p.11 #1 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
There is nothing really special about DNG other than the fact that it is not specific to a camera manufacturer. If the whole world decided that Canon's CR2 format was going to become the standard, that would work just as well. That is pretty unlikely however.
What the industry lacks is some broadly accepted standard for RAW files. Any standard would do as long as it is universally accepted. The higher the level of acceptance, the more likely it is to be useful 100 years from now. JPG is the standard for images, but the inherent limitation of JPG makes us want more.
p.11 #2 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
I think some cameras do support DNG, Hasselblaad and Leica even.
To be honest, I don't think it really matters. Adobe only created it so they don't have to spend money reverse engineering every new RAW format.
Another reason is, just as CR2 keeps changing, so is DNG. Now it's up to DNG 1.2.0.0 Specification. Several years from now it'll be v2.xx. Besides, both DPP and ACR still supports older CR2 right?
p.11 #3 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
The best standards are not created by a company. They are created by standards writing bodies with companies being involved as members. I would like to see ASTM develop a RAW standard and I might suggest that to them at their next meeting.
www.astm.org
Or, at the very least, submit the DNG standard to ANSI for approval.
p.11 #4 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
Lance Couture wrote:
This is a large part of the issue.
Indeed... Most customers don't appreciate and/or understand what it takes (like investments in equipment and skills, time, effort, etc)... These days everybody can make photos... wether good or not... but it has flooded the market with pictures (stock galleries for example) and uncle-bobs. So, photos aren't worth as much as they used to anymore with regards to sale value... The past few decades the devaluation of photographic material has gone really fast... Up to a point where it becomes really difficult to maintain a living by being a full-time photographer.
p.11 #5 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
SmegHead wrote:
I don't see any reason why Flickr won't be there in one form or another in 30 years. It's backed by some serious money and I don't think anything short of a serious shift away from the internet as a whole will get rid of it.
Hmmm. AIG, General Motors, Chrysler, backed by some serious money, may or may not be around in 20 years. There have already been online data repositories that have failed, in some cases merely selling off the hardware and erasing the data of hundreds of clients.
It's certainly a better bet than my dad putting a box of slides away in the basement or garage. Between vermin, mould, mildew, flooding, misplacement, moving and house fires etc I'm sure a LOT of slides and photo's from the last 50 years have been lost forever. But through the shear volume of copies that can exist for digital files I think they have a much better chance of surviving.
Survival only matters if they can be located. As I said originally, all those hundreds of thousands of pictures being taken by millions of cell phones, first, are rarely being uploaded to a sharing site, second, the sharing sites are not by any means reliable archives.
I have copies on my photo's on at least 2 hard drives at home, DVD back up, flickr, facebook etc. Some people will argue,
My point is not about comparing digital to analog storage. My point is that all those hundreds of thousands of pictures being taken by millions of cell phones are not better than an album of hardcopy photos if they aren't under proper digital asset management techniques.
What you're doing is irrelevant. We're talking about those hundreds of thousands of pictures being taken by millions of cell phones.
p.11 #6 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
SmegHead wrote:
I don't see any reason why Flickr won't be there in one form or another in 30 years.
Even if Flickr's still around, it's great if you only shoot in JPEG and uploaded the original size there. You can't really compare it to having access to the original RAW.
p.11 #7 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
very true... but if you have your family portrait done... 50 years from now all you have is the print... which will probably be degraded at least somewhat by the years, you won't have the photographers negative... so it's pretty much the same. Snapshots are the same, I doubt most people hang on to their negatives and if they do, it's rarely in any cohesive searchable way.
And yes.. I agree.. out of the milllions and millions of pictures taken every day only a small percentage are deposited somewhere for the future, but the same goes for all the photo's taken on film for the past century.. and I'd hazard to guess there have probably been more pictures taken in the last decade or two than in the rest of photographic history combined just judging by the exponential increase in camera sales and the fact that people take 10 times as many photo's because of re-usable digital media.
p.11 #8 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
very true... but if you have your family portrait done... 50 years from now all you have is the print... which will probably be degraded at least somewhat by the years, you won't have the photographers negative... so it's pretty much the same. Snapshots are the same, I doubt most people hang on to their negatives and if they do, it's rarely in any cohesive searchable way.
The question was whether all these hundreds of thousands of cell phone pictures are reducing the market for professional and traditional portraits. My contention is that they don't have any effect on the market for professional and traditional portraits.
The wall portraits I sell my clients are produced with the current best knowledge of archival processing and museum conservation framing. I also include with the wall portrait the image in JPEG and TIFF formats on a gold archival CD as a back-up to the print.
All you have is the print
Having a print is a great thing, even if degraded, compared to having nothing. I have a "degraded" portrait of my maternal great-great-grandparents--a courageous pioneer couple that migrated west after the Civil War and ran in one of the Oklahoma land rushes. They were a historical turning point in my family history, and as I tell their stories to my children and soon to my grandchildren, I will have that portrait to show them.
That "degraded" portrait of my great-great-grandparents is one of my most effective sales tools.
p.11 #9 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
I'm often asked to take photos at friend and family's weddings, but I've always told the B&G to hire a pro to get the must-have standard wedding shots. I enjoy taking close-up candid shots most pros are simply unable to cover to add to the overall photo collection of B&G. So when the pro is taking shots of B&G lighting the candles, I'll be zooming in on the tearing relatives, playful flower boys and girls, or the fire at the tips of the candles. It's silly to duplicate professional photographers' effort IMO.
I'll be filming a wedding next in HD. As usual, the pro will film the event while I'll be focusing on "extreme" close-up footage. I'm looking forward to it actually
Pros have nothing to fear at least from this "UNCLE" who enjoy photography and videography
p.11 #10 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
A.Y. wrote:
I'm often asked to take photos at friend and family's weddings, but I've always told the B&G to hire a pro to get the must-have standard wedding shots. I enjoy taking close-up candid shots most pros are simply unable to cover to add to the overall photo collection of B&G. So when the pro is taking shots of B&G lighting the candles, I'll be zooming in on the tearing relatives, playful flower boys and girls, or the fire at the tips of the candles. It's silly to duplicate professional photographers' effort IMO.
I'll be filming a wedding next in HD. As usual, the pro will film the event while I'll be focusing on "extreme" close-up footage. I'm looking forward to it actually
Pros have nothing to fear at least from this "UNCLE" who enjoy photography ...Show more →
Ah, but if you read a few pages back, seems like some "pros" don't like anyone taking any photos at all in weddings. Something to do with screwing up the exposure.
p.11 #12 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
carlsbadbum wrote:
I'm wondering what is the percentage of couples that hire pro photographers to shoot at the 2nd or 3rd wedding.
Most will pay over $5000 to shoot on their first wedding but after that how much will they pay after that.
Subsequent weddings are often much smaller events...especially if it is neither person's first. By the time you get to number 5 or 6 you probably pay people not to bring cameras to the wedding.
p.11 #17 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
15Bit wrote:
I wonder if there's an untapped market for Divorce Photography ...
Instead of shooting at a church with a minister you get a countroom view with a judge and a lawyer asking for more money for his client. And if you get lucky you could get some action photos of the two fighting. Problem is who will pay for the photo shoot.
