Talk:Digital photography/Archive 1

camera phones / keychain camera photo sizes
Please add photo sizes (height x width) for smaller standard camera in cell phones and keychain cameras.

print cropping
Please consider adding some information on how much is usually cropped from the 3x by 4x dimension point shoot camera photos (i.e, not from a 3x2 DSLR) when they are printed on modern equipment at a local drug store. The usual crop is 8% from each of the long sides and 2% from the short sides. My tests on an 8mp photo had 160 pixels taken from each long side and 24 pixels taken from each short side. This is obviously photo-store pprinter dependant but is important to note because most people do not even know that they have cropped foreheads in printed photos. CVS, Walgreens, etc.

sensor types
Would someone add a section about different colour filter arrays, like the Bayer pattern and other? Or perhaps beyond the scope of article.

archival concerns
Digital photography is a moving target. As a writer for 2 photo magazines and the author of an eBook for first-time shoppers (www.acpress.com), I have strong opinions.

Digital photography has been usurped by the computer industry, and this is not a good thing. We are going from a situation where a glass negative from the 1800s can still be printed to a file that can only be machine read. And the industry making the machine thinks anything beyond 18 months is a long time!

Those needing archival records still need to think in terms of properly processed black and white film.

I enjoy digital photography, but I do not trust the industry that is behind it.

John Stewart


 * Exactly Stewart. While one can argue that a standard storage format is a good thing, I already wonder what's going to happen when you have cards lying around in 20 years and can't access them. "If only she had taken this picture with an Xd picture card camera like an Olympus."


 * a what?


 * "ah. never mind."


 * These concerns are worth worrying about, but thankfully wrong. JPEG and TIFF file formats are extensively documented, as are the CD and DVD standards that people use for archiving.  One potential concern is the inaccessibility of the plethora of RAW files coming out of digital SLRs, but thankfully some people on the net have reverse-engineered the lot and have written conversion tools to export the images to standard formats. Still, people are worried about these issues, so it's worth leaving the mention of that in the article.  --Robert Merkel 01:58, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Found any 5.25 diskette drives lately? There _are_ people who hack old h/w, but that is not a working basis for historical archives! You really think that 100 years from now a computer company (if the concept is even meaningful 100 years from now) will be manufacturing hardware which will read a CD-R/+R/+RW/-RW/...? Drivers could be written (if the concept of a 'driver' is still relevant) if the spec's are found. Nowadays, if you have to dig deep inside firmware, you sometimes need old data books from decades ago, or you have to do some serious digging online to find someone's forgotten copy of an outdated specification.
 * Another concern of mine, is modification. Though celluloid negatives can be copied, the drift is detectable. With digital, the ability to discern historical authenticity is greatly diminished, if not lost altogether.
 * (Another concern is rampant property rights. As the FAT filesystem issue demonstrates, a company can start claiming licence fees for such formats. Just imagine what would happen to your poorly-funded public library if all of a sudden pulp-and-paper companies started asking fees for every piece of paper?)
 * The effect of digital storage on the historical record is already a rising concern. (Even on TV, AFAIK: http://www.ptvdigitalarchive.org/). P00r 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Digital Photography is still a learning experience for many people. There will never be a fully satisfactory solution to media storage issues. (Look at the difficulties we had in trying to learn how to read hieroglyphics.)

This is mostly about the possibility digital data is completely lost. But what about decay in the film workflow? How does your film scanner work if you unbox it in 2015? Is the lamp gone? Is the mech rusted? Do you still have USB connectors on your PC? Where do you buy a new film scanner in 2015? How are your films? Not everyone stores it in a film museum. My negatives were in the shed by accident for 1 year, and are completely wasted. If people with digital photo's take good care, which is 2 hard drive copies at least at 2 locations all the time, and a total transfer every 2-3 year, there is not much too worry.

cost comparison
I extensively cut the cost comparison section, as IMO it wasn't particularly readable and the numbers jump around so much as to be not useful. --Robert Merkel 01:58, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Read this

http://megamyth.homestead.com/imageres.html

maximum resolution" calculations
I removed the "maximum resolution" calculations that give the width and heigth as a function of total number of pixels. I think it was too much detail that's not very helpful to many people. --Mihai 07:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Presumably the resolution of the sensor and the quality of the lens should be matched in order for any given camera to qualify as being well-engineered. Thus if one used the most expensive lens with the lowest resolution CCD then the quality of the lens would be wasted because equally good resolution pictures could be taken using a lower quality lens. Conversely if one took the highest resolution sensor with the cheapest lense, a similar argument applies. Is there then a way of assessing from a specification that the lens quality is matched to the sensor? Matt Stan 07:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Short answer - no.


 * Slightly longer answer, I believe that some lens characteristics can be quantified (but aren't typically listed in the manufacturer's specification), but many can only be determined by examining the quality of photos taken, sometimes of standard test items, sometimes of actual scenes.--Robert Merkel 09:01, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Matt Stan is correct a sensor caaan only record light falling onto it, therfore even the best sensor will perform poorly with a ban lens in terms of image quality. conversly a great lens with a poor sensor will also produce poor quailty images. it is exactly the same with film cameras. Ohka- 09:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question: I heard a calculation that represents the pixels to printing ratio. It seems pretty acurate, and its the one that I've been using, but I'd like to get some concensus before I put it up: Now keep in mind, most people don't print with full res, but the printing industry max is 300 dpi (I'm talking about chemical prints, not the inkjet ones that have unrealistic dpi's). Any higher resolution than 300dpi, and the human eye can't see the difference. At 300dpi a 4x6 image needs 4*300x6*300=2160000 or 2.1MP. based on this calculation, a full res 8x10 needs 7.2MP, and a 16x20 would take 28.8MP. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks DR 12:26, January 11, 2005


 * Inkjet DPI is not unrealistic. It's different though. Most inkjet printers are unable to produce more than one size of dot. Traditional printing has no problem with this. So, on an inkjet, you'll need a higher DPI to get the same smooth color. Also note that dot size, dot positioning accuracy, and dot spacing are all fairly unrelated. The idea of needing a particular resolution without regard to image size is way off. That 16x20 is going to be viewed from much farther away than the 4x6. The 4x6 is viewed at reading distance, while the 16x20 is viewed from across the room. AlbertCahalan 22:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the Circle_of_confusion article, "The human eye can distinguish 5 lines per millimeter at a distance of 25 cm." That's 127 lines per inch. I'll assume that a "line" is one particular color, so 254 DPI, but the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem would suggest we need 508 DPI. For practical usage with finite images, the Nyquest value won't do. You need a facter of 4 or 5 instead of just 2. So that's 1016 to 1270 DPI. This is no surprise; I can certainly see the dot pattern of normal printing. AlbertCahalan 01:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Digital cameras v. Film cameras
I think this article could be greatly improved if you tell readers:

