Coming back from Digital?

[NickTrop]

Back to manual transmission...

I prefer these - it forces me to think. I enjoy shifting gears and having complete control of the vehicle. It makes the vehicle an extension of me that I have complete control over... It makes the process of driving more engaging. It is a very real skill one must learn. You should learn, if you want to "really" know how to drive, IMO.

Why bother with a manual if the automatic is gonna throw it in the same gear you would 90% of the time? If you're asking this question you're missing the point.

If your car had an option of giving you both automatic and manual, what would you use?
Probably automatic "most of the time"... even though I prefer manual. Don't ask me why. I guess because "path of least resistance" trumps "thinking" when the option is available... even though shifting is more fun and engaging. So, I'd rather the option not be available at all.

Twisted logic, I know.

Manual clutches are "fixable" at reasonable costs, unlike automatics which often cause people to "pitch" the car when it goes...

Even though automatic transmissions have been around for decades and decades, manual transmissions are still made for people who are really "into" driving, and want the best performance and control from their vehicle. You can still get them easily, even though the overwhelming majority of people drive automatic.

film vs. digital...

Nick

 

[Ororaro]

I dislike digital.
Sure, it's invaluable for my wedding business and all that, but B&W film is King!

 

[kevin m]

Gotta use both. I was shooting 100% film until two years ago, but, honestly, Canon's 5D can do things no color film emulsion can duplicate. It's not even close.

I keep my film bodies for B&W, where film still has a certain 'something' that I can't quite duplicate with digital capture, and for the pleasure of using a rangefinder.

I'd love to use a digital rangefinder, but I'm not paying $5k-plus for a cropped sensor camera with mediocre high iso performance.

 

[wgerrard]

After shooting a fair amount of film in my younger days, I recently came back to photography, i.e., not just film or not just digital, but simply takin' pictures at all.

I picked up an RF and a DSLR. Now, I find myself using the DSLR simply because I paid for it and need to assuage the feelings of guilt that bubble up if I leave the thing on the shelf.

Contrary to what seems to be the typical experience, I fuss about with the DSLR as much as I do with the RF, maybe more. After all, there is more to fuss with. If you shoot digital in manual or aperture-priority mode, as I do, then setting up a shot is pretty much the same in both cameras. I do not find myself shooting that much more with digital versus film. And, if I use the DSLR in all its automated glory, then I'm using it as I would a point and shoot, and the results are about the same, ignoring the contributions of the lens I've attached.

I'm finding that I want to learn more about film than I do digital. E.g., I am more interested in learning the characteristics of diferent kinds of film than I am in learning the characteristics of my DSLR's different ISO settings. I'm also rather tempted to dip my toes into B&W with a homebrew darkroom. I've shot digital B&W and it left me flat.

I've also concluded that I will not fly with the DSLR kit or carry its bag on my shoulder all day. Takes the fun out of everything.

I have to agree, though, that a DSLR is a great feedback tool. The fast turnaround on images and the inclusion of EXIF data are great tools if you pay attention. I have to be much more disciplined and patient to accomplish
the same thing in film.

So, here I am thinking about selling the DSLR kit, and even maybe the RF kit, so I can move up a notch in RF use. More realistically, I might sell the DSLR and pick up a good used SLR kit. I'm thinking F3HP or OM-TI4.

Anyone else thinking the same thing? Has anyone else already done that?

 

[Jarle Aasland]

Nikon FE2

Nikon FE2

The F3 is a fine camera, although it's never been my favourite. You can get a pretty nice body for next to nothing these days. Personally, I'd rather get a Nikon FE2 (or FM2). In my opinion, the FE/FM series cameras are the best film bodies ever made.

Jarle

 

[model337]

i left photography for a number of years. digital brought me back in: gave me a chance to "remember" the functions of the camera, to experiment with technique. but ultimately i outgrew it. i realized that my DSLR was also fostering the potential to develop bad habits... to become a lazy photographer that let his camera do all the thinking for me. i'm trying to break out of that, so i switched back to film.

i also have never been very satisfied with the quality of digital images. i'm pretty good at RAW manipulation so it's not like i can't coax a good image out of my DSLR, but at high ISOs and expecially with B&W photography, i could never get the kind of image quality i was seeing in the film equivalent.

i've only owned my Zeiss Ikon for 3 weeks but i'm already seeing (and photographing) the world through a completely different mindset. the results are great. i'm still adjusting to some of the differences but i'm absolutely convinced that film was the right choice for me.

