[rollei_list] Re: Digital Advice
- From: Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:21:41 -0400
Why the Epson 4800? an odd choice for every one of those sold they sell
several hundred 3800's by far the standard of the industry right now for
Just over a thousand including inks.
Plus the savings in shipping. Its far more compact.
mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark William Rabiner
> From: ERoustom <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:33:53 -0400
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Digital Advice
>
> Your price is not far off at all Marc, but it assumes a sudden
> decision to enter the profession, or the hobby on a professional scale.
>
> Prices off the net (Apple, Amazon and Adorama):
> iMac (with all the frills) $2,199.00
> Epson Pro 4800 $2,561.00 - Inks $600
> Canon EOS 5D (full frame) with 24mm 50mm 85mm 24-105mm (all L glass)
> $7,299.75 ($7,049.75 for the comparable FILM body and same lenses)
> Adobe CS3 Suite $1,799
> Apple Aperture $179.99
> Total: $15,137.75
> Another $2000 can easily be spent on incidentals, back up hardware,
> luggage, memory, etc.
>
> Add a good film scanner, film and processing costs, and film is
> actually more expensive. As a professional you will still need all
> the above.
>
> A recent photo of my brother's two chihuahuas on the cover of the New
> Bedford Standard Times was taken by the staff photog with his cell
> phone. I couldn't tell the difference when I saw the printed photo in
> the paper (5x7). How's that for affordable professional gear? He took
> the picutre on Sat. morning, and the cover of the Sunday or the
> Monday had it. Could I match that with film? Since the quality was in
> the narrative not the medium, what advantage would analogue have? He
> got the shot, and made the front page - what more could anyone ask for?
>
> For the social snap shooter, most everybody who would use a camera
> (kids, parties, visits, tours) an investment of around $300 or less
> ($900 on the high end) buys a very good p&s digital which will last
> for several years, and do everything their film cameras used to do
> and more. I always ask about storage and review, and I think they're
> on very shaky ground there, but 95% of those shots aren't kept,
> they're enjoyed for some time, shared, and then forgotten. I know
> some academic publications that ask for images of at least 5MP which
> most small cameras have now. Documentary work can be done for
> publication with a digital p&s, and it fits in seamlessly with
> contemporary "workflow".
>
> "If I really limited myself I could get by with one film camera and
> three lenses, and do better work for much less than digital."
> equals
> "If I really limited myself I could get by with one digital camera
> with a zoom, and do better work for much less than film."
>
> For anyone who wants to combine constant learning with talent,
> discipline, patience, and a slow hands-on demanding process, that
> asks a good deal (in terms of space, time and attention span) of its
> practitioner and audience, and enjoy the limitless wonder of
> mechanical gadgets, there's film. Thank Goodness. It's not about cost.
>
> E.
>
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2008, at 11:20 PM, Peter J Nebergall wrote:
>
>> Bravo!
>>
>> Digital is getting better, but it is about convenience. Naturally
>> replacing the polaroid, the instamatic, the plastic zoom autofocus
>> 35mm
>> p&s, and filling a niche for the "gotta get it now" boys, folks who
>> live
>> on the internet, and those who haven't learned (& never will) that
>> "virtual reality" ISN'T, digital is their toy. What can they do
>> that I
>> can"t with my Leica IIIC? Computer animation?
>>
>> I live near the Univ of Missouri J-school. I'll go to events with 2
>> Contax IIs and a Super Ikonta, and kick their digital butts. Its
>> about
>> skill and experience -- and digital is changing so bloody fast, can
>> anyone master that medium?
>>
>> Peter Nebergall
>>
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:43:15 -0400 Marc James Small
>> <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Allow me to whine here as I have whined for
>>> years: a solid digital experience takes a LOT of
>>> money upfront and a LOT of money every year to keep up with the
>>> Jones's.
>>>
>>> Mark Rabiner sagely commented about the
>>> differences between results in digital b&w
>>> obtained from conventional cartridges on
>>> conventional printers and those obtained with
>>> special cartridges on high-end printers. Right
>>> on, my friend, but you have just jacked the price
>>> up by a factor of several hundred if not a thousand percent.
>>>
>>> Others have been disputing the qualities of
>>> higher-end digital cameras though I have been
>>> amused to note than none have yet suggested the
>>> Leica M8 with its apparent catalogue of
>>> woes. (Trust me, if I won the Mega-Millions
>>> Lottery last night, I'd buy an M8 and hire Mark
>>> or Austin to teach me how to use it, and make it
>>> worth their while, but it seems that it a piece
>>> of remarkable capability which has a learnig
>>> curve steeper and nastier than the North Face of
>>> Everest, placing it on par with Photoshop.)
>>>
>>> Again, to do digital properly, it costs Big
>>> Bucks. Thousands for an appropriate
>>> printer. Thousands for the specialty dies and
>>> the specialty rag papers. Thousands for a camera
>>> body, Thousands for the newbie lenses now
>>> cropping up. Thousands more for the new computer
>>> you need, and thousands for the 18 extra
>>> hard-drives necessary to process
>>> everything. Then $899 for the latest version of
>>> Photoshop, and $2,750 for a workshop in Boca
>>> Raton (plus the travel costs of $3,750) to learn how to use it.
>>>
>>> And, next year, you have to buy new and sell off
>>> and who will pay you for last year's printer or
>>> thousand-dollar cartridges or last year's Photoshop?
>>>
>>> So, by my calculations, it would take around
>>> $17,500 to pick up a really competitive digital
>>> kit, with an annual cost of around $5,000 or so
>>> to keep up with the Jones's. Six or seven years
>>> back, Bob Shell and I had a discussion on this
>>> List and my estimates were then around $30,000
>>> for a start-up cost and $12,000 annually. Bob
>>> didn't argue with my figures but sternly told me
>>> to suck up and pay the freight.
>>>
>>> I spent forty years accumulating the perfect
>>> analog kit for me, a mixture of Contax RF and
>>> Leica RF and Roleiflex TLR gear with some exotica
>>> such as Retinas and a Werra III RF. I picked up
>>> a full darkroom kit including two great enlargers
>>> with great lenses, APO-Rodagons on the Beseler
>>> 23-CXII. I never could afford a JOBO but I had
>>> the rest, Kindermann tanks and Hewes reels. And
>>> then reality went and rained on my parade and
>>> digital came out. Argh. And I cannot comprehend
>>> Photoshop 5, now eight years or so old. I do
>>> miss the days when I could mix EP-2 color
>>> negative chemistry from scratch, but, now, that
>>> was in the longago though to me it is only twelve or fourteen years
>>> back.
>>>
>>> In any event, to do digital RIGHT costs a lot of
>>> money and will continue to cost money. Some
>>> months back, to be fair, I came across the
>>> plaints of a professional photographer in the
>>> 1920's who said the same and the prices he set
>>> out were, adjusted for inflation, on a par with those I am
>>> suggesting.
>>>
>>> We are really turning into three or more worlds:
>>>
>>> -- pro digital photographers
>>> -- pro chemical photographers
>>> -- advanced (VERY rich) digital photographers
>>> -- advanced chemical photographers
>>> -- digital snapshooters
>>> -- chemical snapshooters: when you meet such,
>>> get their name and address, as they might well be the last to be
>>> recorded.
>>>
>>> To do digital correctly costs huge
>>> monies. Analog was nothing like this in my lifetime.
>>>
>>> Pace Richard Knopppow, but I do own a Baby Speed
>>> Graphic which I had overhauled back in 2002 but
>>> have never used due to an absence for
>>> film. Maybe I ought to fuggedaboutit (a term
>>> invented, I believe, by Studs Terkel but picked
>>> up and popularized by the late Herb Caen in the
>>> San Francisco CARBUNCLE; Caen was the father of
>>> three-dot journalism) and just stick with chemistry.
>>>
>>> I lack access to the sort of funds you folks toss
>>> about as a norm, and I suspect that this is true for others on the
>>> List.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>> msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Rollei List
>>>
>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
>>> www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Beauty Advice Just Got a Makeover
>> Read reviews about the beauty products you have always wanted to try
>> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/
>> JKFkuJi7UzupmI2A24rWWY8AH4b2xisNxBfiWpXpI7IhnCWYAFGyE9/
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
>> www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
