Shutterbug Strasse

A photographer's haven for the lastest in digital or traditional film cameras.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

The problem with simplistic answers

Posted by Soupy on April 27, 2005 at 12:41:23:
'Digital cameras just haven't fully developed and matured yet'.
Yeah, that's why 99% of the wedding photographers have switched to digital, most every catalog is produced using digital cameras (direct to press), Sports Illustrated is 100% digital, nearly every newspaper has switched to digital...shall I continue?
Your son in-law may be a "professional photographer" but his thoughts that digital hasn't matured (at least to the point of being totally usable for commercial work) couldn't be more wrong.
The true last stronghold for film in professional work is for architectural photography. The problem with digital in that usage is handling multiple light sources. While you can do it with a digital back on a view camera, you end up making multiple images and then spending an inordinate amount of time in PS putting the images together.
With film, you can shoot Polaroids to get light balance (filtration, exposures, etc.) and then shoot the final image with multiple exposures. If you can get it to look good on Polaroid, the image looks 200% better on film. Ten to 30 minutes to shoot one image is a whole lot better than spending 1-2 hours in PS combining images.
I've also done several shots on location with only a single strobe and up to 60 individual exposures - something difficult if not impossible to do with digital.
But the idea that digital hasn't reached the point of being "fully developed" enough for at least 95% of commercial work is laughable.