All these arguments are pretty much history today. Shutterlag is around 40ms today, not much different than the film reflex, multiple pictures: don't make me laugh. A DSLR can make 100 images at 5fps. How would you change 2 film cartridges in those 20 seconds and still shoot 100 photos? Boot time is instant on now. LCD's not visible? You're kidding. Film is always unvisible until processing. And we're talking DSLR, the LCD is not used for taking the pictures itself. Useless with dim light? Why that. The usability depends on lens and chip-size. With the old mf primes and full frame sensors, this is no different than with film cameras. And all those aps-size sensor cameras in use? Their customers used to photograph with entry level film SLR's and pocket camera's. Guess they see enough improvement too. Last thing, the batteries. What is easier: to find some CR2 cells or to find a common Nikon/Canon accu? And hey, we have rechargers that work anywhere, thanks to switching PSU's that eat any AC current. Those super easy penlites are never used in film cameras too! But current batterypacks and flashlights still accept penlites like they always did.
 * A lot of DCs can not capture an image as soon as you press the button (shutter lag = sometimes avoidable focus lag + circuitry lag).
 * Most DCs can not capture multiple pictures very fast. Even a lousy film camera lets you click ... click ... click ... click ... . With a DC (some newer ones are getting much better), you have to wait until the picture is saved.
 * Many DCs have to take a few seconds to boot.
 * Most DCs' LCDs are not viewable under the sun.
 * Many DCs are nearly useless when the light is dim.
 * Many DCs are not using standard batteries.

Digital photography have many restrictions. If you know what to avoid, you may find yourself a good DC that's also inexpensive. Only if you know what is your most wanted feature.

By the way, don't you guys remember that there were some professional digital cameras attached to the back of an ordinary SLR camera?

-- Toytoy


 * This is Wikipedia, you can edit the contents. I could see your vital informations. I wish you to add such info in the article. --Rrjanbiah 12:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The only problem: I am not that good with cameras -- digital and chemical. I take pictures once or twice a year with a 4-year-old cheap DC. So my knowledge is usually outdated. By the way, I think you guys who use it everyday must have lots to say. Anyway, I will probably write. Someday when I figured out how to do it. -- Toytoy


 * Though I'm very much interested in photography, I don't own any cameras. And so, I don't have any practical knowledge to comment. But, I could see your valid points. I have also seen conventional SLR camera advocates. Don't worry about the contents of your edits. Some people will soon clean out.
 * By the way, to sign in talk page, you can use four ~ like ~ --Rrjanbiah 05:03, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that the shutter lag on DC's can be annoying, most of the newer point and shoots and DSLRs have minimized that time to a negligable factor. The biggest problem now, from where I see it, is in focusing time - and that was a problem in film cameras as well - ever tried to use a canon sure shot? It takes a year to focus on anything! I realize that a lot of this discussion is old, but newer cameras can take pics in quick succession. Canon's 20D can do 5 frames per second, and the Nikon coolpix series has a burst mode and will even pick the best shot. These issues are starting to get out of date. As well, most of the other comments Toytoy (sorry if they weren't made by you) mentioned have been adressed by camera manufactorers and there are cameras on the market that can do all of the things mentioned. DR 12:39, 11, January 2005 but what is being done about the problem with the lcd not being visible in sunlight?????? that creates a lot of problems.

advantage?

 * The advantages of digital photography over traditional film include:
 * colour reproduction and gamut is not dependent on film quality

Is that really an advantage? I don't think so. With a DC, you can't change the CCD so the gamut and colour reproduction remain the same (if you do not consider the aging of circuits and temperature-induced CCD noises). But is that an advantage? With a traditional camera, if you don't like Kodak film, you can always buy Fuji. I think this is the advantage. If you want to picture mountains, use Fuji. If you want to picture your sweetheart, use Kodak. If you want to picture your mother-in-law, use that roll of decades-old Sakura film you found last week in your attic. -- Toytoy 17:38, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * And what do you do if you are on a mountain trip with both your sweetheart and your mother in law? Carry three cams loaded with three different films? Use a new film whenever you shoot a new subject? Organise your trip so that you take all mountain pictures first, then change the film and shoot your sweetheart, and finally change again the film to shoot all the pictures of your mother in law. Not such an advantage... And if you mistakenly use the "mother-in-law" film for your sweetheart, too bad, there is nothing you can do to fix it. Quite a different story if you use a DSLR...
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.223.48.236 (talk • contribs)


 * I'd probably take a digital camera for the snapshots (i.e mother-in-law and sweetheart) and a film camera for the landscape photos. Alternatively, take several SLR bodies with a different film in each. Old manual bodies are pretty cheap on eBay. You might get asked why you're changing cameras for your mother-on-law though... Imroy 20:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... about the subsection at the bottom of this section, the one involving aspect ratios? Why wouldnt the lab simply use different sizes of paper on which to print your picture? That particular subsection implies a logical fallacy: That there is only one possible aspect ratio at which to print both film and digital. Certainly if one really wanted to, they could probably just cut the ugly blocks off the edge of the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.89.116 (talk • contribs)

Top digitals vs. 35mm and medium format
User:81.131.249.189 repeatedly removes statements that claim digital cameras approach the quality of 35mm cameras. I added a link to this site which shows that the EOS-1ds can beat the detail of 35mm and even medium format film. Can you back up your edits please? Rhobite 17:46, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Norman Koren argues in that "a full-frame sensor with 8.3 megapixels would have resolution equal to 35mm film" but also notes that "resolution is not the only factor that influences image quality. Digital cameras with large pixels (over 5 µm) have far less noise (the equivalent of grain) than film, hence they will have better image quality with the same resolution." Gdr 17:54, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)


 * According to the article 35mm film pictures have resolutions of about 19 megapixels. The way it's been going you'll probably be able to get digital cameras with that resolution in a few years.  When I got my camera 3-4 megapixels was considered a quality camera, now it's up above 5 megapixels.
 * JesseG 02:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That 19 megapixel is very theoretical. My Nikon FX format DSLR has better fine contrast than any film I used, it has better dynamic range than all negative films I used, it has less and better looking grain up to 1600 iso than most 100iso slide films. It also completely lacks the highlight blowout artifacts of cheaper cameras. For image quality, film is now surpassed by digital on every aspect except for the quality in direct big size projection.

speed of use
the is little differnce between high end digtal slr's and film slr's in speed of use. this is also true for the full range of cameras film and digital. startup time for a cheap compact can be a long as a cheap digital. pro digital slrs as ready to shoot as soon as they are turned on.

