Replies

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 04, 1999 11:53am | #1

   *
   Josh,
   Here we can get our 35mm film or other formats put on to floppy disc for very little or nil cost at the time of developing. Should think that service is available over there.
   Mark

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 04, 1999 12:06pm | #2

   *I think most of these pictures are scans -- you can get a scanner for as little as $100 these days, I hear (cheapest for PCs). Digital cameras are expensive and give you all the quality and features of a disposable camera. Service bureau scans tend to be of somewhat less quality than a scanner. Digitsal cameras great for when you need something right away, but 35mm is (for now) superior for quality, and is cheaper.

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 04, 1999 05:35pm | #3

   *I agree the quality i superior but if its only for the web and by email, does teh difference matter?Also, is it still cheaper after film and processing is accounted for?Again, I'm asking this from the perspectice of only web and email and some ocassional small prints for sales lit.

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 04, 1999 05:56pm | #4

   *I scan. I will get a digital as my next camera, but I'm still waiting for the qualtity to get better and the prices to fall...further.

2. 
   Scott_B. | Mar 04, 1999 06:14pm | #5

   *
   Josh,

   I've found digital cameras to be a great help. I supervise site construction projects, I usually have 8-10 going at one time. I borrow a Sony camera from another department, and take weekly site photos. Its great for documenting utility locations, job progress, mistakes, etc... Most photos I never print out, simply archive in case of need. Compared to buying and developing a roll of 24 photos per week, the digital camera pays for itself in a year or so. I love the 10x zoom lens, and easy photo storage directly onto a 3.5" floppy disc of the Sony, but the photo resolution is poor (640x480 pixels). Am now purchasing a Kodak dc210+ . Tons of info at http://www.computers.com
   You can price and compare cameras. Hope this helps !

   Scott

3. 
   Guest_ | Mar 04, 1999 07:00pm | #6

   *
   Josh,

   I was a professional photographer before I switched to building, and still do some on the side. You will get better quality from a $150 scanner and 4x6 print than you can from the less expensive (under 600 bucks) digital cameras.

   I wouldn't buy anything less than mega-pixel resolution. These are running about 7-800 bucks right now. My photographer friends like the olympus model (I forget the number, DL 600 or some such thing). Anyting less than mega-pixel (over 1 million pixels) just doesn't hold up in hard copy, though it would be fine for screen viewing at small sizes.

   I'm waiting for something with interchangeable lenses to fall below 600 bucks.

   Steve

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 04, 1999 07:34pm | #7

   *A month ago, I saw a best buy add for scanners @ $9.99 after rebate! I paid under a 100 for mine.A scanner for under ten bucks!I'm waiting for the digital camera to fall to about 25$!Blue

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 04, 1999 08:18pm | #8

   *I think it'll be a longish wait for the million-plus pixel digital cameras. One of my employers just changed over to a 2-million pixel Canon EOS D2000. Price? $12K. Cough!

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 04, 1999 09:14pm | #9

   *Hi Barry,Yes, it'll be a while yet, but they'll get there. The eqivilant of the 12K units started out at about 30K less than a couple of years ago. They are becoming standard fare at the larger newspapers (not for everyone, but available as pool equipment). Prices will drop.I still love to make a beautiful black and white print on paper (not plastic paper).Steve

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 04, 1999 10:34pm | #10

   *Steve,The employer involved happens to be a newspaper. I'm sure you're aware of the wasted film, chemicals, and time a newspaper goes through with standard roll film. The digital camera pays for itself, even at $12K. I would think that any GC, home inspector, adjuster, etc. would want one handy.

2. 
   Guest_ | Mar 05, 1999 12:32am | #11

   *I absolutely agree that digital is great for people who shoot tons of pictures (newspapers, insurers), especially if they're only going to need a few (though one wonders what will happen to photo archives -- I think most newspapers discard the voluminous data). And an environmental advance too. Josh seemed like more a casual user; if so, just wait a bit longer. The quality of the under $1000 digital is, from a photographer's perspective, horrifying, and you could get a stunning 35 mm for a lot less. I've only done 35 mm, and 200 ASA at 4x6 is about as weak as I like to go. But I will be very happy when digital leaves film behind like the CD did the LP. (I hope this doesn't provoke outrage from licorice pizza diehards, if any are still with us.)A slide scanner is yet another approach, very high quality. But a $100 600+dpi scanner does very nicely these days -- I have one next to me (alas it cost $300 a couple of years ago).

