Digital cameras hold value?

actually, it is close to being impossible at present densities and one
volt signal levels due to lots of factors. One cited by Dr. Dennard is
that the number of dopant atoms under some of today's sub 100 nm features
has dropped to about 100 or so atoms. Random variations mean that number
can vary that by 10 or 20 atoms, which can produce large (as in
unacceptable) variations in performance. Ooops! One solution being tried
is to put an layer underneath which is used to vary the voltage bias
beneath these devices, among other tricks. But when you factor the number
of device elements being made, and statistical effects with a base level
of 100 or less dopant atoms, you end up with serious future yield issues
at the 65 and 45 nm feature sizes needed for the next generation of chips.

another talk last semester noted that they are having problems getting
connections, because we are also below 100 or so atoms across, and
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, over the many connections needed
between 10+ million devices, is starting to make yields problematic at
higher densities too. Statistics ensure more gaps and thin spots in future
at 65nm and esp. 45 nm lines...

finally, digital chips are analog devices at their base ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

yes, I agree, and have argued that digital requires extra investments in
both gear and time which are coming out of the (pro) photographer's hide.
PLus you can't blame the lab when you ARE the lab ;-)

since most pros simply added film and processing and printing costs to
their job pricing, the "savings" from going digital is either zero or
negative. They weren't paying before anyway, and may have factored in some
overhead costs turning film "costs" into a positive factor towards
profits. Now they have lots of extra work, time spent tweaking or
scanning, plus they have to pay for the hardware of a digital darkroom and
printer etc. and spend time doing digital or learning latest tricks and
software, instead of out there shooting or promoting.

no wonder numbers of pros photographers are going down so fast ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Eeek! Yes, 30,000 shots per layout (which might have 10 or 20+ photos,
not just one) may be what National Geographic uses, but per my sundry
stats, that's 20 years for the typical amateur shooter. Most of us shoot
only a few rolls of film per week, as I have noted, using film. So for 99%
of shooters, my notes that most film shooters shoot fewer shots than
digital by a considerable fraction, and so have less time spent editing
after the shot vs. digital still hold IMHO ;-)

I see a lot more digital types suggesting they shoot hundreds of shots in
a typical day because they're "free" and then coming home to wait for
these images to be uploaded as they are soo hard to view on the tiny SLR
screens etc. Most don't have G5 macs either, so this is time consuming.

In fact, the whole digital thing is objectionable more because it is so
time consuming, and requires us to spend a lot of limited time on
non-photography processes. With fuji print film from Ritz at $1.25/24, and
about the same cost for mail order develop-only processing, $5 or $10 per
day shooting seems pretty inexpensive to me. Slides are even cheaper,
since equivalent size prints to my walls screen are hugely expensive ;-)

I'm not saying that some photogs, esp. Photojournalists or catalog
shooters, aren't saving big $ using digital. Just that for vast majority
(80%+?) of those going digital, the current depreciation and related costs
outweigh the costs of film shooting in the limited volumes (typically a
few rolls per month or so) of the average photographer (let alone
consumers, who averaged only 4 rolls of 24 exp. a year per industry
stats.)

Digital has many benefits for some users, but lower cost isn't likely to
be one of them for most amateur photographers...

my $.02 ;-)
bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Hello Bob,

Bob Monaghan wrote:

yes, I agree, and have argued that digital requires extra investments in
both gear and time which are coming out of the (pro) photographer's hide.
PLus you can't blame the lab when you ARE the lab ;-)

I will add a new twist to your information. I attended a recent printing
industry trade show, and a discussion came up about direct digital images,
and commercial printing. One issue of accuracy of an image is the source of
that image. When the source was a transparency, if the final print ended up
wrong, then the ad agency, designer, or even the print shop would take the
blame, since it was easy for the photographer to show the colours in the
transparency. With direct digital files, it is now easier to blame the
photographer, which creates an issue of liability. To explain this a bit,
imagine that a digital file is usually RGB capture, and has the potential to
be viewed differently on every monitor on which the file is opened. Since RGB
files are not directly usable for commercial printing, the conversion to CMYK
is very critical.

Of course, the same digital file issues can occur with scanned film, but
there is always that transparency as the ultimate guide. Assuming liability
for final printing quality is moving from the job of a graphic designer, or
print shop, to the photographer. I know the design and pre-press issues, and
how to colour correct for CMYK optimized prints, so I have already been in
this game. However, many professional photographers planning to go 100%
direct digital, should learn about commercial printing and pre-press, and
start doing proof checks, rather than leaving it up to someone else (who
might blame them later).




since most pros simply added film and processing and printing costs to
their job pricing, the "savings" from going digital is either zero or
negative. They weren't paying before anyway, and may have factored in some
overhead costs turning film "costs" into a positive factor towards
profits.