as for speed of taking images fps (frames per second) should be cited as high end digital and film camera are very close. atthe low end of the scale there are also many simialities. Ohka- 20:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a lot of the claims in this article are outdated, or will be soon. It's the nature of changing technology. Digital cameras have had speed issues in the past but these are being solved. Rhobite 04:12, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * And Now in 2007, in Digital SLR's anyway their basically a non-issue --122.104.46.186 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Single-use digital cameras
Given the popularity single-use film cameras had on the film camera market, I felt it necessary to add mention about the handful of single-use digital cameras that are now available. I am the owner of one of these...but of course I modified it to be reusable. I highly doubt single-use digital cameras will have the same amount of impact that single-use film cameras had, but they still are worth mentioning. Torin Darkflight 05:50, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I propose to grade digital cameras into several categories:

(From high-end to low-end)
 * Military/scientific
 * Professional
 * Digital camera back
 * Digital SLR (changable lens ...)
 * Mid-range ("prosumer" models)
 * Low-end
 * Ordinary consumer point-and-shoot cameras (don't know how to call them)
 * Cellphone camera
 * Webcam (not usable without a computer)
 * Single-use (will be recycled by the company)
 * Disposable (cheapest possible components, probably not yet invented)

-- Toytoy 14:03, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

focal length
the focal length section is misleading. the 35mm camera to digital back example does not exist. the only (fortcoming) digital back for a 35mm slr has a conversion factor of 1.37 (Leica Digital Module ). the example of a 2.0 conversion should be removed as it does not reflect the current level of digital technology. Most digital slr's have a conversion factor of 1.4 to 1.6. for eample a 1.6 camera such as the Nikon D100 will result in a 50mm lens regeristering the same focal length as a 80mm lens, see below for more examples:


 * 14mm &rarr;  22.4mm
 * 15 &rarr;  24.0
 * 16 &rarr;  25.6
 * 17 &rarr;  27.2
 * 20 &rarr;  32
 * 24 &rarr;  38
 * 35 &rarr;  56
 * 40 &rarr;  64
 * 50 &rarr;  80
 * 70 &rarr;  112
 * 100 &rarr;  160
 * 150 &rarr;  240
 * 200 &rarr;  320
 * 300 &rarr;  480

lastly some digital slrs have full frame sensors and therefore no conversion factor:

(http://www.cameraworld.com/product/541161477.htm indicates a Lens Focal Length Conversion Factor*: Approx. 1.3 times, although)
 * Canon EOS-1Ds - CMOS sensor - 11.4 megapixels - 36 x 24 mm
 * Kodak DSC-14n - CMOS sensor - 13.8 megapixels - 36 x 24 mm

the 4/3 system is different due to the custom made lenses. is hould also be remeberd that focal length also differs with different format film cameras and is not a 'fault' of the digital system.

i therefore propose that the focal length section of the article be ammended, including removal of current image (i am prepearing some images). Ohka- 09:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History
Something for the "to do list" for this page - a history section! Noting that it was the twentieth birthday of digital photography this year, NewScientist commented on the way the developmental and comercial history of digital photography gets ignored much more than that of the PC or Internet. Joe D (t) 23:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-According to the Worldbook online, the first digital 'photograph' [They use the term "image"; I guess either word could cause a problem - but it is referring to an automatic re-creation of an image, as opposed to a creation of an image, so I think it should go in here} was much earlier than given in our article. It was by Russell Kirsch in 1957 (http://www.worldalmanac.com/blog/2007/05/the_first_digital_image.html). Kdammers (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the first digitized image (scan) in a computer, as opposed to image from a digital camera. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I put it here rather than on the article page. I had first searched for an article on digital images per se but got directed here.  Maybe a new article is needed. Kdammers (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He's mentioned in timeline of photography technology and image scanner. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Digital imaging techniques
It would be good to add a section explaining some popular digital imaging techniques, such as bracketing, noise removal, editing with imaging software, etc.

Fastest?
The article says: "The maximum number of frames per second (frame/s) achievable on digital and film cameras is 8 frame/s (Nikon D2H digital SLR, Nikon F5 35 mm film SLR). Canon 1D Mark II can achieve 8.5 frame/s which makes it fastest SLR camera in the world."

I'm curious where this information came from. Besides being self-contradictory (is the maximum 8 or 8.5?), it seems wrong.

The EOS-1N RS (introduced March 1995), for example, has a continuous shooting speed of 10 fps. The EOS-1V HS (introduced March 2000, still available) can shoot at 10 fps continuously. (So if you just wanted to find the fastest SLR, it's a film body.)

I don't know the digital side very well, but the Olympus E-100 RS claims to do 15 fps. Of course, it's also ("only") 1.5 megapixels, and you can't get 15 fps in its high quality setting, so it's for a completely different market than the EOS-1N RS.

I guess the moral of the story is that cameras are fast enough these days. (If you need more than 10-15 fps, you'd use a camcorder.)

way too techy
This article looks like it was written for engineers. There are no overviews, no explanatory text. Instead, lots is detailed analysis, and lists of reasons that digital is better/worse than film. It seems to me that this should be much more beginner friendly. Someone who doesn't know what digital photoghaphy is and is looking it up in an encyclopedia is going to be turned away by this article. I think it needs massive restructuring. --jacobolus (t) 00:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ftord1960 07:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
 * You must consider, at least that wikipedia is still an encyclopedia and needs to maintain a standard of writing, that may invariably not be beginner friendly. --122.104.46.186 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. I have been asked to annotate various Wikipedia articles for a camera club and I refuse to direct anyone to this one.  There is way too much minutia on some topics and too little on others.  Many contributors seem to have lost sight of their audience(s).  The net result is more likely to scare budding photographers away rather than encourage them to pursue the activity. Rrwms (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're replying to a conversion that's been dead for over three years, and is unlikely to get much attention due to being buried in the middle of a complicated talk page. The article has had over 400 edits since then.  If this hasn't improved it much (which is quite possible), then start a new section at the bottom with your suggestions for how to proceed to make it better.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Advantages of film
The advantages of film seems to have been written by a film enthusiast with a strong POV who has only used very expensive film cameras and cheap digital, and most of the points are worthless/illogical for one reason or another as I will show (my comments indented in bold)