 

[literiter]

When I shoot B&W film I am able to use my home darkroom and with care I can produce pretty good sharp nicely toned stuff. ( Well my Mommy liked it! )

The problem comes when taking my color film to the lab. I've noticed a big reduction of the quality I get from some of the best labs. They do not work directly from my negs or transparencies but scan, then print. I have had a slide done in Cibachrome about 20 years ago and compared it with a print from a lab done this spring from the same slide and have noticed a significant difference in sharpness. No lab in my area can do a straight print it is all scan then print. Digital.

I am wondering. Is it possible that the apparent improvement in the quality of the product from digital cameras results from the printing processes available to us?

 

[.JL.]

I am in the "I've never left film, but now shoot mostly (>80%) digital" bunch. "80%" digital doesn't mean 80% of my output comes from digital. The marginal cost of shooting digital is so low that I shoot a lot more frames just to experiment different ways. I am learning new things that I can apply to film.

 

[christo]

Back to manual transmission...

I prefer these - it forces me to think. I enjoy shifting gears and having complete control of the vehicle. It makes the vehicle an extension of me that I have complete control over... It makes the process of driving more engaging. It is a very real skill one must learn. You should learn, if you want to "really" know how to drive, IMO.

Why bother with a manual if the automatic is gonna throw it in the same gear you would 90% of the time? If you're asking this question you're missing the point.

If your car had an option of giving you both automatic and manual, what would you use?
Probably automatic "most of the time"... even though I prefer manual. Don't ask me why. I guess because "path of least resistance" trumps "thinking" when the option is available... even though shifting is more fun and engaging. So, I'd rather the option not be available at all.

Twisted logic, I know.

Manual clutches are "fixable" at reasonable costs, unlike automatics which often cause people to "pitch" the car when it goes...

Even though automatic transmissions have been around for decades and decades, manual transmissions are still made for people who are really "into" driving, and want the best performance and control from their vehicle. You can still get them easily, even though the overwhelming majority of people drive automatic.

film vs. digital...

Nick

I have an automatic transmission in my car so I can drive with my knee to re-load
my M with film but I do use a French press to make coffee.

 

[petronius]

Some years ago I shot digital exclusively for one year. The reasons to go back to film were : I missed the differences between the many camera-types (I can live with one woman, but not with one camera!), the mechanics, the sound of the shutter, the smell of the lab.

 

[.JL.]

The problem comes when taking my color film to the lab. I've noticed a big reduction of the quality I get from some of the best labs. They do not work directly from my negs or transparencies but scan, then print. I have had a slide done in Cibachrome about 20 years ago and compared it with a print from a lab done this spring from the same slide and have noticed a significant difference in sharpness. No lab in my area can do a straight print it is all scan then print. Digital.

I agree word for word about the deteriorating quality of colour film results, mostly because how the labs function these days. I used to get excellent results from the most ordinary mini labs. Nowadays I cannot even get good results from scanning (at home) colour films that came back from pro labs; I reckon they've changed development process as well, not just the printing part.

 

[BillBingham2]

An interesting parallel watches, spot on IMHO, but lets look at it from a slightly angle perhaps.

The basic function of a watch can be well served by a mechanical solution, as can a camera. The challenge comes in when you add the drive to sell more year over year. There is a mindset that you always need the latest and greatest, the most features per square inch, more is better. For me at least, more is not better, more is often worse.

When you start cramming watches full of more functions that you find on a TV you often loose sight of what it is there for. But the challenge is, how do you keep selling more year over year. How much is too much and how do you develop a watch that interests the largest market possible?

DSLRs all seem to have more features and computing power per square inch than you find stars in the sky on a clear night in Delavan, WI.

But I am about to take the plunge into DSLR land. Mind you, I am not getting rid of all my film SLRs, but I am cutting back. Same for the RFs, down to one M and one Bessa. All of the historical stuff stays, but that’s not in the user rotation.

