Idiot?

[Bill Pierce]

Are any of the photography tools from the film world that have fallen by the wayside in the digital era still truly useful? In other words, are we idiots because we no longer use XXX?

I got out one of my old incident meters thinking it would protect the highlight detail in digital files in the same way it kept the highlights in slide film from turning to clear cellophane. Just one problem. In suggesting exposures that protected highlights, the incident meter often called for exposures that produced digital viewfinder images that were so dark as to be impossible to work with.

How about a gray card? In addition to providing an 18% gray for reflected meter readings, in film days it allowed you to determine an accurate color balance for reproduction. It could nail the accurate color balance when you were setting up a digital file for inkjet printing. When I tested this theory, the auto balance of the camera was often more pleasing and the the camera’s specific daylight, tungsten and color temperature settings were effective when you needed a consistent balance in a group of frames. (And you don’t have to stop photographing the subject just to get a picture of a gray card.)

As a person who had abandoned these tools when I went digital, I was relieved that I was not a total idiot. But I still worry. Are there old, unused tools from the film era that could prove to be useful to a digital photographer? Am I still in danger of being an idiot?

 

[Fjäll]

Well discipline, patience and attentiveness seems to be tools that were of greater importance back in the day.

Jokes aside, one thing that comes to mind are lens filters. Although they are still around it seems most are trying to replace these with post production editing. I do like a good soft filter for portraits but it never looks as good done in post.

 

[xayraa33]

Some film era lenses can be useful in the digital camera world...more for artistic old timey rendering than for modern convenience and speed and sharpness.

I think there are two different worlds here...pros use digital because it makes sense to do that to earn a living in a competitive field and analog film photography is for hobbyists and amateur diletantes .

Film photography will be like people in suburbia going grocery shopping at the mall with a bicycle and attached bike trailer...it might be fun on sunny days and you would be an environmentalist getting some exercise and a bit of an oddball but most people would go grocery shopping at that mall in a shiny new air conditioned SUV as a matter of convenience and speed.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

Like many others who cut their teeth on analog gear, I alternate between making good use of the old and the new.

My two Nikkormat FT2s get taken out and used often - I have a bag full of sharp if well worn older Nikkor lenses (24 28, 35, 50, 55 micro, 85. 135, 200, 300) and this kit gives me much pleasure to use. I no longer bother with putting batteries in the FT2s - a Gossen Luna Pro I bought in 1989 (I also have two Lunasix IIIs, two Weston Master Vs and a 70 year old Weston II, all reading spot-on) produces exact exposures every time, and while I may lose a few grab shots in the few seconds it takes me to transfer the Gossen readings to an FT2, on the whole I manage well 98% of the time in my street shooting and cat portraits - may I say if anybody believes going out casual shooting in city streets is far from easy, let them try getting an unwilling feline to pose! After more than 50 years of active photography, missing out on 'that best shot' means little to me now - there is always another great shot waiting to be taken.

I also use my Nikon D700 or D800 as a spot meter. Color balance is something I don't bother much with as I mostly shoot B&W film. For my color work the auto-everything functions on the two DSLRs do what I want almost every time, and if I do fluke a shot because of odd colors or color temperatures (almost nobody born after 1985 knows what the latter term means anyway), this is easy fixed in post processing.

Returning to lenses, I've also worked out that the D lenses I've bought for my digi-snapping can be made to work just as well on my Nikkormats. I've done some truly wonderful work with my 16 and 20 super wides and the results from my 180 ED show much better quality than those from the ancient Nikkor 300 I bought used in 1975.

Covid, global warming, environmental crises and toxic political mayhem aside, we live in exceptional times as far as photography goes - it's up to us to take full advantage of all the modern goodies we have at our disposal, often at bargain prices.

The fun factor in using my old gear greatly expands the creativity and scope of my photography. For a 70+ year old who has been lugging gear around since the early 1960s and has played/worked with almost every type of camera ever made, it gives me much pleasure to adapt my 21st century equipment to my older equipment and techniques.

Other posters will have their own ideas to add to all this. I look forward to reading (and I hope using) your advice and suggestions.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

(...) I think there are two different worlds here ... pros use digital because it makes sense to do that to earn a living in a competitive field and analog film photography is for hobbyists and amateur dilettantes.

Film photography will be like people in suburbia going grocery shopping at the mall with a bicycle and attached bike trailer ... it might be fun on sunny days and you would be an environmentalist getting some exercise and a bit of an oddball but most people would go grocery shopping at that mall in a shiny new air conditioned SUV .

Some of this post is somewhat harsh but has a few interesting ideas, amusingly expressed.

In Australia where I live, there has been a resurgence in 'art' film photography in the past year. The results I see hanging on gallery, library and public building walls aren't really impressive to me, but the work is being done and put up for people to see (I'm not so sure if sells, but that's another point entirely).

According to staff in my retail photo supplier in Melbourne, more people of all ages are buying film and using it, which is a good thing for those of us 'dilettantes' who still enjoy 20th century analog processes.

The price of medium format gear and in particular Rollei TLRs has surged upwards in the last 12 months - even so the 'arty' shooters I see in my wanderings seem to be sporting a 1950s MXV, a T, a 'cord Vb - or a Lomo, but here I rather would say no more.

Truly, we live in interesting times.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Legit questions.
First of all, even if you left metering of film, it is not dead. Where are those who are metering same way as you used to be.
9K USD M10 can’t meter anything often, just as M9. It just doesn’t have TTL.

Idiot? No. In Russian Broadcasting we use term “Creator”

 

[CMur12]

Though I haven't actually used digital at this point, I don't understand why essentially the same metering techniques wouldn't carry over from film to digital.

