This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Going digital - cameras

There have been several conversations around this recently and I want to chime in why I, still, only use film. I did quite a bit of research on this in the past month thinking it was time to switch, as the high end digital cameras (those around 3 -7 thousand dollars) are by all reports better than film - if you know what you are doing. If it is better, then I will have to do it to keep up in this competitive world.

First, I researched all available data on all the best cameras (Canon EOS 1Ds, Kodak DCS Pro, Fuji S2, Nikon D2h, Olympus E-1) and found quite a bit of controversy in both the type of capture chip, the type of lens (and how the optics may or may not match the capture chip), and the various camera software programs that process the images. This processing of raw data is not to be taken lightly by anyone seeking high end results, as several other professional photographers have cautioned this list. Each camera manufacturer has a proprietary program that you must understand to achieve the best results. For me, unless I get the best results, it is no good doing it. But since I do understand the process and do have an excellent database system for organizing my inventory I figured I would push ahead with digital cameras.

Before renting the cameras (which cost $200/day!) I began talking to a few photographers and editors for advice - and that is when I got the real word of caution. Despite what you may hear elsewhere digital is not preferred at the high end of the publishing world. Who ? well to drop a name, Architectural Digest which I think has unarguably the best magazine print quality around, will (almost) literally laugh at anyone trying to go digital. And I talked with others, some who do accept digital but noone I talked to prefers it. There are too many inconsistancies and too much work at the clients end to tweak the digital files. The editors prefer to tweak film, not digital files.

I only spoke with a very small group of people and my contacts do not represent the majority of publishers. Most newspapers and many small magazines do prefer digital now and many companies with in-house photography prefer digital because they can set up a single system and control quality. For web use and personal prints (8x10 or so) digital is fabulous but for publications that need 25- 50 meg files it is too soon for me to switch. While the potential is there to outperform film (if you know exactly what you are doing) it is not easier for the client, so it is too big a financial risk for me to switch at this moment.

The other incentive to switch is for sales from my library. Most of the large stock photo businesses now want digital files and it is certainly a lot easier to supply on-line requests if the images are already digital. See my next posting - I am on roll today....

Saxon Holt
Gardens and Ornamental Horticulture
www.saxonholt.com
415.898.8880

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos

Post gardening questions/threads to
"Gardenwriters on Gardening" <gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org>

For GWL website and Wiki, go to
http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index