I am going with a D300 in a few months and going to use only old AI (or AIs) lenses on her. I will control the shutter speed and aperture just like I do on my F2A, but will capture the image electronically. No autofocus, I’m not even going to do Aperture or Shutter Priority, el Manual everything. I get to step up and have both center weighted (what I cut my teeth on) as well as spot metering available to me. I will have to get a KatzEye focusing screen in her (do wish they could do a P screen). I am basically ignoring TONS of fancy features that could do stuff for me.

I could get even more primitive and go with a D40X (or E410 which is tempting) but without any real linkages, it’s stop down metering. A deal breaker as I was spoiled with growing up on a Nikkormat FTn and some great glass. It’s interesting how that is my edge, where I draw the line of acceptable automation (auto return aperture, built in meter), others draw it elsewhere (e.g. Auto Exposure, Auto Focus).

One of my two perfect digital cameras would be a Bessa L with a 12MP ccd (1.5 factor for lenses) that captured raw images as fast as I could advance the shutter. Let me throw what ever lens on it I want, I do the finder, oh and AAA batteries please. It’s small, quiet and fast.

I’m hoping the D300 is the other perfect digital. I have to purchase another prime to complete my system but most of it’s already there.

What’s driving me is cost. Funds are tight and spending an additional $700 per year on film and processing could better be put towards college, paying off bills. I hope it will remove an issue that keeps me from shoot and sharing more.

B2 (;->

 

[literiter]

I agree word for word about the deteriorating quality of colour film results, mostly because how the labs function these days. I used to get excellent results from the most ordinary mini labs. Nowadays I cannot even get good results from scanning (at home) colour films that came back from pro labs; I reckon they've changed development process as well, not just the printing part.

I think you may be right. The general concensus these days makes one think that digital is a big improvement over film, in terms of quality. It may be the decline in the quality of the film printing processes rather than just the excellence of the digital image.

When I project a transparency, that I've had printed, I notice that the image is sharper when projected than when printed. As well the color is far better with greater tonal range. (This is an Eiki slide projector, I won't even discuss a projected digital image.)

There may be an arguement that would mitigate this opinion.

I have a feeling that film may not have been quite surpassed yet in terms of overall quality, just the processing. The last roll of Fujichrome I shot in the mountains with my M4-P projected on a 5 x 6 foot screen so beautifully that it made me realize digital could not come close to this.
I can't seem to get a decent 11 x 14 inch print from my lab.

(Rant, rant, rant, rant, etc. )

 

[Solinar]

B/W with film - Digital for color.

 

[BillBingham2]

I think that some of your problem is that the resolution of the projectors are nowhere near what we have cameras for these days. If you have a sharp lens on a old style projector (not always the case) you can see some magical images on the screens.

It's an intersting niche that perhaps some manufacture might look at.

B2 (;->

 

[literiter]

B/W with film - Digital for color.

Yep! Seems to be.

 

[MartinP]

I have never tried a DSLR, but I do have a 3MP digital point-and-shoot which gets brought out for parties as it has an inbuilt flash. My poll answer was "I tried digital but ...". I work all day on a computer already and don't see the need to throw away all my film gear and then spend thousands on new printing stuff.

I am slightly puzzled by the people going to film who pick initially, and only, 35mm. Why not use rollfilm, or 4"x5", this will make your photography more satisfyingly deliberate and give way higher quality - giving that "something extra" which many are apparently looking for from film.

 

[ruben]

I haven't even entered the Auto Focus stage of film, and now kindly excuse me since I am rushing to snap a dynosaur just passing through.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[model337]

I am slightly puzzled by the people going to film who pick initially, and only, 35mm. Why not use rollfilm, or 4"x5", this will make your photography more satisfyingly deliberate and give way higher quality - giving that "something extra" which many are apparently looking for from film.

street photography

(speaking only for myself, of course)

 

[shadowfox]

Film is now liberated (I wish I am the one who came up with this saying, but I read it somewhere).

Only photographers who cherish film *do film* now. Those who hated it, had moved on to digital and never looked back.

I came from digital with zero knowledge, appreciation, and skill. Film Photography taught and gave me all that. So now, even when I am shooting digital, I can't wait to shoot another roll of film.

Digital is for documentary, convenience, and "must have" shots, like every family member in front of the Statue of Liberty -kind of shots.