Today I felt I'd like to own a digital camera I could enjoy...

Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Gid,

That's precisely the main point in the OP: I want to decide the look of my image when I expose it, not with post-processing...

You know, that 1800's game known as "photography"... :p It's simple: I love film, and I could love digital if I could control contrast easily when I shoot, instead of stopping to go into menus...

Juan
Click to expand...

Why? Didn't traditional photographers control contrast in post with different contrast paper grades, filters, and dodging and burning techniques? In other words, "post production" techniques? Today we use a mouse and a slider. It's easier, you have more control to get precisely the contrast/look you want, withou trial and error (mostly error in my darkroom days...)
 
Fraser said:
I use multgrade paper to control my contrast.
Click to expand...

Then you know developing differently depending on scene's contrast give better negatives for being used that way... Or would you say contrast on negatives doesn't help for the best use of the multigrade paper/filters system?

Cheers,

Juan
 
rxmd said:
Generations of photographers, from the 1800s onwards, used postprocessing to decide the look of their images. The whole positive process revolves around this. It may be part of your style that you don't want to do it, but it's somewhat particular, as if your darkroom supported no gradation other than 2 and no dodging, burning or toning.
Click to expand...

The same... Please check my previous post.

Cheers,

Juan
 
NickTrop said:
Why? Didn't traditional photographers control contrast in post with different contrast paper grades, filters, and dodging and burning techniques? In other words, "post production" techniques? Today we use a mouse and a slider. It's easier, you have more control to get precisely the contrast/look you want, withou trial and error (mostly error in my darkroom days...)
Click to expand...

Indeed, traditional photographers did control and do control contrast from exposure /development BASICALLY. Not with darkroom... Ask them... After that (exposing for a planned development), a great negative gives you SEVERAL ways of printing it beautifully with different filters and multigrade paper... It's not about correcting wrong negatives' contrast with filters while enlarging: that gives less working margin from the whole system...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Gid,

That's precisely the main point in the OP: I want to decide the look of my image when I expose it, not with post-processing...

You know, that 1800's game known as "photography"... :p It's simple: I love film, and I could love digital if I could control contrast easily when I shoot, instead of stopping to go into menus... It would be nicer to me... About the other thing, I've done it for years and I don't enjoy it as it separates me from "photography"...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

I can understand. I enjoy using film for a whole range of reasons, some to do with psychology, some to do with look, DR, equipment etc, especially B&W. However, I think you'll just have to accept that you won't get what you want. Once you have a workflow that gives you what you need it is hard to change regardless of the flexibility that digital has.
 
I get what you're saying, but I think as close as you may get is an M8, with the screen turned off and three B&W custom profiles you set up yourself. Unfortunately, you have to use the menu to switch the profile (too bad they didn't allow remapping of the protect button for M8's, which would make it quicker).
 
To my mind, you've exactly described the Epson R-D1:

Juan Valdenebro said:
I'd like it to be M mount so I could use my beloved small or fast lenses.
Click to expand...
Yes. M lens mount, coupled rangefinder with 1:1 magnification viewfinder. Frame lines for 28/35/50. It even has a "film advance" lever, which is used to cock the shutter, so the flow of shooting is really just like with a film rangefinder.

I want it to record in B&W only, because color photography isn't really photography as visually it's too close to reality.
Click to expand...
Yes. Set it to monochrome mode and the RAW preview JPEG is B&W. (And, of course, if you select JPEG-only, then that's B&W.)

I'd prefer it without screen, because what I like the most about photography is the time gap between shooting and seeing images: if I don't use it, I don't want a screen there.
Click to expand...
Yes. It has a screen, but it's articulated so you can turn it around and hide it. Once that's done, you have to closely examine the markings on the analog top-plate controls to see that it's not a film camera.

One easy 2-position button for Metered Manual or Autoexposure.
Click to expand...
Yes. The top-deck shutter speed dial has an "A" position for aperture-priority AE. Move it off "A" and you're manually selecting shutter speeds.

One easy 4-position button for low(100)/medium(400)/high(1600)/very high(6400) ISO.
Click to expand...
Mostly. There's a traditional top-deck ISO dial -- pull up and turn to set ISO between 200 and 1600 in full stops. There's no ISO 6400 on the R-D1, but 1600 is remarkably good, especially in B&W. And you have access to a traditional, analog top-mounted exposure compensation dial for another two stops of "push" or "pull" if you want in post-processing.

Of course shutter speeds for metered manual, and shutter release.
Click to expand...
Yes. Traditional shutter speed dial, with both selected and metered speeds visible in the viewfinder. And the shutter release is has standard threads for cable or soft release.

Manual RF focus only.
Click to expand...
Yes.

High resolution JPG only.
Click to expand...
Yes. Can be set to high-res JPEG only, but "high res" is limited by the 6 MP sensor.

