 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / January 2006Return to film... True!
The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps $25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital photography... I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the occasional product shot or advertising shot but definitely not for what I have made a living doing for 43 years. I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement and a digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet. Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that, might also give me and edge! I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography. Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work was always with medium and large format cameras. I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge by a computer I can't program. I am fed up with the cost of digital photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot but sub machine guns never made an accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of rounds in the hope of hitting something too. I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He used a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the shitty dynamic range of the camera. I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the subject, encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed them last night and all are in focus with just 3 throw away. The camera with 2 lenses cost $850(AUD) on EBay and the film + chemicals cost maybe $30(AUD). I can buy some fine lenses for this camera with the cash from selling my latest digital. I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery and ready to sell to print shops tomorrow. I couldn't do it any faster with digital and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin, blowing away the specula highlights. It's all over red rover. The digitals are simply not good enough for my work. This post is not about "is digital better or worse" it's about a decision I've been contemplating for some time. Maybe Australian sunlight and 40C daytime temperatures with Queensland's 27/7 humidity over 80% might affect the sensors and the results, maybe not. What I do know is my most popular posters are all shot on film. Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras as opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered by a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my investment.  SignatureHaving climaxed... She turned on her mate and began to devour him. Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman? > I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge > by a computer I can't program. You've taken the words completely out of my mouth. YESSS!! -Bob (Nikon F3, 55 micro-nikkor AIS) >> I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge >> by a computer I can't program. > >You've taken the words completely out of my mouth. Well, I can program a computer and I think digital printing is great. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency news-server.bigpond.net.au, only@the.group says... >>by a computer I can't program. We keep telling you to shoot RAW. But that's fine, MF film sounds awesome, sounds like fun. > news-server.bigpond.net.au, > only@the.group says... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We keep telling you to shoot RAW. But that's fine, MF film sounds awesome, > sounds like fun. RAW is better than JPG, but a 6 MP file in any format won't enlarge as smoothly, with as much detail as decent 35mm film (Reala, Velvia, Astia, Portra). I suspect that's not true of the top of the line Canon/Nikon, but I believe the jury still's out on the rest of the DSLR selection. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > > news-server.bigpond.net.au, > > only@the.group says... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Portra). I suspect that's not true of the top of the line Canon/Nikon, but > I believe the jury still's out on the rest of the DSLR selection. *Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly. Not the most detailed (at 6MP), but much smoother than film. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > *Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly. You mean, like 'posterized'? If the data doesn't have noise in it there aren't enough bits in the A/D converter &| data. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm > > *Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly. > > You mean, like 'posterized'? No, I do not mean like posterized. I can, with great effort, by expending the brightness range greatlyl (like 4 stops underexposure, expanded back in photoshop) force posterization to happen, but it's not a problem in decent photographs. > If the data doesn't have noise in it there aren't enough > bits in the A/D converter &| data. Not to worry, the bottom couple of bits are mostly noise. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>*Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly. > > You mean, like 'posterized'? I think that terminology is rarely used in that way. Most of the time today, when someone states "posterized", they mean stepped aberrations across what should be a smooth colour area. Quite often with direct digital capture, there can be an effect of no colour tonal change, just a solid area . . . very different from "posterization", though it might be termed "equalization". > If the data doesn't have noise in it there aren't enough > bits in the A/D converter &| data. Bayer pattern interpolation will often equalize large areas of colour. Another influence might be the anti Moiré filter, which would minimize or eliminate high frequency data. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > I think that terminology is rarely used in that way. Most of the time > today, when someone states "posterized", they mean stepped aberrations > across what should be a smooth colour area. Quite often with direct > digital capture, there can be an effect of no colour tonal change, just > a solid area . . . very different from "posterization", though it might > be termed "equalization". Could you post a samle of this? Scott > > I think that terminology is rarely used in that way. Most of the > time [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Scott You mean the difference between posterization and equalization? Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > > > I think that terminology is rarely used in that way. Most of the > > time [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You mean the difference between posterization and equalization? I was thinking more of an area that comes out as a solid area. Scott >>> > I think that terminology is rarely used in that way. Most of the >>>time [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Scott I have seen it as a colour space issue, and it happens when going to print. It can be avoided, but not always. I don't think it would show well on a computer monitor, though sometimes you can tell by looking at channels, or converting a test file to LaB mode and viewing just the L channel. This is not quite all equal values in one area, though I have seen that in a very very small number of files given to me for layouts. I put the term in quotation marks, because it is a better way to describe it (I think). I don't think you will notice such a thing if you don't handle files in CMYK. Those are the channels you need to view. It does surprise me to see it . . . wish I had a more technical reason why it happens. Lürzer's Archive use to run this one promo advertisement within a few of their issues from one photographer. The image had a yellow wall that came out without noticeable tonal change, though the sidewalk in the image did show a gradual change in tone. I should point out that errors in colour space choices from scanning film could also cause a similar problem when going to print . . . man, this must be some really boring stuff (sorry). Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >>> > I think that terminology is rarely used in that way. Most of the >>>time [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Scott >>> > I think that terminology is rarely used in that way. Most of the >>>time [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I was thinking more of an area that comes out as a solid area. Just ran across this item, and thought you might be interested: <http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D200/D200A.HTM> Since the D200 is one of the newest D-SLRs on the market, you might find the reference to a "corduroy effect" interesting. You have to scroll down to find it, but they do have larger sample images. Some might call it posterization. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > > > news-server.bigpond.net.au, > > > only@the.group says... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > *Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly. Not the most > detailed (at 6MP), but much smoother than film. But it is that very 'smoothness', and lack of subtle tonal gradation that is the major reason that some digital images can look 'plastiky' - not a problem for all subjects, but it is an issue for many. Peter > > > > news-server.bigpond.net.au, > > > > only@the.group says... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the major reason that some digital images can look 'plastiky' - not a > problem for all subjects, but it is an issue for many. Yep. Digital enlarges *differently* from film, and that "difference" makes it clearly worse for some kinds of subjects. And at least arguably better for others. (Especially, it "over-enlarges" better). I was taking issue specifically with the claim, still quoted above, that the problem with digital was that it *didn't* enlarge smoothly. That, says I, is nonsense. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> > > > news-server.bigpond.net.au, >> > > > only@the.group says... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > that the problem with digital was that it *didn't* enlarge smoothly. > That, says I, is nonsense. Yes, you're right, my nonsense, I mean, my mistake. Those areas of vast nothingness that result from enlarging 6 MP images sure are smooth, right up until what's left of the detail takes back over, and then everything looks pinched. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>news-server.bigpond.net.au, >>only@the.group says... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Portra). I suspect that's not true of the top of the line Canon/Nikon, but > I believe the jury still's out on the rest of the DSLR selection. I agree, film is great. It's just that he's complaining about having no control over digital while shooting jpeg. : >>news-server.bigpond.net.au, : >>only@the.group says... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : I agree, film is great. It's just that he's complaining about having no : control over digital while shooting jpeg. ------------------------------------------- That's wrong Paul. The "No Control" is as Gordon pointed out, something that takes place in the camera's computer and you simply can't control it. I have no real problem with digital images. I enlarge them and print them on canvas for a living. What I have a problem with is digital photography. Having seen so many digital pictures and only a remarkable few which are dynamically equal to hand made film prints, I dusted off my Durst Enlarger and took the processor out of mothballs to do a few trials over Christmas. I can see now why so many people are fooled into believing digital is somehow "better" than film. Maybe this is why there are so few large processors for sale on the used market. For some people digital photography no doubt is better than film. Certainly digital cameras have produced a new breed of quasi professional shooters with little or no understanding of photography who know nothing else than the artificial look of a digital image and ask not what the wides aperture is but how many frames they can shoot continuously, knowing the more they take, the greater the likelihood of getting a some keepers. Maybe it will be like the pioneers of our past. They hated the winters of Alaska and the desert of Kalgoorlie but stayed and bred, in hope of riches from gold. Their children knew no other land and simply accepted where they were, pining for it when taken away. Maybe it is only people who 'cut their teeth' on 100% manual cameras who have this problem? The Audio industry cracked up at the reduced dynamic range of sound when digitizing of CDs started years ago but we seem to have accepted them now. > Maybe it will be like the pioneers of our past. They hated the winters of > Alaska and the desert of Kalgoorlie but stayed and bred, in hope of riches [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cracked up at the reduced dynamic range of sound when digitizing of CDs > started years ago but we seem to have accepted them now. For years my only camea was a fully manual Nikon SLR, I believe I get better images with my digital camera. As to your point of dynamic range of CDs, what do you believe the dynamic range phonograph is? Scott > : >>news-server.bigpond.net.au, > : >>only@the.group says... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > no real problem with digital images. I enlarge them and print them on canvas > for a living. What I have a problem with is digital photography. Bayer interpolation creates occasional (some would state rare) problems. Sure, not much control over that, even if you shoot RAW, but I don't think it is a huge issue. Sometimes this can happen in high frequency areas, liked patterned cloth of varying colour. There is a separate issue of noise showing in darker tones due to lack of photons. If you think of white as a full charge (lots of photons), then black is zero charge (no photons). Obviously I am extremely extremely extremely simplifying this, but I hope that gives you the correct idea that darker areas mean very few photons are captured. If you think of how Bayer interpolation works, you can see how noise has colour in dark areas of some images. The Canon 1Ds Mark II and Nikon D2X rarely have problems, but can be pushed to some realms that will show problems. Want an example: at an ASMP presentation we were shown a 15 second capture from a 1Ds Mark II, which had a good deal of noise (not terrible, but noticeable), then the same scene was shot at 13 seconds, and surprisingly had almost no noise. The lesson is there are times when problems will be noticeable. I should also point out that most digital medium format backs do slightly better than D-SLRs. Some of that is due to active cooling, and other times it is down to better processing and imaging chip performance. Of course, you pay lots for that. > Having seen so many digital pictures and only a remarkable few which are > dynamically equal to hand made film prints, I dusted off my Durst Enlarger > and took the processor out of mothballs to do a few trials over Christmas. I > can see now why so many people are fooled into believing digital is somehow > "better" than film. Maybe this is why there are so few large processors for > sale on the used market. I disagree in the belief that images need lots of dynamic range to look good. High saturation and high contrast can often back for some very interesting images. Negative films are thought to have (in general) more dynamic range than transparency films, yet transparency films are the most used film types for professional film shooters . . . go figure. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> : > : >>news-server.bigpond.net.au, : > : >>only@the.group says... [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] : A G Studio : <http://www.allgstudio.com> Sadly Gordon I have a lot of examples of digital disasters where none should exist. Canon's Sensors can produce some very strange behaviour which is neither predictable nor repeatable but does result in faulty images. I also have some examples of D2X (before it was stolen) demonstrating it also can behave badly under some circumstances. The most frequent event that comes to mind is the ability of a Canon 10D, and 20D sensor to 'ghost' part of an image in an otherwise correctly exposed area. I first noticed this with someone else's 10D image of a Motorcycle. Part of the image had a double outline but this was not the part which was moving. Both were in clear focus. Some time after, I repeated it with a picture of Pelicans flying in formation. A ghosted eye on one of the bird's heads when all else (including it's nostrils) was in clear focus. I didn't notice this until I interpolated the image into a poster but on careful examination of the original file, it was a part of the image. I shot several frames of them as they closed on me but only one had that problem. Another event, this time in low light, produced the same ghosting of only part of an otherwise static area. I shot 10 more identical frames and could not repeat the problem. No one I've shown the images to can explain the phenomena. You probably don't have much of a issue with dynamic range in a city known for it's haze and covering of smog ...but when the sun is at it's worst in Queensland Australia, Digital cameras cannot cope with the contrast range of outdoor shots. Using a flash to try and expand that range is only a partial solution. No other option exists except to not take the picture - try telling a bride you didn't take her pictures because your camera couldn't record enough detail. At the point where a digital camera stops recording highlight detail (starts to blow the highlights out of existence) a negative can still contain a stop or two of realizable detail as can the deep shadows of a negative. Dynamic range is most definitely an issue when you have no options NOT to take the picture and the groom is wearing black next to the bride in white. Which would you sacrifice Gordon? Shadow or highlight? > Canon's Sensors can produce some very strange behaviour which is > neither predictable nor repeatable _Well_! I have never had that happen with film. Cough. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >. . . . . . . . . . > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have some examples of D2X (before it was stolen) demonstrating it also can > behave badly under some circumstances. Well, I have used a D2X a few times. The only issues I found were in darker areas, and I really had to look to find any problems. Sort of like the time needed to spot scans in PhotoShop, most of those were correctable. However, I will stick to renting a D-SLR if I need one, I have no interest in buying one. > The most frequent event that comes to mind is the ability of a Canon 10D, > and 20D sensor to 'ghost' part of an image in an otherwise correctly exposed > area. I first noticed this with someone else's 10D image of a Motorcycle. > Part of the image had a double outline but this was not the part which was > moving. Both were in clear focus. I really hate to say this, since it will piss off lots of people; the Canon 10D and 20D are amateur cameras. They do not go through the same rigorous quality control as a 1Ds, they are not as well built, and they do not handle much abuse without problems. Sure, some people have these and they are very reliable. The point is that if you need one to make money from, then buy the better D-SLR; in Canon that now means a 5D as a minimum, and in Nikon that would (probably) mean a D200 (I have not seen one yet, so I might change my mind on that). I read of a similar problem as you describe, cannot remember if it was a Canon or a Nikon. The photographer sent the camera back, and it seems that the sensor was not properly aligned to the film plain. I don't think those sorts of quality controls happen in the top of the line D-SLRs. You definitely get what you pay for today. . . . . . . . . . . > You probably don't have much of a issue with dynamic range in a city known > for it's haze and covering of smog ...but when the sun is at it's worst in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > telling a bride you didn't take her pictures because your camera couldn't > record enough detail. I haven't seen the daylight problem repeated much, as you describe it, at least not with a 1Ds, nor a D2X, nor a PhaseOne. Oh, we do have smog in San Diego, and much worse in Houston, but rarely like Los Angeles. > At the point where a digital camera stops recording highlight detail (starts > to blow the highlights out of existence) a negative can still contain a stop > or two of realizable detail as can the deep shadows of a negative. Dynamic > range is most definitely an issue when you have no options NOT to take the > picture and the groom is wearing black next to the bride in white. Which > would you sacrifice Gordon? Shadow or highlight? Well, I don't so wedding photography, nor do I have any interest in going that direction. I think I would rather do cat herding. Anyway, to me if there was a situation of not capturing everything, I would let the highlights blow out a tiny bit; at least that leaves you with a clean print later. I did the same thing when I was doing video documentary work; people notice blocked up shadow areas with noise more than a slightly blown highlight area. Ideally you would have neither, but even with film there are times when that situation could not be avoided. Using negative films would create an entirely different set of problems for the work I do. Even if there were some technical advantage, or better range, the downsides when scanning make it not worth any potential gain. I will stick to higher contrast transparency films. I am less interest in reality in my images than in communicating my creative vision. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > I really hate to say this, since it will piss off lots of people; the > Canon 10D and 20D are amateur cameras. They do not go through the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > minimum, and in Nikon that would (probably) mean a D200 (I have not seen > one yet, so I might change my mind on that). Well of course the 10D and 20D are amateur cameras, I don't think you are going to piss too many people off with that. Scott : >. . . . . . . . . . : > : > Sadly Gordon I have a lot of examples of digital disasters where none should : > exist. Canon's Sensors can produce some very strange behaviour which is : > neither predictable nor repeatable but does result in faulty images. I also : > have some examples of D2X (before it was stolen) demonstrating it also can [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : minimum, and in Nikon that would (probably) mean a D200 (I have not seen : one yet, so I might change my mind on that). ----------------- Well I have some information that if your statement hasn't pissed 'em off, this certainly will... Canon Australia has officially declared the 5D to be an *AMATEUR* camera. It is excluded from all the Professional benefits available to a 1D series owner. The most significant for a working professional is the exclusion from a loaner and 2 day repair turnaround. Mine has back focus errors and the sensor is loose. It needs to be repaired under warranty but 6 weeks wait is ridiculous. I own a 5D and I can tell you absolutely that it is very little different to the 20D, I replaced accept for an amateur camera, it is sadly lacking in features other amateur cameras (even cheap digicams) have. I got fooled into believing that because Canon striped out all the function features and the inbuilt flash, it was an "entry level" Professional camera... It is not. There are no scene specific settings. It has no inbuilt flash. It cannot accurately measure it's own white balance and will not reliably sync an ETTL II Speedlite to correct exposure in anything other than manual exposure mode. In comparison to a real "entry level" professional 1D Mk II, this camera is a joke. The 1D Mk II does everything I expected it should. No focus errors, automatically measures it's white balance correctly and just takes good pictures (for a digital). The 5D does have a printer direct button so impatient people can see a print immediately if they carry around a battery powered, (Canon of course) Dye Sublimation printer. (Big snigger here) To officially declare a camera to be an amateur only camera and charge $5000 AUD for it, at the same time providing less functionality than a $500 AUD digicam, is about as bad as it gets in catering for people like me, who believed the pre-release bullshit and overseas advertising from Canon and thought is would serve as a slightly lower cost replacement for my stolen 1D MkII. I'm only glad now I didn't also by Canon to replace the D2X that got swiped with it. The thing about Nikon D200 is that it has all the supposed "Professional" features like environmental sealing of the body but it is priced at half what a 5D costs. None of the current DSLRs from Nikon can hold a candle to an F6 as far as professional usability is concerned. > : >. . . . . . . . . . > : > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > features and the inbuilt flash, it was an "entry level" Professional > camera... It is not. I am not too surprised by that. On PDN forums, a few people got 5D bodies and made similar remarks. There was one good posting comparing a 1D Mark II N (not 1Ds) to the 5D, and if you needed a reliable body I could see why the newest 1D would be a good choice. > . . . . . . . . . > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > MkII. I'm only glad now I didn't also by Canon to replace the D2X that got > swiped with it. Well, you cannot put much faith in marketing behind these cameras. Every amateur out there would enjoy thinking that there D-SLR is pro level, even if it is not the top of the line. If you consider that when 2 MP and 3 MP, then 6 MP top of the line D-SLRs were considered really great, and talked up quite a bit, then it should not be a surprise that some amateurs now believe any 6 MP or better D-SLR is just as good as the professional top of the line gear of only a few years ago. The emphasis is still on MegaPixels, because the never ending early marketing push was mostly only about MegaPixels . . . now the companies are sort of getting in a bind, though a few consumers are figuring out there is more to MegaPixels than meets the eye. Spending levels are a different matter. I had an interesting