One thing I do is charge film and processing at about my costs. One benefit
is avoiding sales tax calculations, though that varies in each state in the
US.

Now they have lots of extra work, time spent tweaking or
scanning, plus they have to pay for the hardware of a digital darkroom and
printer etc. and spend time doing digital or learning latest tricks and
software, instead of out there shooting or promoting.


Seriously, I think photographers should be learning that anyway. At the very
least, they should know PhotoShop, and how to set-up a file for CMYK
printing.


no wonder numbers of pros photographers are going down so fast ;-)

I think the aversion of some older photographers to learning computer image
editing, and how to do pre-press, might cause some of this. Unfortunately, I
think the bigger issues to dwindling numbers are "all rights" contracts,
consolidation of the major stock and news agencies (now mostly Getty or
Corbis owned), and unethical business practices of the some of the end users
of photographic images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

On 4 Mar 2004 23:46:54 -0600, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


actually, it is close to being impossible at present densities and one
volt signal levels due to lots of factors. One cited by Dr. Dennard is
that the number of dopant atoms under some of today's sub 100 nm features
has dropped to about 100 or so atoms. Random variations mean that number
can vary that by 10 or 20 atoms, which can produce large (as in
unacceptable) variations in performance. Ooops! One solution being tried
is to put an layer underneath which is used to vary the voltage bias
beneath these devices, among other tricks. But when you factor the number
of device elements being made, and statistical effects with a base level
of 100 or less dopant atoms, you end up with serious future yield issues
at the 65 and 45 nm feature sizes needed for the next generation of chips.

another talk last semester noted that they are having problems getting
connections, because we are also below 100 or so atoms across, and
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, over the many connections needed
between 10+ million devices, is starting to make yields problematic at
higher densities too. Statistics ensure more gaps and thin spots in future
at 65nm and esp. 45 nm lines...

finally, digital chips are analog devices at their base ;-)


Always were, but tthe opposite is also true, since
semiconductors are (as you have nooted) deeply
rooted in quantum mechanics.

Also, let's remember that "digitial imaging" components
are analog-digital hybrids, with a very different set of
design constraints. In particular, this micro miniaturization
of which you speak above is not at all relevant to photo
sites, which must be kept large in order to gather photons.

IIRC, a "good" photosite is on the order of 5 or 7 microns
on a side.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On 5 Mar 2004 00:08:04 -0600, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


Eeek! Yes, 30,000 shots per layout (which might have 10 or 20+ photos,
not just one) may be what National Geographic uses, but per my sundry
stats, that's 20 years for the typical amateur shooter. Most of us shoot
only a few rolls of film per week, as I have noted, using film. So for 99%
of shooters, my notes that most film shooters shoot fewer shots than
digital by a considerable fraction, and so have less time spent editing
after the shot vs. digital still hold IMHO ;-)


Perhaps the word "editing" doesn't quite describe
what your typical consumer does with his or her
photos at the end of the day. In any case, I don't
think you or I should pretend to speak on behalf
of the "typical consumer."

A few years back a gifted photographer that I know
cited the figure of one "keeper" per 36-exposure
roll of 35 mm. By his standard, that was both
acceptable and normal.

That standard doesn't apply to most consumers, I
understand, but note that it was stated in terms of
film, not digital capture.

I see a lot more digital types suggesting they shoot hundreds of shots in
a typical day because they're "free" and then coming home to wait for
these images to be uploaded as they are soo hard to view on the tiny SLR
screens etc. Most don't have G5 macs either, so this is time consuming.

Yes, there's other gear involved but that other gear
serves many purposes aside from photography --
whereas your slide projector does not.

By the way, what's the depreciation on your slide
projector? How much would it fetch on eBay?
Will you still be able to find bulbs for it next year?

In fact, the whole digital thing is objectionable more because it is so
time consuming, and requires us to spend a lot of limited time on
non-photography processes. With fuji print film from Ritz at $1.25/24, and
about the same cost for mail order develop-only processing, $5 or $10 per
day shooting seems pretty inexpensive to me. Slides are even cheaper,
since equivalent size prints to my walls screen are hugely expensive ;-)

But most consumers aren't interested in slides, they
want prints to hand around, to show their friends and
family, or pass around at work at lunch or around the
water cooler. The more "hip" among them will be
emailing their JPGs around or posting them to their
websites or photo-sharing sites.

I'm not saying that some photogs, esp. Photojournalists or catalog
shooters, aren't saving big $ using digital. Just that for vast majority
(80%+?) of those going digital, the current depreciation and related costs
outweigh the costs of film shooting in the limited volumes (typically a
few rolls per month or so) of the average photographer (let alone
consumers, who averaged only 4 rolls of 24 exp. a year per industry
stats.)