4. 
   CMan | Mar 05, 1999 02:00am | #12

   *
   Horsepucky! Digital Kodak DC200, mega-pixel for under $350. Great camera, rated best digital buy for money and feature set.

5. 
   Guest_ | Mar 05, 1999 05:05am | #13

   *
   Hmmm....

6. 
   Elwood | Mar 05, 1999 10:48am | #14

   *
   Josh,
   I just got the Kodak DC210 Plus w/ Zoom. I've used the Epsom and the Kodak before. These are great for printing out shots of on going projects. I group the photos four to a page with captions and include in my progress reports that accompany my billings to the owners. I use a large blow-up on the front cover of the spiral bound pay application. As the job progresses month by month, the photo on the front of the pay application does too. Pretty neat to see bare dirt with some footings on month one, and a fully landscaped building by month nine. Also I take a photo a day from the same location over the duration of the project. I can make a short 2 minute video of the whole building going up. The owners love it! Looks kinda keystone copish:)

7. 
   Guest_ | Mar 06, 1999 04:44am | #15

   *
   Blue, you talking about Best Buy the store, or what? I'm into the Henry Ford school of building, cheaper is better if it does the job. $9.95???? Hip me.

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 06, 1999 05:00am | #16

   *I have a phillips digital I bought at sams club for $289.00. holds 100 pictures without a disc. NO, they are not professionallly sharp. BUt it does take a decent picture. I use it to document jobs & put the pisctures in the computoer. If I need proof of a preexisting condition there it is. I also use it to take pictures of projects to send to suppliers with questions. A picture is worth a 1000 words.

8. 
   figuers | Mar 06, 1999 06:38am | #17

   *
   the only problem with digital photographs and construction work is that if the disagreement gets nasty and goes to court, the opposing lawyer will claim that you digitally 'fixed' the photos. You may have a difficult time proving that you did not alter the digital photo (no negative)

9. 
   Guest_ | Mar 06, 1999 06:43am | #18

   *
   Figuers,

   Ibm and others are developing technology called digital watermarking that will eventually make originols difficult to edit without the watermark being altered.

   Jack : )

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 06, 1999 08:14am | #19

   *Really? That's interesting. Though it should never be your burden to prove you DIDN'T do something wrong -- they've have to cough up some reason to think there was an alteration, not just going fishing.

10. 
    -Espanto | Mar 09, 1999 11:46am | #20

    *
    As a pro photographer (fashion and beauty) I totally agree with "andrew d.". Digital cameras have a long ways to go to get close to conventional film/scanners as far as resolution and tonal values are concerned. They're "horrible" for conventional photos you're used to unless your okay carrying aroung a magnifying glass for viewing.

    However, there's something to be said about the instant aspect of digital camera's out there now...including a digital back (mega-resolution close to film) for a conventional 35mm camera for between $19,000-27,000 bucks! Of course, you get the full benefit of superior optics and whatnot...any takers? I'll stick to my trusty 35mm EOS Canon's with razor sharp and super fast auto-focusing!

    Incidentally, digital "watermarking" has been around for some time. Try Digimarc.com. In my opinion, it's a total rip-off for the money they charge professionals, way expensive for business use, but if you're curious, check it out. They used to offer a no frills "free version". The interfacing for it's use is available in PhotoShop by Adobe.

11. 
    Josh_at_Silver_Hammer_Constructi | Mar 09, 1999 12:59pm | #21

    *
    have enjoyed some of the pics sent to me and to breaktime. Are you all scanning in pics or using digital cameras. If digital any advice on quality , sources etc without having to take out a loan. thanks