conversation a few nights ago with some long time ASMP photographers. The spending in the past was not cheap, but it was possible to buy a film camera that lasted a decade or more with fairly low maintenance costs. Today it is a different story, with those older guys stating no more than 3 years to expect out of any digital gear, including the computer hardware and software, and the printers (some people suggest replacing everything every 18 months). Their justification was that photographers had it easy for decades with somewhat low costs to run a business. Now they compare it to being an auto mechanic, in that one must constantly buy tools, and continuously replace things . . . and that costs a fair bit of money. So the justification of high professional costs is that now photography is not much different than any other small business . . . . . . . . I sort of disagree a little on that, because the average fees that a photographer can charge have barely changed in a couple decades, while what the average auto mechanic makes has gone up. > The thing about Nikon D200 is that it has all the supposed "Professional" > features like environmental sealing of the body but it is priced at half > what a 5D costs. None of the current DSLRs from Nikon can hold a candle to > an F6 as far as professional usability is concerned. Well, the F6 is the newest top of the line body. There is more difference between an F6 and a D2X than an imaging chip and some electronics, despite that the body castings are similar. I think ten years out of an F6 would not be beyond expectation, while none expect a D2X to still be in use that far in the future. Whatever Nikon brings out to replace/update the D2X will probably incorporate some aspects of F6 thinking, and some aspects of the D2X. These products are evolutionary, which is sort of the path of Nikon. Maybe it sound crazy to some, but I would think you could make money (profits) from using an F6. There again, I don't think you could only own an F6, a back-up body would be a very good idea. There would also be a good need for a very good film scanner, and a computer to run it. A professional level printer would also be a good idea. Put the cost of all those together, and it is not a whole lot of savings up front over getting two D2X bodies. The difference would be in a few years the D2X replacement cost, while the F6 might only need a tune-up. Tough call, but I think there are still profits to be made from shooting film, if you don't mind using labs and a slightly slower turn-around. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > At the point where a digital camera stops recording highlight detail (starts > to blow the highlights out of existence) a negative can still contain a stop > or two of realizable detail as can the deep shadows of a negative. Dynamic > range is most definitely an issue when you have no options NOT to take the > picture and the groom is wearing black next to the bride in white. Which > would you sacrifice Gordon? Shadow or highlight? This should not be an isssue at all, a 10D or 20D has more then enough dynamic range to capture both. It is a bit of a none issue since the 20D has far more range then you would ever get from a print in any event. Beyond the Roger Clark has shown that a good DSLR has more range then print film, for the tests I have done I would tend to agree. Are you shooting raw in these cases? Scott > > I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge > > by a computer I can't program. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Bob (Nikon F3, 55 micro-nikkor AIS) Funny, I figure I have much *more* control digitally than I ever did in the darkroom (and I did darkroom printing regularly for nearly 20 years). Sounds like you haven't learned how to use the digital tools. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > > I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge > > > by a computer I can't program. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > -Bob (Nikon F3, 55 micro-nikkor AIS) > Funny, I figure I have much *more* control digitally than I ever did in > the darkroom (and I did darkroom printing regularly for nearly 20 > years). Sounds like you haven't learned how to use the digital tools. Tough to learn them with a Nikon F3 and a 55mm Micro-Nikkor AIS lens.... -Bob > The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and > landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for > 43 years. Wow - this is music to my ears. I'm fast reaching the same conclusion, though only after a measly 25 years or so of shooting, many of those years professionally. While I am predominantly shooting 35mm (Nikon) I only possess one DX lens (12-24) and increasingly these days the digi is staying in its bag and I'm recreating the love with Velvia and film in general. One of my favourite things is to take the old FG out with an old Nikkor 24 f/2.8 and the 50 f/1.4, a few rolls of Velvia 100 and a tripod. The other day I was doing this and some guy puffed out his chest and approached me, held his new Sony Cybershot X-something so it was obvious and asked me... wait for it... "How many megapixels mate??". Welcome to the new "photographic" consumer driving the new world photography machine. <rant> I would love to see more like you stand and begin something of a wave of awakenings to the *real* costs of digital - which IMHO go far beyond the processing time, gear costs etc. To me the digital world is taking photography away from photographers and into the fast-paced consumer world of electronics where there exists a hungry cycle of 'improvement', one which must be satisfied in order for manufacturers to remain alive. The focus in digital is on hi-tech features and easily quantifiable parameters (megapixels being the most obvious, data transfer rates, signal to noise ratios etc.) and away from the 'art' and technique elements of photography. These days I hardly hear talk of technique in tricky lighting conditions, how to frame awkward subjects, approaches to exposure etc. for all the noise of "how big can I print an 8Mp image", "which card is going to give me the best data transfer", "how do I Photoshop (the crap out of) this image", "how do I move the histogram to avoid blowing out the highlights" etc... Traditionally camera companies have had to exist in a very different consumer environment. True, digital has opened up photography to many more people - most of us these days are far more familiar with computers and emailing shots of the kiddies is a wonderful way to communicate with far-flung rellies and friends. Sadly, it appears to me that the whole photographic world is heading this way and forgetting that at the end of the day, a good photographer with a box camera will take better shots than Joe Wally with the latest D2X or 1Ds. This is the greater cost I'm referring to - the whole shift away from purposeful photography which requires photographic technique, practice and application. Already these changes have cost us - Minolta, Agfa, Blad (XPan), Nikon film gear etc. just as a start. I guess it all comes under the heading of progress but no longer is photography in the hands of photographers - it is the new breed of consumer who must have the latest thing and really knows nothing of, or cares little about good photography. Of course this is just my opinion and I feel the same way about elements of the 'music' world and other areas of creative pursuit where the big digital generator has to keep producing something new to keep the interest of its market. And if you think I'm just an old luddite, I have owned several small (and successful) software companies and have been working in the tech world in some capacity since the early 80s. :-) </rant> So thanks for your contribution. I think you struck a nerve here and I really hope to see more of this. I implore amateur digital photographers to try something - try covering the display on the back of your cameras and really think about the shot and get away from the 'machine gun' approach (if that's what you do). Wait until you get home (back to the office) and feel the anticipation of seeing your shots (it is a good feeling, lost to the film world). I bet you see huge improvements in your results and experience an increase in your knowledge. It is composition and exposure that maketh a good shot - not megapixels dear friends. Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) > I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always > expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my > investment. <snip> Just to clarify - I'm not trying to suggest that digital has no place. Of course this is not true. For me, I'm really saying that digital has attracted a new en-masse consumer who is driving this industry in a direction that is not necessarily related to quality and art. Sad but probably inevitable. :-( Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) > So thanks for your contribution. I think you struck a nerve here and I > really hope to see more of this. I implore amateur digital photographers to > try something - try covering the display on the back of your cameras and > really think about the shot and get away from the 'machine gun' approach (if > that's what you do). How will I read the menu options if I cover the LCD? The only way to set mirror lock up is electronically on the 20D. :) My girlfriend uses an approach with her dSLR of shooting, viewing the image, shooting, viewing, until she get's the effect that she knows will give her what she wants. Like a negative, the RAW image is just that - RAW. This works very well for her. I don't see how using the tools available makes someone any less an artist. So I shoot by the numbers. I'm an engineer and getting exactly the exposure I want is easy. But I don't take as many good photos as she does. Just goes to show that art is what art is. You should be glad the consumer market is driving advancement in the industry. It's making good equipement more affordable - especially high end film gear. I wish this would happen in general aviation too. Then I could afford to own my own plane. But then there would be old guys complaining about how all the new airplane "users" don't know how to use analog guages like the pilots of old. Just my 2 cents. SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com/gallery >> So thanks for your contribution. I think you struck a nerve here and I >> really hope to see more of this. I implore amateur digital photographers [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How will I read the menu options if I cover the LCD? The only way to set > mirror lock up is electronically on the 20D. :) Hi Mark, hopefully you can see my point somewhere in there. :-) > My girlfriend uses an approach with her dSLR of shooting, viewing the > image, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > about how all the new airplane "users" don't know how to use analog guages > like the pilots of old. Mate, all this 'advancement' you talk of - what has it done to photography, really? As for affordable film gear, you don't need a degree in economics to understand why this is so. As for the GA point - I'm also a pilot - flying to me is about the romance and joy of being up there - I'm trying not to lose sight of that in the clutter of all the new technology that's arriving... my background is in financial/software engineering, so I'm a numbers boy too. :-) The big threat to GA here is that it doesn't bring a great return and so in Sydney it is being squeezed out to be replaced by passenger-carrying operations, apartments (Hoxton Park) etc. Very sad but probably inevitable. Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) > Just my 2 cents. "Dave E" <dave@a.b.c> wrote in message news:43d95f43$0$1046$61c65585@un-2park- > > How will I read the menu options if I cover the LCD? The only way to set > > mirror lock up is electronically on the 20D. :) > > Hi Mark, > > hopefully you can see my point somewhere in there. :-) Yes, just funning around a bit. :) > Mate, all this 'advancement' you talk of - what has it done to photography, > really? As for affordable film gear, you don't need a degree in economics > to understand why this is so. In theory the way a market is supposed to work is that the manufacturer takes cues from the consumer. So the more involved photographers (i mean the artist types) get with the manufacturers the better the next generation of cameras will be. Maybe we can even convince them that middle gray isn't middle gray. ;) Look at the relationship between Apple and it's consumers - that's what we need in photography. Unfortunately it would probably take a startup company to create such a revolution in this industry. > As for the GA point - I'm also a pilot - flying to me is about the romance > and joy of being up there - I'm trying not to lose sight of that in the > clutter of all the new technology that's arriving... I wasn't talking so much about the new technology. My point was that if GA took off the way cameras have in the last couple of years, it would be cheaper to buy planes, cheaper to maintain them, cheaper to fly. And anything that makes it more affordable to fly means I can spend more time in the air - well that's a good thing. :) Digital technology has brought photography to many people who might never have gotten into it because of all the perceived hassle of film. Sure many of them are the dreaded snap shooters, but many of them are true artists too. Anything that enables new artists, IMHO, is a good thing. FWIW, I know at least 3 people who started digital about 3 years ago and now they're shooting film for the first time in their lives and 2 of them are talking about buying medium and large format cameras. I can guarantee that they never would have taken a second look at photography if it wasn't for the easy of entry into the digital world. > my background is in > financial/software engineering, so I'm a numbers boy too. :-) The big > threat to GA here is that it doesn't bring a great return and so in Sydney > it is being squeezed out to be replaced by passenger-carrying operations, > apartments (Hoxton Park) etc. Very sad but probably inevitable. Ditto here. We recently had a victory in St. Petersburg, FL. We saved Albert Whitted Field via voter referendum. It was about to become water front condos. They'll have to wait 20 years to try that again. Gotta keep working to preserve GA - it's an ongoing struggle. Cheers! SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com/gallery > "Dave E" <dave@a.b.c> wrote in message > news:43d95f43$0$1046$61c65585@un-2park- [SNIP] > Digital technology has brought photography to many people who > might never have gotten into it because of all the perceived hassle of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > can guarantee that they never would have taken a second look at > photography if it wasn't for the easy of entry into the digital world. I was tutoring on a course last week and one of my students was like this. She'd come to photography two years ago because digital attracted her where the perceived hassle of film didn't. About six months ago she bought a better digital camera, and on the course she produced some really good work - she has 'a good eye'. However, she was also blown away by what I produced shooting film (this was Portra and 100UC because prints are more useful to pass around when I'm teaching) and also by some Velvia and E100VS slides that I showed on onne of the evenings. The tonality was what got her, I think, more than anything. She found that putting pictures onto her laptop was not much less bother than dropping off film at the local lab., having a cup of tea while I waited, and being back in an hour. So she's planning to come on, if not the next, the next but one course I do, and to bring a film camera with her. This is someone who'd never have come to photography but for digital, but digital allowed her to discover that she enjoyed it, and that she was good at it - so now she wants to try film. I don't think film will replace digital for her, but already she has an good idea of which sorts of shots it will do a much better job for... and she was fascinated by my Rollieflex! Peter >>"Dave E" <dave@a.b.c> wrote in message >>news:43d95f43$0$1046$61c65585@un-2park- [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > teaching) and also by some Velvia and E100VS slides that I showed on onne of > the evenings. The tonality was what got her, I think, more than anything. I recall some interesting conversations and questions when I was exhibiting at ArtWalk last year. Some people seemed confused that some of my images were not manipulations, and others confused how I got the images to look that nice in the colours. Is it just me, or does it seem like some people are surprised that any good looking prints can come from film, especially 35 mm? Well . . . I did have one person ask a ton of questions on techniques and equipment, and then tell me it was too difficult, though he admitted the prints were nice. > She found that putting pictures onto her laptop was not much less bother > than dropping off film at the local lab., having a cup of tea while I > waited, and being back in an hour. So she's planning to come on, if not the > next, the next but one course I do, and to bring a film camera with her. Interesting. I wonder what film camera she will choose. > This is someone who'd never have come to photography but for digital, but > digital allowed her to discover that she enjoyed it, and that she was good > at it - so now she wants to try film. I don't think film will replace > digital for her, but already she has an good idea of which sorts of shots it > will do a much better job for... and she was fascinated by my Rollieflex! I have to agree with you, I think digital cameras, even those compact P&S models, brings some people into photography. I know a few that carry a compact digital camera often, then when they find something interesting come back to the same spot later with a film camera. Probably seems like a weird choice for some people. It is possible to get a super nice film SLR for about what a bottom of the line D-SLR now costs. There are also some nice used film SLRs for about the cost of a mid range digital compact camera. Just did a shoot not too long ago that was a pass the camera affair, intended to create a book and an exhibit. The camera we passed around was a 50 years old Rolleiflex. Definitely not an easy to use camera. After trying one roll hand held, I resorted to shooting the second roll with the camera on a tripod. The lens was really quite good, and the results are much better than I expected . . . very surprising for old technology. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >This is the greater cost I'm referring to - the whole shift away from >purposeful photography which requires photographic technique, practice and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >photographers - it is the new breed of consumer who must have the latest >thing and really knows nothing of, or cares little about good photography. Real photographers have been just a tiny fraction of the overall market for photographic products for many decades. Many real photographers switched to digital for two good reasons: - if you know what you are doing, digital gives much more control than handing over some film to a lab. Or, is much less time consuming than scanning film. - high-end digital provides a higher quality in the same package. (And then there is the film costs issue). At the same time, the people who stay with film simply continue what they allways did. They don't need to buy any new equipment (well a scanner if you want to go partially digital). So, they don't show up in any market statistics. Why buy a new Nikon F80 or FM3a, if there are plenty on the 2nd hand market. And I guess that most people who have been serious about photography for more than a decade will have more than enough cameras anyhow. Why do people ask so many questions about digital issues. Simply because that is new to everybody. The people who know about photography, need to learn the digital stuff. People who just started photography want to know how to make a big print that looks sharp, and has the right colors. Anyhow, it likely that things will be sort of back to normal soon. Physics places hard limits on what can be done. There is no point in having tiny 10 Mpixel sensor in a P&S if you also want a 10x zoom. Most consumers are not going to see a big improvement from 12 Mpixel sensors compared to 6 Mpixel sensors, because their technique is not good enough. (No tripod, and slow lenses in low light). And a large group of people will probably figure out that the cameras may have changed, but that their pictures are just as boring as ever. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > In article > <43d956a9$0$1041$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Real photographers have been just a tiny fraction of the overall market > for photographic products for many decades. Hi Philip, thanks for your response - it has been a view I've been forming for a while for some reason. I guess it's sad to see the passing of so much of what we've known for so many years. > Many real photographers switched to digital for two good reasons: > - if you know what you are doing, digital gives much more control than > handing over some film to a lab. Or, is much less time consuming than > scanning film. > - high-end digital provides a higher quality in the same package. > (And then there is the film costs issue). Certainly digital has its place (shooting animals is one example!) and I've used it to great effect professionally as well. Last year I returned from a trip to the Taklamakan desert in western China where I shot digital and Velvia back to back during a desert sunrise (quite magnificent place I have to say). Getting the shots back I quickly decided to drag out and dust off the film gear - the digital just had *nothing* on the film results and I certainly don't possess the skills (or time) to try to doctor the digital images in PS. Of course now I'll inherit the scanning pain for my tranny work but that's cool. I hope I'll still be able to buy film in the coming years! > At the same time, the people who stay with film simply continue what they > allways did. They don't need to buy any new equipment (well a scanner [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about photography for more than a decade will have more than enough > cameras anyhow. Huh? Perhaps you can have enough cameras but you can never have enough lenses! :-) > Why do people ask so many questions about digital issues. Simply because > that is new to everybody. The people who know about photography, need > to learn the digital stuff. People who just started photography want > to know how to make a big print that looks sharp, and has the right > colors. In my experience, the 'average' new breed 'serious' amateur photographer has spent some time with computers and loves to get wobbly knees over the specs of their gear, new stuff etc. (IMHO, a lot of these people wouldn't know a decent shot if you kranked one up their kollective Khybers!) > Anyhow, it likely that things will be sort of back to normal soon. Physics > places hard limits on what can be done. There is no point in having tiny > 10 Mpixel sensor in a P&S if you also want a 10x zoom. Yes, one wonders just how much further this stuff can go without struggling for a purpose. Perhaps the merging of motion and still technology under the 'photographic' heading will prevail. :-| > Most consumers are not going to see a big improvement from 12 Mpixel > sensors > compared to 6 Mpixel sensors, because their technique is not good enough. > (No tripod, and slow lenses in low light). Yes, plenty of evidence on the net of this! > And a large group of people will probably figure out that the cameras > may have changed, but that their pictures are just as boring as ever. Nicely said. Sometimes being a bit snooty about these things feels good eh? Zzzzzzzzz Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) >Getting the shots back I quickly decided to drag out and dust off >the film gear - the digital just had *nothing* on the film results and I >certainly don't possess the skills (or time) to try to doctor the digital >images in PS. Of course now I'll inherit the scanning pain for my tranny >work but that's cool. I hope I'll still be able to buy film in the coming >years! In my experience, there is not a big difference between correcting scans of slides and print film on one hand and direct digital on the other. Color print film is often tricky, but slide film and direct digital can be tricky as well. Experience with the medium is required to get good results. >Huh? Perhaps you can have enough cameras but you can never have enough >lenses! :-) True, but if you buy them 2nd hand, you once again don't show up in the statistics. >> Why do people ask so many questions about digital issues. Simply because >> that is new to everybody. The people who know about photography, need [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of their gear, new stuff etc. (IMHO, a lot of these people wouldn't know a >decent shot if you kranked one up their kollective Khybers!) Well, the 'computer' part is new. But in past people had to have sharper lenses, or faster lenses, or better autofocus, or better automatic exposure. There is always a reason to get new gear. >> Anyhow, it likely that things will be sort of back to normal soon. Physics >> places hard limits on what can be done. There is no point in having tiny [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >for a purpose. Perhaps the merging of motion and still technology under the >'photographic' heading will prevail. :-| To some extend that is already there. Video cameras can handle stills and P&S digitals can record movies. The iPod doesn't seem to have a camera. So that will be next 'advance'. >> And a large group of people will probably figure out that the cameras >> may have changed, but that their pictures are just as boring as ever. > >Nicely said. Sometimes being a bit snooty about these things feels good eh? Well, I'm not saying that my pictures are anything other than boring. That is for other people to judge. I just never got around to stop taking pictures. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge > by a computer I can't program. huh? > I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for > Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with > uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He used > a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do > the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the > shitty dynamic range of the camera. Just because a poor photographer is using a digital camera doesn't mean digital is bad. If he was shooting film it would have cost a lot more in film for him to get that many crappy shots. So you prove a point - having expensive equipment doesn't make you a good photographer. Imagine what a waste a large format would be in this guy's hands. > I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always > expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that, > might also give me and edge! For fine art there is no substitute for hand crafted enlargements. For a bunch of stupid wedding photos there is no substitute for churning the most photos with the least amount of work. The more they buy, the more they pay, the less work you have to do, the more you get paid per hour. <g> > I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography. > Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work > was always with medium and large format cameras. Ah, an elitest. ;) > certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin, > blowing away the specula highlights. Probably. Film will have this advantage for quite some time. > Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras as > opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered by > a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my > investment. Probably what people are missing is the fact that photography is about patience - art takes time. Digital plays into the "i want it now" mentality. SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com/gallery > The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and > landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my > investment. I've found the same thing, however, I continue to use digital in my wedding pj work, and medium format for just about everything else. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com I believe this will be my approach in future Matt. Although I will most likely use more contract shooters for "package" Weddings and retain the personal use of Film for those willing to pay for traditional Wedding portraits rather than a couple of hundred digital happy snaps. Digital has a place in my business, not my life. I sell pictures but enjoy taking photographs... If that makes sense? : I've found the same thing, however, I continue to use digital in my wedding : pj work, and medium format for just about everything else. > I've found the same thing, however, I continue to use digital in my wedding > pj work, and medium format for just about everything else. Hey Matt, what would you recommend as a decent MF setup for someone wanting to get into it? I used to have a Bronica ETRS with a few lenses but I swapped the whole system for an F5 years ago. The guy I did the swap with is looking to sell it again, but I am not so sure it would be the right thing to get. Hasselblad? Mamiya? SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes. >> I've found the same thing, however, I continue to use digital in my >> wedding [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hasselblad? Mamiya? Hassleblads are going for a song these days, and their lens prices are falling, too. After using an RB67 Pro S for 4 years I decided I wanted something more robust and with a meter built into it. I ended up with a Rolleiflex 6008i, which is a beautiful camera, but the zeiss lenses available for it, though optically identical to their hassy brethren, are very expensive. Something to think about is film format. Hassy/Rollei are 6x6. The RB is 6x7. I like the square format, but it can get you into trouble, like when I did some portraits for a family and later realized that there was no way I could crop them to 8x10 having filled the frame just a bit too much. There are also larger formats, like the Fuji 6x8 (expensive, but a well built machine, and, as I recall, the only medium-format to offer some movements to the front standard). In 6x9 you're stuck with Fuji rangefinders, which are no longer in production, but their lenses get wild reviews. I'd love one of those, but they're fixed lens cameras (unless you get the first generation models, like Bandicoot did), rangefinders, so no close focus, and they have no meters. Speaking of rangefinders, the Mamiya 7II is the only medium format rangefinder still in production, and though it's said it's not the most robust camera, it's also said the lenses are second to none, mtf wise. I'd love one of those, too, but they're prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, for a camera of limited functionallity (limited as in, no close focus, no long telephoto--nothing over 150mm, as I recall, which in 35mm terms is the equiv of 75-80mm, and no macro). It has a built in meter, though, which is nice, but I couldn't really trust the one in the Mamiya 6 rangefinder I had for about six months. So, you might just want to get the Hassleblad to get your feet wet, and if you don't like it, it should resell easily enough. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > bit too much. There are also larger formats, like the Fuji 6x8 (expensive, > but a well built machine, and, as I recall, the only medium-format to offer > some movements to the front standard). In 6x9 you're stuck with Fuji Rollei SL66 series also have front tilt. Cheaper than 6000 series and a number of the SL66 lens were ported over to 6000 series with no changes in optical construction. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ What's that movie where Lee Marvin sings with Clint Eastwood? I think I recall them saying much the same about the advantages of horses over those new fangled automobiles. SignatureThanks, Gene Palmiter (visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com) freebridge design group > The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and > landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my > investment. > What's that movie where Lee Marvin sings with Clint Eastwood? "Paint Your Wagon", I believe. I think I > recall them saying much the same about the advantages of horses over those > new fangled automobiles. > The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and > landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > be bothered by a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of > the magnitude of my investment. I just spent $32 on ebay for a nearly mint Olympus OM10 to go with my motordrive OM2. The two bodies, 3 Zuiko lenses, 2 3rd party lenses and the motor drive and dedicated flash cost me less than $300. And their images are better than anything I have seen on digital. Of course, that means comparing a real photographic enlargement with a digital enlargement, not digitizing the negative or slide and printing it digital. And when I REALLY want to blow away the digi's I take out my Pentax 6x7, a twenty-five year old camera. And my forty-plus year old Rolleicord, even with its desperate need of a cleaning, takes 6x6 chromes that make digital look like a toy. That doesn't include the feel of a real solid metal camera in your hands instead of a plastic/fiberglass temporary housing for a soon to be outdated microchip. SignatureMichael | "You're going to need a bigger boat." > The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and > landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my > investment. Welcome to the club. It seems to take about three or four years for serious photographers to realise that the digital scene is not all its cracked up to be. My advice is to buy the stuff you want now, while suckers are selling it for next to nothing on the used market. SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes. Yeah, I for example just bought a "like new" Minolta Dynax 9 body for 650 euros. Which digital body can you get with that amount of money? Nothing that would come even close in performance. And second-hand Nikon 5s are frequently sold for 500-600 euros, so get 'em while u can! cheers, Marko >After three years and perhaps $25,000 (I never kept count) spent on >the pursuit of digital photography.. Frankly, given all the wonderful resources around explaining the differences between film and digital, and the costs, both direct and indirect, I find it a little hard to understand how someone could caught changing over to a format that wasn't suitable to them. Even without all those freely available resources, surely a good photographer should be able to ascertain