 * Batteries last longer in film cameras and are usually of a standard type that is inexpensive and widely available. (However, some of the higher-end digital cameras use rechargeable batteries and show extraordinary battery life.)
 * point is null as film cameras are heavily limited by film (24 - 36 pics!), i know you can carry spare film, but same said of batteries. digicams use standard batteries as much as film ones do.
 * Point is still valid, as long battery life allows for extreme extended exposures. Most film cameras will have no problem exposing all night without having to change batteries - not so for digital. Tnystrand 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Manual film cameras require no batteries and, being mechanically simple, are able to operate in extreme environments.
 * Blank media that works in most film cameras (i.e., 35 mm film) is highly standardized and available for purchase in more places and for reasonably affordable cost, while blank media for a digital camera can be expensive (although perhaps not on a per-photo basis), available only at specialty stores, and confusing to purchase (due to a lack of media format convergence). As a result, many people will fill up the memory of their digital camera and then be unable to take pictures for a while until they can get to their computer (and find the right cables) to be able to download the photos they have taken.
 * Whereas film is cheap? on a 24 photo per roll use once basis?, admittatly flash memory isnt quite as standard, but it doesnt need to be, you only buy it once!, flash is very widely available, maybe not 2 years ago, but is now, soon it will be more available than film


 * Film cameras do not require computer literacy (e.g., for learning how to unload pictures from the camera or how to print them) and many people (particularly older people) are more familiar and comfortable with how to produce prints from them.
 * comparing like-for-like some digicams are very simple, but point partially accepted


 * Digital camera prints are often produced on home printers using low-quality ink and paper that will cause them to deteriorate severely over time, while most film prints are produced professionally with reasonably permanent results. The permanence of prints from some professional digital picture printing services is probably not that good either, and the typical user is not aware of when they may be getting a non-permanent print.
 * like-for-like home film prints can be rubbish as well, and you need to be skilled at it too


 * Many consumer-quality digital cameras have annoying time lags between pressing the shutter button and actual photo exposure - long enough to cause the photographer to "miss the moment" they were trying to capture. (However, much of this time lag is caused by the camera automatically setting focus and exposure.  To mitigate this, many consumer digital cameras have two-stage shutter buttons, where pressing the shutter button halfway sets focus and exposure without taking the picture, and fully pressing from that point takes the picture almost instantaneously.)
 * a problem largely with old cheap cameras, the delay is often due to red-eye reduction, which is not due to being digital, compact film cameras suffer from this as well


 * In an effort to save battery power, many digital cameras have a tendency to turn themselves off during short periods of lack of use - they then need to be turned back on again to take a photo (including waiting some time for them to return to working order).
 * well these settings can be changed, plus, mine takes under a second from on to ready


 * A digital camera's LCD may become unusable in very bright light. (However, when this happens, it is not so much an advantage of film photography as a circumstance-dependent loss of an advantage of digital photography, as digital cameras will typically continue to function properly without use of their LCD and will provide a user interface similar to that of film photography while doing so.)
 * digital has lcd and optical viewfinder, film just has optical, where is the disadvantage?


 * Some types of film, especially positive chrome film, offer better colour resolution than many consumer digital cameras.
 * comparing expensive film to cheap digital, yes, but on average digital is infinitely better.


 * When taking shots of extremely long exposure (eg. 60 seconds) in very low light conditions (eg. night shots) photographs taken on a digital camera are normally more noisy than those taken on film.
 * Again, an apples and oranges comparison, expensive film vs. cheap digital camera will always favour expensive


 * Film performs better for black and white photography with contrast enhancing monochrome filters (eg. green filter for portraits or red filter for sea and sky shots). Black and white digital photographs taken in this manner, or by modifiying the amplitude of each colour channel, can be very noisy in some cameras.
 * Digital single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras (preferred by more advanced photographers) are currently more expensive than film SLR cameras, although pricing for advanced Digital SLRs has dropped significantly.
 * It is unclear how any specific digital media will perform over long periods of time as a storage system. This is primarily due to changing standards and methods for storing digital information. It is not known how one will store digital data 15 years from now, or if the current methods will still be readable.   On the other hand, careful archiving techniques will allow perfect image archival over time as methods and media change.
 * total crap, it is known how well digital images can be stored: 100% perfectly, the arguement seems to be that if you leave all your images on a flash card they may corrupt over 15 years, maybe, but who leaves pictures on a card for 15 years?. It is on the other hand known how well film pictures store, not very well. and digital can of course be easily printed anyway. Digital can be easily backed up and stored with no degredation of quality, this is a major advantage of digital


 * I dunno, I'd say the format for DSLRs and most higher-end cameras which aren't micro-tiny has settled on CompactFlash, just because it's the largest. But I haven't done any kind of comprehensive survey. grendel|khan 14:38, 2005 May 4 (UTC)


 * Also, the reason film is better for long night exposures is that it experiences reciprocity failure, wherein exposure to the same amount of total light over a longer period doesn't have the same effect. It's useful for astrophotography. It has nothing to do with cheap or expensive film; digital sensors are physically accurate in an inconvenient way. The bit about color filters sounds like it was written by someone who tried to pull the yellow channel from a highly-compressed JPEG---I can't imagine how else he would have gotten that idea. If anything, color filter work is more flexible with digital cameras, since you can use a channel-mixer tool to pick a filter long after the fact. grendel|khan 14:56, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
 * That is interesting, although, how many cameras actually allow you to set the exposure time above ~ 30seconds? only very expensive ones as far as i have noticed. Bluemoose 15:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say the only real advantages of film are: people already own film cameras (obvious but valid), no computer needed, on average they are simpler, they are initially cheaper (although photos from them are more expensive). Bluemoose


 * Please sign your comments with . I've done it for you on this one. In response to your comment, I'd consider the ability to do this a serious advantage of film. A niche application, yes, but one that you can't do with digital. grendel|khan 14:38, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
 * thanks for correcting that. You can do that on digital, but not in the same way, either way it is so specific (i.e. you cant exactly get a camera like that from the high street!) that it is only worth mentioning out of interest, remember this is about general pros and cons, not extreme photography. Bluemoose 15:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that the Gigapxl project relies on digitizing the 2444 negative [Heidelberg scanner], and possibly reaching 6352MP with the Asymmagon lens, as compared to the 297MP of the Betterlight 10K digital back. cquarksnow 16:44, 2005 Dec 14 (UTC)

Advantages of film, reverted
The section on advantages of film may well be biased, and in cases of disagreements it is policy to present all POVs. However, this edit made a point of ignoring or disputing obviously valid issues, was very un-encyclopedic in style and generally over the top. I reverted it. Rl 09:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * am removing entires that make no distinction between film consumer and pro cameras .. i.e. most consumer camera have no depth of field control Ohka- 09:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

purple fringing
I've just put in a request for an article on purple fringing. I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it, but I expect someone reading this page can probably help.