I don't care about sensor size.
Click to expand...
OK -- APS-C sensor, 1.5x crop factor vs. 35mm film.

And the most important to me would be the main “contrast” button on top, with three fast and easy to access positions: a)Direct sun/contrast pull... b)Overcast/shadows... c)Dull scenes/contrast push: recording contrast the way I want, with an easy button for quick options similar to the ways I expose/develop when I shoot film, is what I miss a lot on digital cameras insisting on menus and submenus... This is the only button I'd care about while shooting both sides of the street...
Click to expand...

That's the one that doesn't quite fit your requirements. There's a traditional exposure compensation knob, and a dedicated white-balance control, but contrast control is not available via a hardware selector. In the menus, you can configure 3 "film type" presets, where you can assign edge-enhancement, saturation, tint, contrast and noise reduction values. But you switch between film presets via the menu, so if you want to manage this on a shot-by-shot basis, you wouldn't be able to pretend there's no screen.


Sometimes I feel recording the right contrast and quickly deciding about that, is the weakest part of digital cameras for fast street shooting... And post-processing RAWs or badly exposed images is a limited procedure, and also one that goes against one of the funniest parts of photography: the goal of recording light the way we want precisely when we hit the shutter...
Click to expand...
Well, I have to argue with you a bit here. With film, we don't have contrast controls in-camera; we can only control exposure with the camera, apart from use of contrast filters on the lens (which isn't any more convenient to vary from shot to shot than going into a menu system). Otherwise, contrast is controlled by a combination of film development, printing paper grade or contrast filters and print development -- which, I would argue, is only more fun than digital post-processing if you prefer fixer-stained fingers over carpal tunnel syndrome (a highly personal choice, I guess).

Am I totally alone here?
Click to expand...
Definitely not! :)


::Ari
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
That's huge and ugly, and definitely doesn't have a fast switch for contrast. A boring camera, like the one I own.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Yup, it's bigger and uglier than a rangefinder, I'll give you that - but it actually does have a fast adjustment button for contrast. If you look at the diagram I posted - you can program the 'set' button on the rear jog dial to change the JPEG 'picture style'. So basically you set up two custom monochrome styles - one contrasty, the other with less contrast, and to change them whilst shooting all you have to do is press that 'set' button, scroll one click, and press the 'set' button again.

I know it's not a switch, but it's no slower than a switch. Other dslr's can do the same, and so can most of the small mirrorless cams.
 
Juan: Of course, the camera you're desiring doesn't yet exist. The closest you can come is to forego your Leica glass and use the CV 25 lens for micro-4/3. Fast maximum aperture, superb build quality, manual focusing just like your Leica lenses, angle of view equivalent to 50mm in a film M. And then choose from amongst a variety of micro-4/3 cameras, from the Olympus Pen series to the Lumix G/GF series.

You can also adapt manual Leica glass to micro-4/3 with a 2x crop factor penalty, or adapt them to the Sony NEX format cameras with a 1.5-ish crop factor.

Or the Epson RD-1.

Or a Leica M8.

Good luck.

~Joe
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Indeed, traditional photographers did control and do control contrast from exposure /development BASICALLY. Not with darkroom... Ask them... After that (exposing for a planned development), a great negative gives you SEVERAL ways of printing it beautifully with different filters and multigrade paper... It's not about correcting wrong negatives' contrast with filters while enlarging: that gives less working margin from the whole system...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Juan - as a practical matter, this is controlled in post now. This comparison doesn't hold water in my opinion between film and digital. Take a well-exposed, well-composed digital file (jpeg or raw) and play with the contrast. Master Photoshop (or just become proficient). You can control contrast precisely in the exact - to the pixel - area of the photo using selections or - with 3rd party sw, "control points". (Selections are better...) Also, you can control contrast to the exact amount. Contrast control in the precise amount anywhere in the photo down to the pixel level. C'mon...

Truly, the modern way is better - it just is... in the realm of 35mm. This is why 35mm can't be found in stores. You will be "set free" by the ability to shoot natural light color in-doors. You can control contrast /down/ for people shots. You can shoot 1000 photos without having to pay for processing. There are great primes out now that are reasonably priced. Film is still great for medium format. Digital doesn't touch this. Film is also great for high resolution "full frame" capability in very small packages that you can slip into your pocket - an Oly XA, certain better point-n-shooters, the Oly Trips, the Konica Hexar AF, the Minox, Retinas etc. These are still valid as APSC/FF digital does not appear to be be able to fit into such small packages. Film is great as a hobbie for black and white/wet-print "craft".

But for "flat out", go out and shoot all day, get great results... it's digital. This coming from a hold-out who waited, rationalized, fought.

I just gave my enlarger away today. There's no point. I love not being constrained by "how much film I have..." Modern batteries are great... As for the camera - again, buy one with an articulated LCD. - Fold it in. Put it on "A" (my favorite) mode. Shoot with a prime. Set the auto ISO to 200 to 1600, and forget it's digital and just shoot. Adjust your contrast later in Photoshop... master black and white conversion - it's not hard.
 