I doubt the "typical consumer" thinks in terms of
depreciation when buying a camera. I'm not saying
that camera purchases are always thoroughly studied
and well informed. OTOH, I don't buy for a moment
your suggestion that digital cameras are mostly bought
by brainwashed, ignorant consumers blinded by
marketing hype.

Digital has many benefits for some users, but lower cost isn't likely to
be one of them for most amateur photographers...

You have a way with numbers, bob, but you have a
way of arranging them to match your own prejudices
and preconceptions.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Recently, Stacey posted:

And if kodak does give up on film (the only thing they are making
any money on right now) they will soon be out of business. Fuji is
making advances in film regularly and kodak has been comming out with
new color films regularly as well. The B&W films -are- mature, doubt
they will change much.

Note that Kodak recently released a newly reformulated Tri-X. They're
still in the game, AFAICT.

Neil

Mxsmanic wrote:

Gordon Moat writes:

Seriously, I think photographers should be learning that anyway. At the very
least, they should know PhotoShop, and how to set-up a file for CMYK
printing.

No photographer should be setting anything up for CMYK unless he is
being paid extra to do it.

I charge a colour correction fee. However, I should also mention that part of the
normal service I offer includes pre-press preparation. It helps having a graphic
design background, but that is rare amongst photographers.

Even then, it's such a specialty that it
should normally be handed to someone else. It's difficult to be an
expert photographer and an expert on prepress and printing at the same
time--and it should never be free.

Absolutely true, and the reason I charge for those services. Of course, you might
be surprised to know that more photographers are learning pre-press. At the
recent printing industry trade show, I was definitely not the only professional
photographer there, despite the larger number of graphic designers.

Basically, I feel these skills are so valuable to protect image assets, and
quality, that they are nearly essential. Of course, a photographer could partner
with someone skilled in pre-press, thus minimizing risks of errors.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

yes, we agree (again ;-), but my comments were aimed at a poster's view
(and commonly expressed view among many digital camera users) that the
current trends in denser chips would continue indefinitely - which I have
shown several reasons why they won't ;-) The problem with larger photo
sites is that you get larger sensors (if you can beat the large yield
problems) in order to hit higher megapixel devices.

Foveon's demo 16MP device (22x22mm square) using 0.18 micron bleeding edge
technology comes in around 6 microns per site (as you noted in 5-7 micron
range). Carver Mead noted this is already problematic with getting enough
light into the 6 micron sized photo sites on their 16 MP chip to avoid
noise issues (again, why larger sensor sites are better).

So a 64MP device would need to be at least 44x44mm, which is in MF
territory! Even the current Fuji 22MP chip (in sinarback 54..) is 40x51mm.
So a similar 32 MP device would presumably be in 42x56mm 6x4.5cm range?

So I doubt we will see incredibly dense (32 MP) photosensors usable with
small (e.g., 35mm SLR sized) optics - light (at 400-700nm) is just too
big! This suggests to me that the higher quality bigger sensors will
remain in the domain, and hopefully compatible, with current MF optics. At
the same time, you have to wonder at the costs and yields for a 4x5" sized
sensor (given 300mm wafer sizes). So again, MF may be the "happy middle"
format IMHO ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Hi rafe,

fortunately for me, the slide projectors are so out of favor that I got
one MF projector (with leitz optics) for $30 in original box (camera store
folded) and another garage sale leitz pradovit model for 35mm for even
less. So depreciation isn't much of an issue with slide projectors at
today's prices. Bulbs continue to be available, thanks to so many users of
such technology, even in the latest DLP projectors ;-) I also have a lot
of unmounted slides that I can simply put the sheets up on a white light
table and view too.

I still disagree about the cost of accessories for photography vs.
consumer computing. Lots of folks have modest cost machines for word
processing and internet access (e.g., $299 and up). When you start to do
high end photowork, you need lots more memory and horsepower. I am doing
some digital movies, and the G5 mac loaded up costs ten times more than my
mini-DV digital camera. My home machines cost (used) less than sales tax
on the G5 alone ;-) Similarly, I see folks noting they have $600 in memory
cards and so on to store all their quick-pick images, which they then have
to sort thru later ;-) I'm starting to build up a set of DV tapes and
DVDs and manuals and ... well, you know the drill ;-) it all adds up in $$
and time spent mastering this stuff.

I agree with you that emailing photos is going to be really BIG, more than
now. But that's going to be done with cellphone cameras up to 4MP or so,
yes? If you take away this mass market base, what is left for digital
camera sales is the higher end range, where costs are higher (lower yields
of key larger sensors and lower sales volumes, higher promotion costs
etc.) It may be that what digital photography transitions into will
surprise those who have been thinking in terms of 35mm still photo models.
High end digital may end up a lot more of a niche market, and more like MF
than 35mm (e.g., less than 1% upgrading).

my $.02 ;-)

bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************