Here is one online source, but I find their claim that the cause is still debated, quite hard to believe. -- Solipsist 16:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe because there is more than one cause? 147.80.185.181 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Digital criticism

 * Some types of more expensive film, especially positive chrome film, offer better colour resolution than many consumer digital cameras.

Why are we comparing "expensive" high-end film cameras with low-end "consumer" digital cameras?


 * Film cameras do not require computer literacy (e.g., for learning how to unload pictures from the camera or how to print them) and many people (particularly older people) are more familiar and comfortable with how to produce prints from them.

At least Canon cameras and printers have a feature to link and print photos without the need of a computer, so this is not true. Also, most 'professional' locations that print analog photos also print digital photos, so, all you have to do is let the CD/memory card in there to print.


 * Digital camera prints are often produced on home printers using low-quality ink and paper that will cause them to deteriorate severely over time, while most film prints are produced professionally with reasonably permanent results.

All my digital prints are also "produced professionally with reasonably permanent results" and most people I know do the same way. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 8 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

digital vs film 2
Perhaps someone can say why there is no page detailing film cameras in general? the comparsions of digital film on this page are mostly out of place. for example whilst there are many types of media there are also many types of film (35, APS, 120 etc), negative, positive, b&w, IR (etc) and many film speeds. working in a camera shop i know that many consumers get confused as to what they should be using.

i would argue that the clearest example of an advantage of film is archival purposes. A properly conserved, large format postive (slide film) requires no addtional devices for viewing. Ohka- 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is technically true. But you can't make lossless copies of film images, while you can, from digital. See entry below.
 * of course, but it is possible to create large format postive (film) from digital Ohka- 10:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Digital formats excel in mass reproduction. Archival needs are different, however. I'd argue that (short of 5000-bit digital signatures ;-) authenticity is better preserved by celluloid and paper; replication, however, is best done in digital formats. P00r 21:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to start a page about film cameras in general - it would be a useful addition to WP - I might well have stuff, even photos of equipment, to add to such a page, since I have used film cameras from Minox 8x11 mm to Sinar & Linhof 9x12 cm! --Janke | Talk 10:11:29, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Advantages of film, some more changes

 * Film does have disadvantages at extreme temperatures.
 * Removed Time-lag - Autofocus 35 mm point-and shoots also have this.
 * Home-made digital prints - changed wording.
 * Archiving - reworded.
 * Resolution - no advantage for average cosumers.

That's it for now. Hope you don't mind ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:11:29, 2005-08-31 (UTC)


 * hello, were we editing at the same time? sorry if so. some thoughts; yes to your point about film and temp (there needs to be more clarity about digital cameras and digital film). Time lage, totally agree. Home made prints, poor home darkrooms result in prints that detriortae rapidly. archiving and resolution agree. i also think some edits need to be made in advatages of digital section. Ohka- 10:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, we were doing simultaneous edits - but I was writing here before submitting, so you got yor edit in first. I'll check and see if I "need" to do anything... ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:30:11, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Advantage of digital
A few things:


 * Removed copyright issue - by law, this is automatic, needs no registration.
 * High end digital cameras do not surpass film in quality - think of 4x5" view cameras!.
 * Digital images from professional cameras can be 'enlarged' many times greater than the equivalent film image. Not true. Have yet to see an example of a digital image as sharp as from a 4x5" view camera image! You have to compare professional digi with professional film...

That's it here, too, for now. --Janke | Talk 10:53:15, 2005-08-31 (UTC)


 * Ok that's great .. you did more than i intended to do (but what i wanted to do). hopefull this article will soon be what it should be. 86.135.157.142 11:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not really legit to compare 35mm DSLRs to 4x5 large-format film. They're used for different purposes---you wouldn't bring a 4x5 camera to a sports event, for instance. And in any case, large-format digital consists largely of scanning backs, which have resolutions up to 85MP. "Professional" can mean lots of things---professional sports photography, journalism, architectural work, catalog work, portraiture. It's all about the right tool for the job. grendel|khan 16:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if you look far enough back in time, 4x5 was the format for sports events... not just joking here. Sometimes sports events are still shot on 4x5 - for advertising purposes, etc. A scanning back isn't really a "camera" in the strictest sense, you can't get instantaneous exposures with it. I just think that the advantages/disadvantages section should be kept pretty basic, and focus on consumers. They are the ones who read this. Professionals know all this already. But, I'll leve this to others, I've done my 2 ¢... --Janke | Talk 16:43:03, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

"Advantages" growing, g r o w i n g ....
Shouldn't we try to keep down the "advantages" sections, both film and digital. Especially, the film section has grown uncontrollably. This article is about digital cameras, not film cameras. I'm trimming down the film section quite a bit, leaving the most important stuff, and removing that which has an "opposite" in the digital section. If you feel I've been too heavy-handed, pleas re-insert, but try to keep it concise, thanks! --Janke | Talk 07:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Definately agree. Plus, people dont seem to realise that just because digital isn't perfect in some way that it doesnt mean film has some sort of advantage. Martin  08:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I just removed all this, it is all wrong; (comments added)


 * In addition, pictures taken with film cameras can often be printed with no post-processing, but digital images, particualry those taken with digital SLRs, often require post-processing.
 * I always print digital images without post-processing, lots of people do. Plus the reason they don't for film is that it is too difficult, hence is an advantage for digital
 * This is a consumer vs professional issue. One can not give a client untouched RAW images; a consumer shooting .jpeg can upload to walgreens.com and order prints without editing.


 * Post-processing requires software, such as adobe photoshop, which can cost hundreds of dollars.
 * See above, plus some is free, ever heard of open source?
 * Photoshop is industry standard. Gimp may be free, but like most GPL software, it is not well documented -- it is difficult to find good books on the subject. If it were easier to find good documentation this would be less an issue.


 * Digital cameras can get dust in their sensor when changing lenses which can reduce image quality. Dust build up is rarely a problem with film cameras because each time the film is advanced the dust moves with it.
 * this is so minor and unusual it is just plain silly
 * Cleaning film is never an issue; cleaning a sensor is. What does one do when dust starts affecting images -- you can't just print those and give them to a client.