Last edited:
@Ari: Yes! The R-D1 is my favorite digital camera... I've been about to buy one a couple of times because of how beautiful the camera is and how beautiful its tones are... I'm glad I'm not (totally) alone! :)
@Gavin: unless a "special spirit" like Mr. Kobayashi decided to go into digital with a peculiar B&W approach, I agree with you: it won't be easy to see a dedicated switch for very fast contrast control, AND for sure the future (and a good one) will be programmable buttons as you said... Yes, that would be the same: a great, fast solution... Maybe we're not far from that for small mirrorless cameras... That will make digital street shooting a funnier thing... Pro DSLRs are great for slow/studio/tripod work, but as soon as I take mine to the street, I don't have enough time to change settings, so the only option is capturing a raw file and that's really boring: that's like saying “I won't photograph now, I'll do it in my computer later or any other day”... :)
@Nick: I've done all that... Strange you imagine I haven't... I'm sorry about being repetitive, but the funny thing is deciding contrast in front of the scene before shooting, EVEN FOR DIGITAL SHOOTING: that's the subject here... That could be the title... When I shoot film I decide my exposure considering the development I planned for that roll... I don't decide contrast in the darkroom, and I don't decide it just before development: it's part of my exposure... That's how I like to do it... My game is composing and doing that at the same time, as was the game for many people before: I love playing there... I don't want different or easier games...



Let's just hope this thread ends up soon, and better digital cameras “for photographers” keep coming and coming for long, just like film... :)


Cheers,


Juan
 
There's a problem with "getting exactly the camera you want": it implies that your style is fixed and will not, should not change. Why not be open to the possibility that there's a camera out there that you won't like at first, but would ultimately change your style for the better?

I shot 35mm for a long time, but spent the past two years shooting a Panasonic GH-1 and various TLRs. Two years of looking down to the waistlevel viewfinder or LCD. Picked up at 35mm camera again last week...and now now I realize how strange it is to hold a camera to one's face. It's totally arbitrary, camera to eye, or camera to waist. There is no "correct" method -- only what we believe is correct at the moment, because of habit or prejudice.

We are more adaptable than we give ourselves credit for.
 
retnull said:
There's a problem with "getting exactly the camera you want": it implies that your style is fixed and will not, should not change. Why not be open to the possibility that there's a camera out there that you won't like at first, but would ultimately change your style for the better?

I shot 35mm for a long time, but spent the past two years shooting a Panasonic GH-1 and various TLRs. Two years of looking down to the waistlevel viewfinder or LCD. Picked up at 35mm camera again last week...and now now I realize how strange it is to hold a camera to one's face. It's totally arbitrary, camera to eye, or camera to waist. There is no "correct" method -- only what we believe is correct at the moment, because of habit or prejudice.

We are more adaptable than we give ourselves credit for.
Click to expand...

Seriously it's not about that... I love different things and trying them: I use my OlyXA and my LF view camera equally happy... I shoot my Hasselblad from waist level with flipped image and from eye level with prism view too... I use a big DSLR and small RF's, and mechanical and electronic SLRs, with manual and autofocus... I meter with cameras, incident, and guess... I use autoexposure, pin-hole cameras and point-and-shoot ones... I use the best brands and cheaper ones when they're good... I've worked for studios and have owned one... I was a hobbyist for 20 years before I cursed a six-year career in photography... I've loved macro and architecture and street and lots of other things... I've processed thousands of raw files, I use slide film with passion, I have wet printed B&W and color, used photoshop since version 1, used all kinds of films and chemicals, bought and mixed, I have shot different contrast scenes on the same B&W roll, I have left that... I'll tell you what this is really about:

Lots of people involved in R&D for digital cameras were not photographers or didn't know very much about light and practical photography... Their approach was -in the beginning- considering the involved variables and offering people access to those variables to set each one of them. That's good in theory. And obviously implies the power of any combination... But in practice, unless you shoot trees with tripod, that can be slow TOO MANY TIMES. That's what this thread's about.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Juan Valdenebro said:
When I shoot film I decide my exposure considering the development I planned for that roll... I don't decide contrast in the darkroom, and I don't decide it just before development: it's part of my exposure... That's how I like to do it... My game is composing and doing that at the same time, as was the game for many people before: I love playing there... I don't want different or easier games...
Click to expand...

Then you need to stick with what you have and use since you can see no advantage to digital.
 
jsrockit said:
Then you need to stick with what you have and use since you can see no advantage to digital.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I said: no interest now... I have to wait for a digital camera with faster contrast control for street shooting. That would be an advantage over my digital camera and over all digital cameras available today. And it may happen soon, and you may buy it too because of that advantage...

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom