW, I'm a working professional photographer and have considered moving to digital. Maybe someday...

>The only person that should benefit from a copyright is the original copyright owner, and IMO, that benefit should not last more than 10 years.

Ok, I'll correct you since apparently you are spouting off with no real stake in this issue.

I am a professional photographer who still sells images older than 10 years. Are you claiming that I should just hand those photos over to anyone who wants to reproduce them? Even though I'm the one who put the time and effort into taking them, even though I rely on having a nice back catalog to help sell my current work?

Sorry but I strongly disagree with both short copyright limits AND and opt-in system- I'm glad that my work gets automatic protection.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that only huge conglomerates own valuable copyrights!

I shoot originals on medium format (Mamiya 645) with Fuji Provia 100 almost exclusively and scan with a Minolta Scan Multi II. The scanner is actually the limiting factor! My COGS for an 8x10 print is just under $2 using Epson Archival Matte paper and Epson ink. I've sold hundreds of prints which still look fabulous after a couple of years on display.

My production process is not perfect- I'd like a better scanner and eventually will replace my 2000P's with 2200's or whatever comes out to replace that model. Still, I am very happy with the results I get and wouldn't be interested in farming out printing unless I move to high-volume offset (postcards or whatever.)

My work is online at Lumigraphics if anyone is interested.

Well, regardless of what anybody else does, *I* am a professional photographer and I have an excellent Mac-based workflow. I shoot medium format film (usually Fuji Provia although I use a few other types too) on Mamiya 645. I scan with a Minolta Scan Multi II (I know, I know- I want a SuperCoolscan), edit in Photoshop, print on Epson 2000P's.

I couldn't switch to linux partly because the GIMP interface is ass, plus I need the integration with inDesign and GoLive. Don't even TRY to tell me that there is an Open Source competitor to InDesign! Sure, I can run the GIMP but X sucks (nowhere near Aqua) and why bother anyway? I waste enough time on my own without screwing around with half-assed tools.

Finally! A chance to talk about something I know :)

The tips listed are ok for general use. Of course, anyone serious will need to learn more but most camera owners don't know even the basics. Helping a tyro shoot decent pics is a good thing.

The idea/advice that the only way to get any good pictures is to take hundreds is stupid at best. I use medium format film and can't afford to shoot and shoot and shoot just to get a few good images. I have to be productive and my usage rate (scans you see on my website) is closer to 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 images, mainly because I deliberately shoot multiple angles and compositions. In fact, my "garbage" ratio is about 1 in 10 (1 or 2 bad frames on a 15-exposure roll.)

Finally, digital still can't get anywhere near larger film formats. I'd need a 30+ megapixel DSLR to equal the image quality my Mamiya 645 gives me. I expect to switch to digital in maybe 5 years if technical advancements continue on their current pace; for now, film is the only way to go.

My website is at Lumigraphics if anyone wants to see my work.

--Want one good picture? Take 10 pictures and pick the best one. Professionals take several hundred pictures in several settings just to get half a dozen really great shots worth publishing in a magazine. Most of the time excellent photos aren't about being good, they are about getting lucky.--

This is sort of true for some types of photography. I'm a professional photographer who shoots on medium format and I have to be more efficient than one in ten usable shots! I usually shoot multiple angles and compositions to offer more images, not because only a few turn out. Of course, consumer mileage may vary etc etc.