 * All cameras fail from time to time; because the technology is newer, many professional photographers have been unable to fix digital cameras that freeze up during a shoot. By contrast, film cameras are often easier for experienced photographers to fix on the fly.
 * Digital cameras are more reliable, less moving parts
 * I do not have the time to address all your responses, and leave only the following as an example of the deficiencies in your responses: You are not sufficiently addressing his/her point. Repairability is not the same as reliability. Solid state electronics are, effectively, not repairable. (I will not touch on the disposability issue, for the moment.) As for failure rate, physical moving parts are only one contributor to failure; software is another! (N.B. these cameras are full of software. They are basically soft real-time firmware devices.). Old watches tend not to crash! You can pick up a decades-old mechanical camera, and it will work like a charm; the same cannot be said of complex firmware written under time-to-market deadlines! P00r 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Negatives have demonstrated excellent archival qualities and can, when stored properly, still produce excellent prints decades after they have been developed. It is an open question whether digital media such as computer hard drives, flash memory, or CD-ROMs will be readable decades from now given the fact that it is difficult to find a machine that can read me media from just 25 years ago such as cassette tapes and the large floppy disks that were used to store data on computers then.
 * This is astonishly stupid, digital images are so much easier to store, copy, backup, reproduce.
 * You are not demonstrating intelligence. Address his/her point on retrieval, please! P00r 21:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Flash memory is much more expensive than film. Photographers who need to shoot hundreds of images in a short period of time either need to spend large amounts of money on flash memory cards or lose valuable shooting time downloading images to a computer.
 * Film is cheaper on a buy once basis, however flash can be used more than once (in fact millions of times), thus is massively cheaper.


 * Capturin or manipulating a digital image requires different techniques using a digital camera than a film camera. Learning these new techniques can be a time consuming task for a photographer.
 * Different is not a disadvantage.


 * Film cameras are much more practical in remote areas where it is difficult to recharge batteries. For example National Geographic photographers on assignment still use film cameras because of their proven reliability in the field.
 * Film cameras require carrying extra film, digital extra batteries.
 * Not terribly practical on shoots to remote locations.


 * Organizing and editing film images takes less time than organizing and editing digital images.
 * Totally and utterly wrong.
 * This photographer disagrees http://www.nicholsonprints.com/Articles/digital3.htm Most of his issues involve editing RAW files.

To upload, to sort through, to organize and to print proof sheets for the 290 digital frames took about six hours of my time on the computers, and about another four hours of time for the computer to run batch processes on the photo files (and I have pretty good computers). That's about ten hours to edit that shoot.

To edit my eight rolls of film, to enter the photo info into my computer database and assign each photo a file number, and to label the slides ... that all took a grand total of two hours.

Martin 08:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

DISadvantages
Since this article is about digital cameras, I changed "Advantages of film" to "Disadvantages of digital". This will probably also keep some film afficionados from bloating this section. What do you think? --Janke | Talk 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is probably a sensible trend, as digital photography evolves much faster. Was anyone able to reference the 1135MP resolution quoted for large format, aside the lens ? I could only figure 669MP with the (unique) Polaroid 80" x 40" camera using T-809 film (9 line pairs/mm ==> 36576 x 18288), well beyond the 297MP of the Betterlight back anyway. Also on the Gigapixel project I gather that the Kodak 2444 film can achieve 125 lp/mm, equivalent to 6350dpi (2 dots per line pair), thus resulting in a theoretical 57150 x 114300 [6532 MP] using 9" x 18" film, short of the Asymmagon lens MTF performance. -- cquarksnow 16:23, 13 December 2005

Comment from a passerby as I'm browsing on through: This "There is no company, as of January 2006, that has software that can detect what, if anything, has been altered." seems to imply that A) No software development occurs outside of for-profit organizations, and B) no digital manipulation can ever be detected by humans without the aid of software. Would not a simple statement that there is no reliable way to detect manipulation be better? Howdoesthiswo 01:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

History v2
Digital photography/Temp contains a test version of the history of digital cameras. Include it if its fine.

Shashank Shekhar 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'm afriad that the material found at Digital photography/Temp is still fairly derivative of the article at about.com --Dinosaurdarrell 19:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

astro
At "Capture format: pixel count, digital file type (RAW, TIFF, JPEG), film format (135 film, 120 film, 5x4, 10x8). " say why you are still talking about film. Perhaps just for 'camera back sizes?'

At first mention of 1/1.8, say why you use such difficult units.

Say why if we want to shoot star trails with hours long exposures, we would still want a film camera... I mean you make it seem digital is best for astro photography but at the low $$ end, tell if the opposite applies. Say what digital "bulb" (open shutter) is like and involved factors.

Standard USB storage
I like the cameras that use standard usb storage specifications when it comes to interfacing with computers. You don't have to install any software to download images from the camera to the PC. The camera just shows up as another drive on the computer, and you can transfer your images that way. When I was doing stuff for church, I'd sometimes have the camera that belonged to the church, and I soon found out that if I wanted to transfer pictures I had taken to my computer that I had to first go out to the camera manufacturer's web site and download drivers first before the camera would talk to the computer. I just got my second digital camera (another Sony) and I was glad to see that Sony still has their cameras show up as a USB mass storage device - I haven't even opened the disc that came with the camera yet. JesseG 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok... so? Whats this to do with the article? But i agree, It is a good feature --122.104.46.186 (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Batteries
Film cameras require no batteries to actually store the image on film, whoever reverted my edit needs to read up a little ;)--Mincetro 08:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When was the last time you saw a film camera that was able to function without batteries? Martin 08:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have one sitting on my desk right now - A 1980's Zenit Single-Lense Reflex, made in Russia and exported. --Mincetro 09:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but let's be realistic, 99% of film cameras need batteries. Martin 10:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they don't, Almost every camera made before 1980 didn't have the ability to use batteries, and used a light-sensetive Exposure meter.--Mincetro 10:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that was over quarter of a century ago! I have re-worded it slightly. Martin 10:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This wording is much more accurate, Thank you.

a cupla points:

-- film cameras that used batteries only for the meter or for the meter and some but not all shutter speeds were readily available through the 1990s and a few are still made.

-- the comment about "quarter century ago" raises an important point, ie, that the characteristics and capablities of a film camera are in large part determined by the film that is loaded into into it. so a well made old camera becomes a state of the art image maker when state of the art film is loaded (though it may not offer state of the art convenience). there are plenty of decades old film cameras still going strong and producing excellent quality images.

Sort out the generalities
There are at least two areas which are treated a bit generally and would benefit from clearer distinctions:

-- The archival charactertistics of film is treated as a single topic. It is really two as silver based and dye based images have different archival characteristics.

-- The lag problem of digital cameras is blamed on autofocus mechanisms. Slow autofocus can effect film cameras that have autofocus too. Digital cameras have other potential sources of lag because the other electronics that run the camera can take time to boot up (or wake up). At the moment this characteristic varies from one product to the next and is an area of competition between vendors. Nikon is advertising exceptionally fast boot-up. I suspect that pretty soon all the vendors will figure out how to beat this problem and it will go away, but for now it's an issue.

- ef

Some General Concepts
The following ideas are alluded to in a round-about way but not spelled out concisely:

-- Film tends to require modest capital investment and expensive materials.

