I've been giving some thought to the discussion we had below on the use of digital cameras versus film. I also talked to several people, including two pro photographs. I'm beginning to rethink my position on digital.

The one thing that bothered (and still does) with digital is the lack of a permanent record of each shot. You have the option of deleting a shot anytime, including immediately. This means some images that show pertinent information could be destroyed. With film, you can of course through away the slides or negatives. A wash!

With digital, you can easily manipulate the image on a computer, with the available software. Download to your desktop, spend a few minutes with Photoshop or other application, and you can have a totally new photo. With film, you have a negative or slide that is tough to manipulate. Advantage- film.

BUT... as was pointed out by one of the photographers, current technology can now create computer images that can't be differentiated from real, in-camera film shots. Computer film recorders can take a digital image and put it directly on film, and it can't be distinguished from real. So my previous arguement against using digital in favor of film seems to evaporate.

There remains an obligation to present factual information, however. It would seem to me that any image that is modified or manipulated in any way, even just a simple color balance shift or contrast correction, should be noted at some point. Maybe an 'original' copy should be stored before modifications, for the record. I'm not sure how how important this is now. Even film can be affected by processing procedures, and especially with print film, print exposures can change the image slightly. How far does the obligation to be factual go? What can be considered normal use, versus 'manipulation'?

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on October 17, 1999 at 19:28:51:

Very good questions Russ.

I think a lot of the decision has to do with - guess what - the definition of the assignment, it's purpose and use.

If the photo is simply a descriptive image, say in an inventory.. there it is, see next to the overpass but over the lawn not the sidewalk,it may not be a big deal. Just a little more descriptive than your long narrative. Maybe a better example is a homeowner assignment... yes Ma'am this picture shows a pin oak and this one shows a flowering cherry, you can see that the oak will shade your garden. The inventory might turn out to be more difficult, say 10 years later somebody wants to know if the city had any hard evidence that the cavity was already there at inventory date. But it still goes back to purpose and use.

There is a big difference between inform and educate on the one hand and legally document and analyze on the other.

If it falls to the legal documentation side there are lots of issues. Start with color rendition, an easy manipulation. Maybe a Munsell color chart should be used, but is it effective beyond close up range?

A construction manager told me once years ago, before all the digital issues - that when doing building "punch lists" they only used polaroid because they were more acceptable in court as non-tamperable. Of course then there is only one print.

I suspect there could be a technological fix, a way of imprinting a digital image as original capture but that would have to be an industry wide standard in software and devices, way beyond our level of influence. More down to earth might be some type of warranty or certification by experts that images have not been altered. Sort of like saying "this DNA sample was properly handled and was not contaminated or manipulated."

Maybe you need a two image capture unit that concurrently stores one of the two as read-only and imprints both with a time, date, unique ID that ties them together. Or one on film and one digital.

About a year ago I posted a similar query on a digital photography forum and there were few responses. I don't think it's a mature issue yet, but certainly looming.

On the business end of this, one thing which still puzzles me is how to handle the time it would take to sit at your computer and have your color printer produce say a few hundred images for an inventory. Unless you have a very high end printer the time would be prohibitive. And if client wants six copies? Color copies are sitll $1 per 8.5x11 page. We may soon be getting to distribution on CD, narrative, photos, charts, everything.

Then your back to the starter issue, how do you prevent alteration after it's out of your hands?

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on October 17, 1999 at 19:28:51:

Ah, the old "what's the assignment?" solution. Of course that is the key. My questions were oriented toward the legal nature, recognizing that the more common useage will be for informational use only, as you suggest. Those are not a real problem. Archiving and certifying authenticity are different matters.

As to handling large image jobs, there are various ways to batch-process the files. At the desktop, it takes time- scanning (several minutes per image to set up and scan), processing (cropping, color/contrast, etc, as needed), saving, and perhaps printing. This is a job for a professional processing center, providing the cost is borne by the client. When you compare the cost of contracting it out to the cost at consulting rates, it makes sense to let someone else do it (can you say "Kinkos?").

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on October 18, 1999 at 06:50:14:

Have you found a real difference among Kinkos? I suppose the same query applies to AlphaGraphics. Don't know if it's a manager or franchisee issue but some seem more difficult to work with... at least at a self service level. Examples... some seem never to put the copy counter keys out for a walk in user to find and you stand on line waiting to get one. I've been to another where they had no counters you had to purchase a pre-paid card for the copier... oh don't know how many copies you'll need to make, just buy a high value card and no we don't refund the unused portion you'll just have to come back and make more copies sometime... chuckle chuckle you bought into that? Well no we can't change a $20 you'll have to by a $20 card. I've also been to an AG that removed all the self service copiers with 11x17 capacity and guess what the one they have behind the counter that reduces and enlarges is some special $4.00 per copy hi-tech thingy.

It's easy enough to get accustomed to the one you most frequently do business with, but annoying when on the road. For example if you go to some town hall 2 hours away from your office to get a copy of the recorded survey or the tax map and need to make some enlarged or reduced copies to take into the field to mark up.

Reply to post by Scott, on October 18, 1999 at 16:29:02:

I don't use Kinkos much, just for basic copying and binding of workshop manuals, etc. For much of my stuff I use either the local Staples store or go to blueprint center in town. They can handle all kinds of special printing (and are the only outfit that can make color copies from slides). I've even had engineers email plan sheets direct to the printer, and picked them up a few hours later. Faster than overnight.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on October 17, 1999 at 19:28:51:

Hi Russ,

I think it is still a non issue. There is not a digital camera on the market
that can capture as much information as film. There is no question in my mind
however that once on film it is then best handled with digital technology.

It is easy to say " here is the film ... now in order to highlight ... I have...
Remember film is just capturing information. You can choose digitally to highlight
information as long as you are honest about it.

Its like taking before shots with Kodak and after shots with Fuji. Its fine by me just
don't tell me that both are taken identically.

Mark

Reply to post by Mark Hartley, on October 17, 1999 at 19:28:51:


Some thoughts from Au. but server is slow and sometimes offline.

bob

Reply to post by tubs, on October 23, 1999 at 06:32:16:

An interesting dialog, Bob.

In the discussion of 'grain' in photos, what they seemed to miss was the origin of the grain- what it is and why it existsd. It is simply the visual artifact of the silver-halide crystals that impart the light-sensitive quality to film. In short, the silver-halide 'grains' serve the same purpose in film that the 'pixels' do in digital. The difference was pointed out, that digital is in orderly rows of pixels, the grain in film is less ordered (but crystalline, not random).

So what this means is that the newer megapixel digital cameras are approaching the level of the finer-grain films, offering better resolution, and thus sharper images.