within a couple of weeks whether a particular device or format is appropriate. $25,000 and three years???? I have likened this sort of thing before to a professional wedding photographer hearing that Velvia was a cool film, and then buying a truckload of it for his next few years weddings... Disappointment awaiteth such a person. And little sympathy from me. >I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always >expect you to use the very latest equipment.. Who - clients??? If it's anyone else, who cares. I have never once felt pressured or 'expected' to use any particular type of format or equipment. And if there was such an expectation from a client, I would gently explain to (and show) them why I was using something other than they thought. And if they disagreed, point them to the yellow pages to find someone else. I still use my dear old Yashicamat when I feel like it... >recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement >and a digital print. Everyone will vary on this point, but IMO the digital prints I do now at home exceed (comfortably) those I was getting from about 80% of the pro labs. And those pro labs are now getting thinner on the ground. >Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to >allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet. Yes, of course there are. And if that 'old bugger' is doing enlargements to 20 x30 and beyond, he should never have even strayed towards the digital formats he did. An FZ20 for 20" x 30" and above? No thanks. >Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that, >might also give me and edge! And might not. Depends on who else lives nearby, and how good they are. (O: >I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography. But didn't you author this thread and others, about almost endless enlargability??? http://tinyurl.com/8thnu >Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work >was always with medium and large format cameras. I would really like to know why do you say this? On that other thread, and many like it, you claim that 24" x 36" enlargements from 6Mp digitals are perfectly sharp using your system. You must therefore do an awful lot of work at larger sizes than that... And the only examples you ever posted about dynamic range problems were simply wrongly exposed. So what is it about MF and LF? >I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge >by a computer I can't program. Most digital cameras produce RAW files - they are almost completely unprocessed. So do you mean you can't handle photoshop and color calibration perhaps? Or what *do* you mean? > I am fed up with the cost of digital photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot >but sub machine guns never made an accurate weapon either and they shot off >hundreds of rounds in the hope of hitting something too. But sub-machine guns *do* hit things - and they are not sniper rifles nor are they intended to be. When used for the purpose they are designed for, most things work quite well.. >I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for >Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred >with uncontrollable crowd intervention So you hired a dog. Put a film camera in his hands and it would be different.. how exactly? A bit more expensive and even less keepers, I would wager.. Says more about your ability to hire a decent worker than anything else. >Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the >shitty dynamic range of the camera. He used a flashgun to overcome dynamic range problems, did he? (O: While a fill-flash can be useful in some circumstances, I have noticed that many photographers who complain about limited dynamic range with digital, simply have little idea how to shoot in difficult circumstances. Sorry, film diehards, but most DSLRs nowadays have more dynamic range than the vast majority of films. See here for some details: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/ If the camera is using out-of-the-box contrast settings, or shooting jpegs, or the images are simply badly exposed, it may well have poor dynamic range, but that just shows a poor tradesman at work - the potential is there. >I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery Like I have always said. These sizes require MF if you are serious. >I couldn't do it any faster with digital I could. But it would have to be from a 1DSMkII if they had to be *sharp*. >and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin, >blowing away the specula highlights. That's speculaR. And specular highlights, by common usage, *are* generally blown. *Real* blown highlights (ie one's you don't want) should only be a big issue if you can't meter to save yourself, or if you have the camera poorly setup. By the way, it's lovely to see you back with a new identity, Douglas MacDonald! It's very strange that once the bullshit is removed from your posts, this is all that is left : By the way, it's lovely to see you back with a new identity, Douglas : MacDonald! >The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and >landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps >$25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital photography... >I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the occasional product shot or >advertising shot but definitely not for what I have made a living doing for >43 years. random i think you could not have brought up the subject (so heated ) in a more intelligent manner. good read daniel Amen. Unfortunately there are large numbers of computer addicts tha will never give up their fix. And they buy stuff, and more stuff an more stiuff. Consequently we are forced more and more to dabble i computer skills that have little to do with photography. Due to marke place profit and loss pressures. I feel the most sorry for the casua non enthusiast user. Just look at any forum and see how many problem need solving with digital, and how few with film. Digital photograph is a nice toy for techno junkies and a few others -- sobolik > Amen. Unfortunately there are large numbers of computer addicts that > will never give up their fix. And they buy stuff, and more stuff and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > need solving with digital, and how few with film. Digital photography > is a nice toy for techno junkies and a few others. Well first off in this day and age just about everybody should know how to use a computer, this is very much like being literate in the last century was. But you statement that "digital photograph is a nice toy for techno junkies and a few others seems odd" It seems that the vast majority of people shooting photos are happily doing so with digital cameras. I see a lot of people who simply take their memory cards to a photo kiosk and get prints made without every putting them on a computer. But if you wish to have more control of your prints having the photo in a digital format gives you a wonderful level of control. Even when I make prints from film I always scan it first and print from a digital file. If I don't do this I am at the mercy of the lab that is making the print and this has proven to be hit and miss at best. Scott >>Amen. Unfortunately there are large numbers of computer addicts that >>will never give up their fix. And they buy stuff, and more stuff and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to use a computer, this is very much like being literate in the last > century was. Considering how many illiterates we managed to produce in the last couple of decades of the XXth century ... Speaking here strictly from my own experience. It's disheartening when you have to work with someone who has a doctorate in a field, yet cannot write a coherent paragraph, or doesn't know how to find simple information that's not within the purview of their field of specialization. >I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for >Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >buy some fine lenses for this camera with the cash from selling my latest >digital. Sounds like this is more about the photographer than the medium, with the exception of the dynamic range. Are you carrying this outfit on your (removable) back? Good luck. Roger : >I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the subject, : >encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed them last [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : : Roger If the guy I paid was a fellow off the street or a student I would not have bothered to question the pics but this fellow is a seasoned photojournalist. We both agreed the dynamic range of the camera he used (his own D100) was the problem. I have photoshoped nearly all the pictures and they are more than passable now. Really... You shouldn' |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message