-- At least until recently film cameras have tended to remain current partly because film kept getting better. An old high quality camera loaded with state of the art film can become a state of the art imaging device.

-- Digital offers reduced materials costs at the cost of greater capital investment for a given level of image quality and capabilities.

-- Digital permits many users to execute more of the process in-house without modifying the environment very much and using familiar tools. (It may actually be cheaper to set up for chemical processing and do it than to upgrade computer gear for digital imaging, but darkroom work requires creating a special environment for the work and more specialized skills.)

-- Film and digital is not necessarily and either or choice. They are often used in combination. Images originated on film are frequently scanned for digital post-processing and/or distribution. Film recorders can be used to make film images from digital images. (Sections on scanners and film recorders -- or mention with links to separate articles -- would be a good addition.)

-- The diversity of RAW image file formats has been a problem, but that may be lessening. There are a couple of formats now being used by more than one camera/back maker (Adobe and Kodak) that I know of. An update on this would be nice.

More on achiving
I think the section on archiving needs to be reworked. There are several omissions that taken together are misleading.

-- It is true that digital copies cause no quality loss. However, that is not the only determinant of archival characteristics.

-- Digital copies must be stored on *something* and problems with digital archives have less to do with the file contents and formats than the media the files are stored on. There are two main concerns about digital media.

-- -- Longevity of the media: "Archival" in the IT world usualy refers to the period of time a business is required to retain it's records, ie ten years. While there have been institutions that retain data for many decades until the recent popularity of digital media they have been the exception, and some have had problems. (NASA had some problems with tape print-through that got some publicity a few years ago.) However, since in the IT world data loss is embarassing at best, its not something a typical IT shop would go public with and it's hard to know how much has occurred.

In the mean time there have been anacdotal reports of consumer grade optical disks becoming unreadable after only a few years. I haven't been able to determine how wide spread this has been, or what factors have been involved. Some input from someone with more expertise in this area would be welcome. In any event, as the technology is relatively new, the predictions about longevity are just that. There is no track record.

-- -- Hardware availablitly: Data storage technology changes quickly and devices become obsolete quickly. If you'd like to keep image for up to a century are you confident that you successors be able to find a working CD-ROM toward the end of that period. Two inch quad video tape was the industy standard format for commercial telvision for years. Now machines that can play those tapes are very scarce. Tried to find a drive to read Bournuli disks? or Jazz disks? or single sided Mac diskettes lately?

-- So digital archiving requires constantly copying the archives to new, current media to assure that the media will be intact and that there will be machinary to read it with. This is an ever-increasing on-going expense, and operation that is easily overlooked, postponed, or cut from a tight budget.

-- Digital images cannot be read without loading them from media into computer memory. This makes indexing and cataloging more critical. It also slows the processes of verifying that a particular piece of media has the desired images and/or determining if the images on a given peice of media are worth keeping at all.

-- Silver based film images have now been around for a century. (There have been some problems with base materials along the way that have been resolved.) There is a track record. The images last. You can see the images with the naked eye, making image evalutation fast and easy. As the technoloy required to print from silver negatives is fairly low tech it can probably be recreated if it becomes commercialy scarce.

-- Dye base slides and negatives can fade. Dye based prints of digital images can fade too. This is less a film vs digital question than a dye vs silver issue. Color images can be archived as color seperations on silver negatives. Film recorders can be used to make silver images (composite or seperations) from digital images.

-- IMHO, on the whole, silver images on film are the hands-down champ in the archival department. In many respects they may seem expensive and inconvenient and they may no longer be the medium of choice for many applications, but this is one area in which they clearly excel.

Digitals in low light
The article mentions that digital camera don't do well in low light (if I recall correctly.) This is changing fast. Max ISO equivelent has been stuck at 1600 for a while (and a bit noisy in some cases) but the integration of image stabilization (or vibration reduction if you prefer) technology into more cameras and lenses is adding the equivilent of a stop or two. This is an area to keep tabs on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Er1cF (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's been up to 3200 ISO for a couple of years. Canon IS lenses add up to three stops of anti-shake for slow shutterspeeds. Hu 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional categories
Can we create additional categories for digital camera articles? I think DSCs can be grouped by:


 * Use (e.g. SLR, point-and-shoot ...)
 * Pixel count (e.g. 1, 2, 3, ... megapixels)
 * Optical zoom (e.g. 1x, 2x, ...)
 * CCD size
 * Type of storage (e.g. Compact Flash, SD, XD, ...)
 * Type of battery

These categories may be helpful to DSC users and buyers. -- Toytoy 04:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Future of Photography
How about a "future of photography" or "current research" section?

Lighting, optics, sensors, processing, and display are all seeing innovation. With the suggestion of profound change in the pipeline. Examples... Computer controlled lighting (a user photographing an object says "soften that shadow" and the light sources adapt). Optics like the "flutter shutter". Four-channel and gradient pixel sensors. Combining images to get 3D models. Integrating lighting/optics/sensor/display control and analysis into a flexible/powerful blob. HDR displays.

Digital photography is still almost entirely film-like. But that is starting to change, with nifty possibilities. 66.30.117.127 22:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea, but "futures" are not really the subject matter of the encyclopedia, which describes things as they are or have been. A "Current research" section is a possibility if it is firmly rooted in what has been accomplished already. You could use the See Also section to point to some articles that document these Research and Development advances. Hu 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I started a "Recent Research and Innovation" section. Hmm, "Innovations"?.  Feel free to modify/overhaul/remove.  It's named so both research and advanced commercial tech can be included.  Lots of things could be added, but, another time.  Thanks for the encouragement. 66.30.117.127 18:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Digital Photography
I would like to add a reference to my website (a non commercial site) for further reading on the history of digital photography. The page I have in mind is http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/history_of_digital_photography.html

The whole section of my site concerning the history of digital photography is over five pages. Please do have a look, and if you think it should go into the "External Links" or "Resources" section, I'd be obliged if you could add it.

Dazp1970 12:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

.....I took a look at the site you mentioned and I think it is a good one to add to the External Links" section. I have added it there. --Ftord1960 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find your addition in the External Links section, but have now added the link myself. If it is no longer of relevance, please remove it, or possibly give a suggestion as to where the link could be better placed. Dazp1970 11:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have today re-added two links that were recently removed. One is to a page on digital photography terminology, and one to a page on the history of digital photography.

These are two pages from my own website that I feel are of relevance to Wikipedia. They have also both been "approved" by other Wikipedia members.

When the links were added, I was queried as to whether the information from my site could just be addedd to Wikipedia. Well, I think the terminology page is too long to be added. And the page on the history of digital photography leads to other pages that trace the story of digital photography. Again, this is too long to add directly to Wikipedia, and the style of my pages is more "story of" rather than "here are some facts".

However, having said all that, if anyone wants to take the information from my site and tailor it to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. As long as I get credited for the original work, I'm more than happy!

Dazp1970 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you comment on how your site relates to the criteria spelled out at WP:EL? Seems to me not a match for WP needs. As for crediting you for the original work, that's not the way wikipedia works.  If your material gets incorporated, it has to be with your approval to let others modify it, reuse it without attribution, etc. Dicklyon 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My site relates to the criteria under "What should be linked", part 4, where it states "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"


 * Can you describe what content you have, why it is important, and why not suitable for direct inclusion? Dicklyon 15:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the situation with regard to incorporating material. I was thinking along the lines of a mention under the "References" section, rather than attribution.

Dazp1970 06:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Read about references, too, then. Sources need to be reliable, which usually means not self-published.  Has your material been reviewed by an editor, or a committee of peers, or anything that would help make it "reliable"?


 * Note that you should sign your talk comments by appending four tildes. Dicklyon 15:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your reply. I have already briefly described the content of my pages (see above), and of course, there's nothing to stop anyone who is interested looking for themselves.

I have read the section on references. The second bullet point provides this reason for adding a reference "To credit a source for providing useful information". If my pages are the source, then they should be rightfully referenced.

My pages have been reviewed by previous Wikipedia members, and were recommended for inclusion (see "Ftord1960" above).

Finally, I have always signed my posts here with four tildes. Not sure what you mean by this?


 * My mistake; I was probably looking at separated paragraphs. Dicklyon 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I get the distinct impression that my input is not wanted on Wikipedia. A shame, as I thought quality contributions were welcomed. Clearly I was wrong.

Dazp1970 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To understand the reactions to external links, you need to understand wikipedia goals. Building content in wikipedia from user contributions is good; external links to content are a poor alternative, sometimes useful, but often not. Dicklyon 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel I'm going round in circles. I've already explained why adding the content direct to Wikipedia is not appropriate, and others were happy for it to be added as an external link. I've also stated that if someone else wants to use my site directly then they can, provided it was referenced. I've followed the guidelines (and have quoted from them above), but what's the point in following them if everything gets changed simply because another user doesn't like something? The majority of us with something to contribute might as well all pack up & go home and leave it to a small group of like minded people. After all, if we add something of relevance they'll only change it, whether we followed the guidelines or not.

Dazp1970 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I looked at your pages again, and I'm pretty sure that if someone adds those links I will take them out. I don't see anything there that can't be incorporated into wikipedia (if refs are found), and I do see at least several erroneous assertions, such as this with respect to Kirsch's canner: "NB: Photocopiers stem from the development of this technology," which is nonsense, since Xerography doesn't involve scanning or digitization.  And about spy satellites: "Taking pictures on film was no good because you had bring the film back to Earth. And if it didn’t make it back to Earth – no pictures at all!" when in fact all spy satellites before KH-11, late 1976, dropped film canisters for recovery by airplanes, quite successfully.  This stuff is amateur history, not the kind of authoritative stuff we should be linking.  If I am wrong, please cite favorable reviews. Dicklyon 05:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On your points; I stated that photocopiers stem from this technology, I didn't say they share the same technology. Similarly few people would dispute that digital cameras stem from film cameras, yet the technology involved is vastly different. On your second point, I seriously doubt that anyone could find fault in my statement that if the film didn't make it back to Earth you wouldn't have any pictures at all. I think you misunderstand what my pages are. They are a brief history of digital photography, not a complete history, and not an encyclopedia. My pages are for interested people to have an enjoyable and informative read, that might spark their interest to delve even further. Interested people like Wikipedia readers. It's presented as an extra for readers, not a substitute.

As I said before, we're going round in circles. I still feel that external sources are valuable, and they don't have to be just a collection of facts for them to be of interest to readers. You will continue to want facts, facts and then more facts, and who cares if it's interesting or not. And as I stated a long way up this thread, little point in people like myself adding to Wikipedia. We'll only get brushed aside by those who disagree with our opinions, whether we follow the guielines or not.

Dazp1970 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pixel counts and Resolution
I can see now that I did something dumb in adding explanations about Resolution at the end of the table of Common resolutions because there was already a section about Pixel counts. I hadn't even noticed that section.

Now there are sections about both Pixel counts and Resolution. Surely these should be merged into one section? And without starting a conflict between the Foveon fans and the Foveon skeptics? (There's currently an incorrect statement regarding Foveon sensors, "while the cameras with Foveon sensors produce uninterpolated image files with one-third as many RGB pixels as photosensors" - the Sigma SD14 with its interpolated JPEG format has changed that.) --RenniePet 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would you want to merge them and thereby confuse these two concepts further?
 * The statement about producing uninterpolated files of that size is still true of the SD14, though it ALSO has options to produce interpolated larger files; add that if you like. Dicklyon 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I would **NOT** call your addition "dumb". :)

I think the pixel count and resolution should stay separate: resolution depends on the physical geometry which makes it independent of pixel count. I more than welcome any cleaning up or rewriting you want to do though. Cburnett 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to something one of us added? Or to the suggestion I made to add?  Or to the fact that is referred to in that suggestion? Or just what is it that you would call "dumb"? Dicklyon 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OH HOLY CRAP!! I meant "not dumb".  Much apologies!  I'm glad RenniePet is adding to the article.  Cburnett 22:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Aspect ratio in Common resolutions table
It's not a major issue for me, but I would like to indicate a negative vote for the change that shows aspect ratios as Yes | No in two columns. Partly because it (currently) gives the impression of providing a lot of unnecessary (redundant) information, since a Yes in one column implies a No in the other column. (That could change if a future camera is made that supports both aspect ratios.) And partly because it prevents indication of an aspect ration such as 16:9, which the article claims is available on a Panasonic camera from 2005 (but not mentioned in the Common resolutions table.) In other words, I liked the previous method using non-breaking spaces better. --RenniePet 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's a bit nutty to have a pair of booleans to specify a value out of set of two, and even worse if two can become three or more. Dicklyon 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there must be a better way. Perhaps it would work, as a compromise, to have two (or more) columns, with a checkmark in the proper one?  Just wondering. Hertz1888 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Or make a separate table section for each aspect ratio? Or just list it as a value, perhaps color coded? Dicklyon 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd try something different and I pretty much agree with the sentiments here. What I propose is two separate images: one with a 3:2 and another with a 4:3 ratio. I think it would set them apart visually (the original issue with using text) while not being redundant as with the yes/no columns. Cburnett 19:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)