Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Analog v. Digital
From: ljkapner at (Leonard J Kapner)
Date: Wed Jul 14 20:19:03 2004


Yours is a detailed, sensible and sobering response to my rather glib

In fact, your digital printing consumables preference logic mirrors my own
behavior: Epson 2200 on board, using Epson inks and Epson papers. And you're
right; I don't yet get the calibration thing. 

This winter, when the weather isn't quite so nice and I have more time to
further ruin my eyesight in front of my flat-screen monitor, I've promised
my spouse that we'll transition from Elements II to the full Photoshop CS.
At that time, I'll upgrade our Mac "darkroom" to a G5 and dive into system
calibration and profiling, so that I can get it right ~100% of the time.

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed "snapshot" of the
situation. ;-)



-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Don Dory
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:41 PM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] Analog v. Digital

The real money is in the processing paper and chemicals.  All through
the nineties Kodak and Fuji slugged it out throughout the world to sign
up processors.  In the U.S. Kodak was funneling Wolf Camera loans to buy
up companies as Wolf was a Kodak house.  There are huge efforts in China
to become the supplier of choice.

That battle is just about over with Fuji dominating consumer printing.
In the U.S. the leading companies for consumers are Wal-Mart, Costco,
Ritz, Walgreens, and Eckards.  The first four are Fuji shops and with
Eckard on the block it will probably go Fuji.

As to ink jet consumables, Kodak has been trying to get in this market
for years.  The difficulty is in how each printer manufacturer assumes
the ink will interact with the paper.  Generic paper just doesn't work
for amateurs who just don't get calibrating a printer.

Fuji entered this market about eighteen months ago.  They have the same
issues as Kodak, some printers work, some don't.

Last, if I have a Canon, Epson, or HP printer, I will tend to use their
paper first.  Should it work, unless there is a major price difference,
I will stay in the manufacturers fold.


-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf
Of Leonard J Kapner
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:36 AM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] Analog v. Digital


Yeah, if I were in product management at Fuji and Kodak, worried about
life-support of my consumer markets, I'd get busy building the most
range of amateur and professional digital printing consumables,
high ground in image capture commodities to the pixel crowd, and win the
on the back end, with the brand cache and marketing muscle that I have
abundance. Just a thought... ;-)



-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of B. D.
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:47 AM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] Analog v. Digital

Ah, here we go, wandering off down the Yellow LUGroad. 

Digital smidgital - I would submit that what we're really talking about
is electronic image capture v. film image capture: using the first
process the image - light - passes through the lens, strikes an
electronic sensor, and is converted to electrical impulses and stored
electronically; using the second, the image, light, passes through the
lens and strikes and exposes a piece of film, creating what will become
a negative of the image - or a positive in the case of a slide, and is
"stored" on the film itself.

And "digital" printing is, of course, either inkjet printing, dye
sublimation, or some other specific form of printing that converts the
electronic impulses captured by the camera to colors on paper.

But someone, at some point, decided that "electronic" was pass? and
oh-so-50s, and that "digital" was a more marketable term, and, besides,
it was one people could come to understand in terms of watches and
clocks - digital is modern and up-to-date, analogue is old-fashioned and

JustMHO.... :-)

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of
Frank Dernie
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:15 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Analog v. Digital

And of course conversely film images are made up of grain clumps so are 
in that sense digital. I remember digital being explained by this 
analogy by some teachers, with the point being that if there are 
sufficient small units the picture becomes indistinguishable from 
continuous tones so in any digital system there can be an adequate 
sample rate at which the digital becomes indistinguishable from 
continuous. This does not, of course solve the thorny question over 
where this sampling rate lies!

On 14 Jul, 2004, at 12:35, Buzz Hausner wrote:

> Perhaps I am alone in the belief that analogue is not the opposite of 
> digital.  Both film and digital reproduction produce analogies of 
> three dimensional scenes and objects on a two dimensional surface.  
> Thus, they are both a form of analogue reproduction.  The earlier 
> definitions of analogies refer to different biological organs and 
> organisms that serve the same function.  It should be sufficient to 
> refer to film and digital
> formats.  On the other hand, I do not wish to take up the definition
> digital which, in my opinion, is used inappropriately for photography
> and just about everything else, save the digital watch.
>       Buzz Hausner
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On 
> Behalf Of Philippe Orlent
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 5:31 AM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost
> I'm not saying that analog will disappear completely, but I do think 
> that it will become a medium used by a minority of people, who will be

> paying a lot
> more for it than they do now.
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Leica Users Group.
See for more information

In reply to: Message from dorysrus at (Don Dory) ([Leica] Analog v. Digital)