influenced by fashion, they need the best tool for the job.
Digital photography invites us to rethink the way that we, as photographers, work and requires new and different skills that some may find difficult to master at first, but master them we must because film is going to get increasingly more difficult to buy and process.
In the last year some of the traditional names of photography have hit upon hard times.  Ilford went into administration, Kodak are reducing their workforce by 15,000 world-wide as their profits slumped by 63% due to the faster than predicted take up of digital.
Like it or not the writing is on the wall.
Lets hope we see the colour version of the water skier, either in print or slide.  The image reproduced here doesn't, in any shape or form, truly
represent what a superb shot this is.  As they say in the theatre, expect this one to "run & run".----Ed

Secondly, when you get home you can see the pictures on a big screen (TV or PC) and get to work on them straight away.  No more waiting till you've got to the end of a roll of film and had it processed, even if you only took three shots.
Two other things I love are that you can change the ISO speed from frame to frame if needed, and each picture comes with an in built record of the shutter speed, aperture, ISO speed, zoom lens setting etc.  I found this a great learning aid & it can often reveal why a picture is not the success you hoped for.  For me, these are advantages way beyond the price of film !
Now to John's sums.  My camera is a Fuji S602 - a so-called 'bridge' camera with the shape and controls of an SLR but without interchangeable lenses (it has a 6x zoom equivalent to 35 to 210 mm with a wide-angle supplementary lens giving
24 mm).  Today's equivalent costs about £350.  [I use Photoshop Elements (£70), about a tenth the price of full-scale Photoshop and have just lashed out £300 on an A3 printer, but John omitted these costs as he assumed these would already be used to produce pictures from film].  My image storage comprises a small box of CDs, and I have just archived a whole year's original images and finished photos on a single DVD.  So I'm not building any shelves yet !
Working methods - we all have to choose what works for us, but I review the material which I think might have Camera Club potential on-screen, select the images I want to work on, and print only the finished result (some test strips then the A3 print).  So no High Street en-prints either.
None of this means I can take pictures which rival John's - but I reckon it is his eye and brain which make the difference, not £2,400 worth of kit !

a total of 6,291,456 pixels. Lets assume a colour depth of 16 bits.  This means that each pixel can be one of 65,536 colours.  Now the mathematicians amongst you will be able to work out  that if you multiply 65,536 by 65,536 and do this 6,291,456 times you have the total number of possible pictures. That's every picture ever taken or ever likely to be taken by a 6 megapixel camera.
I am currently generating them all.  I will let you all know when I get a competition winner !!

The third question raises the issue of how important the judge might see each particular image.  This is where another of my hobby-horses, the photographic cliché comes in.  As club members gain in experience and general awareness on the subject, I believe we should expect there to be a lessening of production of the type of images that have been created again and again from the early days of photography.  I do not mean just the sunsets or the swans, I refer more to the recording of textures of wood, the sweep of pavements, the lines of reeds.
In short, I am suggesting that we look to see images that evoke feelings of purpose.  Is that too much to ask of a judge ?

We hope you continue to enjoy reading our Newsletters.  This is the 5^th issued under this Editorship & another bumper 6 page issue !!  New material is always badly needed if we are to keep up this quality & quantity.  Please supply an article, preferably photography based, on disc or cd plus some photos.  About 800 words fills a page, less with pictures.  Just ask me if you want some help & advice.-- Ed.

from the plastic ones we used to sit upon and we definitely don't have to pile them up at the end of each session.  The screen is big enough to serve as a cinema and the twin projectors are hidden behind it. Everything is remotely accessed and the judges, irrespective of their location, can control the projectors from their computer, zooming in & real time modifications are common practise nowadays.
No more than 100 of us are present tonight but we know that at least 200 more from the area will log in.  Being immobile or in a different location is not an issue anymore. You can be virtually here.  Everything we see they can see.  Four cameras located strategically in the amphitheatre to choose from & in real time from their screens, ensure that they do not miss any of the action.  Ok, they may miss the bar sessions before and after the event but at the end of the day this is a photography Club we are talking about.
All the ex presidents and chairmen of the Club occupy the front row where they sit there proud for what has been achieved over the years.  They were the ones to initiate the expansion, initially to serve club members that could not be present or had mobility problems.  And then to ex-patriots before we reach today's stage to allow for a global membership.
In honour of their "life long contribution", ten of them have been given a veto privilege in case the judges start to misbehave.  They need to press the red button on their remote control once and their objection is instantly registered on the screens in front of the judges in real time.  We can afford to pay for the best judges globally now but can you really trust the judges ?
The rest of us can use our personal remote only when we judge members panels on line, to register votes for decision-making or to comment on global presentations.
19:25 and Allan is presenting today's session and the panel of three judges.  Each judge appears in a corner of the screen while the lower left corner is, as always, dedicated to present the results and the number of people using the live link.  They have worked hard during the last two weeks to choose the sixty finalists out of 21,000 entries.
It is now 19:30 GMT and the first picture, accompanied by the music chosen by the author instead of a title, is projected.  The judges have 45 seconds each, to comment for their mark.
Ninety-three people in the auditorium and another 32,765 members from around the globe are watching captivated.

A member of our web team is checking if all links are green.
I turn my attention back to the screen and cross my fingers.  I recognise the music.
It is my entry.

Coming back to photography (at last) we can apply similar principles.
Of course, the very first link in the chain is the Seeing Eye of the photographer, and many great photos have been produced with the simplest of cameras.  In today's digital world, the next link in the chain is generally a digital camera, or film camera and scanner, followed by a computer and finally a printer.  This chain is worth considering when next making an upgrade to your system (what again !).
Is it worth going for a top of the range printer when your digicam or scanner is a bit long in the tooth ? Similarly, is Photoshop (still the ultimate) absolutely essential if there are still improvements that can be made at the front end ? (Many top quality amplifiers have no tone controls whatsoever).  Recent trials of Photoshop Elements have shown what a comprehensive package that is, and a totally free programme (GIMP) is currently getting good reviews.
When the front end is up to scratch, is Photoshop the next best step ?  Breaking down the workflow through the computer could go something like; raw file conversion, image enhancement, image interpolation and finally image sharpening.  Dedicated programmes are available for each of these stages and a combination of simple programmes for each step could be more effective than Photoshop itself.
Finally, when all the front end and computer processing have been optimised we can then turn our attention to the printer.
Caution: these are only my views and if you have a system that works for you, stick with it !        I believe the theory is sound but have not carried out any extensive testing.  You can carry out a simple (and free !) test for yourself to demonstrate what your printer is capable of.  Try printing a full size image (from one of those magazine cover CDs or from the internet) from a high end digital camera. You may be pleasantly surprised at the result.
Hopefully this article has provided you with some areas to consider if you contemplate improving the quality of your prints.  I believe that this approach is a most cost effective way to higher quality results.  As ever, getting things correct at the earliest stage (ideally when the picture is taken) should avoid less work later on.  More time can then be spent behind the camera instead of in front of the computer.