Shay a interesting question

GraphyFotoz

What percentage of Professionals use Digital over 35mm.
Like Guys for News agentcies and Sports.....ect.

I'm almost possitve that most of the pics we have seen from Sri Lanka (esp the very 1st) were sent via Laptop with a digital. Am I wrong?

My buddy is a old schooler and He says REAL Photographers don't use Digital.
Guy is really behind the times!!

Just curious.:scratch

TIA

Andy

your buddy

Karz wrote:

What percentage of Professionals use Digital over 35mm.
Like Guys for News agentcies and Sports.....ect.

I'm almost possitve that most of the pics we have seen from Sri Lanka (esp the very 1st) were sent via Laptop with a digital. Am I wrong?

My buddy is a old schooler and He says REAL Photographers don't use Digital.
Guy is really behind the times!!

Just curious.

TIA

is wrong. at least for pj and event work. i think that landscapers are mostly one or the other still, but with cameras like the 1Ds Mark II and 16mpx resolution, the need for mf film is going away fast... digital wedding shooters are fast outnumbering film guys, but many will tell you they keep a film body and film in their bag as tertiary backup. i'd say that studio work (portrait, product, etc) is still evenly split but pro digitial gaining really fast there, too.

real photographers, eh? real photographers know that it's not the camera that makes the photograph, it's *the real photographer* sounds like your friend may be a bit of a luddite?

ginger_55

I read the other day that all sports work is digital. That may have been an opinion, but it was by someone who would know.

The school sports shot by my husband's studio is still film.

My guess is that it would cost them a bunch to switch everything to digital. A suggestion I made years ago.

Penny wise and pound foolish. Yeah, Andy, I read a response to that "it is not the equipment, it is the photographer". And why am I shooting RAW?

I go both ways on the photographer/equipment thing. I have been arguing photographer for years. You know, " a good photographer should be able to get a good shot with a Brownie". But I am seeing it from a different view now.

Someone here used it on me, "it is not the equipment that makes me a good photographer.................it is me" or something like that. Shortly there after I read the rebuttal. I would say a little bit of both on that one.

ginger

(They will all be digital, just give them time. And some of the old hold outs will die, too. hehe)

Another question might be cost. Which way can one do an excellent landscape photo cheaper, in general? I have no clue if that is even relevant.

I do know, THEY WILL ALL BE DIGITAL, so go there now, better early than late. I may be dead, but mark my words. And they were said years ago, in the late 90s. I am still alive, I am digital, I am not a pro, but what I have said is true. And when I phrase something like that, I am ALWAYS correct. Ask Weary Bill.

Shay Stephens

What percentage of Professionals use Digital over 35mm.
Like Guys for News agentcies and Sports.....ect.

For news and sports digital is the vast majority now. For most commercial work (advertisments and the like) medium format or large format still is in the majority. However, major inroads are being made by the new digital backs and camras like the Canon 1Ds II, and there is a fast adoption being made. I would hazard the guess that within 5 years we will see a major adoption of digital in this field as well.

For any use where 35mm film or smaller was used in the past, digital has surpassed it. Digital already owns the consumer market for P&S and digicams.

And the seasoned photographers who use film will still be able to compete with digital for the short term, but once the majority switch to digital, film and film equipment will become harder and more expensive to come by as it will have become a niche market to the manufacturers.

"Real photographers" is a statement used to denigrate others and create class distinctions. If someone uses a camera and uses it well, they are a real photographer, regardless of the camera used. Your friend is just deluding himself (sadly) into thinking there is any kind of prestige attached to the camera technology used. Like it is said many time before, it's not the camera, it's the photographer.

We use what we have available to us, and as time moves forward, that choice will be digital.

fish

This article may be a little dated (Mar 2003), but the trends and benefits for pros are obvious. Note that eventually, all images for publication are digitized. Capturing the image digitally takes a lot of time and cost out of the process. Time is money.

"Market penetration for digital cameras is quite different for the professional submarkets," says Madhav Mehra, general manager of Digital Cameras for Kodak Professional. "My estimates of digital camera use are at about 80 percent penetration among photojournalists, 60 percent among studio photographers for mass catalogs, 45 percent among studios for higher-quality advertising, and about 15 percent among the portrait and wedding photographers, who clearly represent a huge untapped market."

Digital camera backs have been long-standing additions to well-heeled studios. They include scanning backs, which use a trilinear CCD array that moves slowly across the film plane, and one- and three-shot camera backs, which use large CCD matrix arrays, such as you find in mobile cameras. In both cases, the camera back fits onto the back of professional cameras such as those from Hasselblad, Mamiya, and Sinar using an adapter mount. While the image size for medium-range cameras is around 30mb per RGB image (or 42mb for CYMK), the highest-resolution scanning backs fit onto the back of 4x5-inch view cameras and have a larger sensor area. "The multiresolution settings of these scan backs capture huge images, up to a whopping 549mb for the Better Light Super 8K, which is highly competitive with the very best film and flatbed scanners," says Michael Collette, president of Better Light.

mercphoto

film vs. digital

ginger_55 wrote:

Yeah, Andy, I read a response to that "it is not the equipment, it is the photographer". And why am I shooting RAW?

I don't know either. I seldom shoot RAW, as I seldom find a need to adjust exposure, white balance or color anyway. If I can make the camera get it right I find little reason to not shoot JPG in the first place. Only difficult lighting situations do I shoot RAW.

As per the original question, from what I understand, the only place medium format beats digital is in dynamic range. The newest Canon, even at 16 megapixels, is still under the resolution of MF and does not have the dynamic range of film either. But much of the time it doesn't matter. A digital SLR will beat 35mm film. It isn't quite there for medium format though. Yet.

ian408

Some of the comments people have put up regarding event shots were
pretty telling as to film lifetime. In this day and age of instant gratification,
parents are upset if they can't view little Johnny's sports images by the end
of the game. I know that some of the hockey tournaments around here have
proof sheets available by the time the team is out of the locker room--so
maybe 45 minutes tops?

Once instant gratification becomes the norm, I imagine the remaining film
shooters will convert or go the way of the dodo bird if they are dealing
with things like fashion, product or event photography.

Just my $.02 worth.

ian