I know that our own Chris Crawford uses handheld meters with digital, which he explains in his tutorials in his sub-forum here.

As I recall, he uses essentially the same technique for metering digital as he would for slide film. (Hopefully, he will respond.)

- Murray

 

[xayraa33]

This post is somewhat harsh but has a few interesting ideas, amusingly-theatrically expressed.

In Australia where I live, there has been a resurgence in 'art' film photography in the past year. The results I see hanging on gallery, library and public building walls aren't really impressive to me, but the work is being done and put up for people to see (I'm not so sure if sells, but that's another point entirely).

According to staff in my retail photo supplier in Melbourne, more people of all ages are buying film and using it, which is a good thing for those of us 'dilettantes' who still enjoy 20th century analog processes.

The price of medium format gear and in particular Rollei TLRs has surged upwards in the last 12 months - every 'arty' shooter I meet in my wanderings seems to be sporting a 1950s MXV, a T or a 'cord Vb. Or a Lomo, but here I rather would say no more.

Truly we do live in interesting times.

I am one of those Luddites that is still into film and film cameras and lenses and it is good to know that other people are also using film and into the analog process. Hopefully film will be around for a long time.

By being a big fan of Daguerreotypes, Calotypes and the Collodion process of the 19th century and peruse such old photos often...I am convinced that the photo process used does not matter much in producing masterpieces in photography...a clever genius gifted photographer can produce fantastic work regardless of the process used in any era.

But I think pros have to be up to date and use the latest pro gear of our era (iphone??)....or else it be a like a 1940s NYC press photographer showing up on the job with a Roger Fenton wet -plate camera on a tripod when a de riguour 4x5 Speed or Crown Graphic with attached flash -bulb gun was the normal modern setup for a 1940s press photographer.

Bill should not mix up the two systems...each one is self contained to a great extent and all thought out already...digital cameras have all you need already as the camera system of our present era and there is no need to attach a horse to the front of a working modern motor car in everyday use.

 

[RichC]

How about a gray card? In addition to providing an 18% gray for reflected meter readings, in film days it allowed you to determine an accurate color balance for reproduction. It could nail the accurate color balance when you were setting up a digital file for inkjet printing. When I tested this theory, the auto balance of the camera was often more pleasing and the the camera’s specific daylight, tungsten and color temperature settings were effective when you needed a consistent balance in a group of frames. (And you don’t have to stop photographing the subject just to get a picture of a gray card.)

Grey cards work fine with digital! I use one for studio work when I need accurate or consistent colours for a bunch of photos, esp. if taken over days or even months.

Two things:

• I never ever use auto white balance (in or out of the studio!): I've no idea what digital cameras do to decide auto white balance but I can tell you that you can never get the grey card to work! When you get it neutral grey in the photo in post production, the other colours can be dramatically off - and different between photos! The solution is to always select an appropriate manual white balance such as flash or sunny. All digital cameras seem to behave like this.

• Digital cameras seem to be fussy about grey cards. Cheap ones may not be accurate, and there may possibly be infrared contamination throwing them further off. I wouldn't use a film era grey card printed on actual cardboard but cough up for a modern one.

 

[nikon_sam]

How about the old school "Flash"...???
I use a flash with my digital cameras, I have often seen digital photographers NOT using a flash but instead upping the ISO...
To be honest using the flash with digital has taught me HOW to use a flash...I hated flash photography with film...
Just the other day I was looking through a bunch of older small flashes I have to use on my Sony a6000, most of them had a triggering voltage way too high to use but I did find a Sunpak Auto 221D that turned out to work quite nice...going to use it over the Nikon SB-15 I was using...
Flashes...do you still use them with your D cameras...???

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Though I haven't actually used digital at this point, I don't understand why essentially the same metering techniques wouldn't carry over from film to digital.

I know that our own Chris Crawford uses handheld meters with digital, which he explains in his tutorials in his sub-forum here.

As I recall, he uses essentially the same technique for metering digital as he would for slide film. (Hopefully, he will respond.)

- Murray

Thanks, Murray.

Bill, if you're incident meter is underexposing, there are two possibilities. One is that the meter needs recalibrated. A lot of older meters out there need serviced.

The other possibility is that the camera's ISO settings are 'optimistic.' I've used Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras for several years now, and all of them produce underexposed images when I use a handheld meter. The REAL sensitivity of the sensors is less than Olympus claims, by about half a stop! I use a Sekonic L-758DR meter that allows profiling cameras to match the meter to their actual sensitivity, so I can set the meter to the ISO setting I've used on the camera and get good exposure.

A third possibility is that your metering technique of wrong, but I doubt that given your decades of experience as a professional photographer.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Though I haven't actually used digital at this point, I don't understand why essentially the same metering techniques wouldn't carry over from film to digital.

I know that our own Chris Crawford uses handheld meters with digital, which he explains in his tutorials in his sub-forum here.

As I recall, he uses essentially the same technique for metering digital as he would for slide film. (Hopefully, he will respond.)

- Murray

I think Chris exposes at a point between an incident reading and his camera's meter - which makes great sense. Quite often Chris is shooting relatively static situations and can go about things properly. I adapted to news shooting - which is probably the exact opposite of Chris's world.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Thanks, Murray.

Bill, if you're incident meter is underexposing, there are two possibilities. One is that the meter needs recalibrated. A lot of older meters out there need serviced.

The other possibility is that the camera's ISO settings are 'optimistic.' I've used Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras for several years now, and all of them produce underexposed images when I use a handheld meter. The REAL sensitivity of the sensors is less than Olympus claims, by about half a stop! I use a Sekonic L-758DR meter that allows profiling cameras to match the meter to their actual sensitivity, so I can set the meter to the ISO setting I've used on the camera and get good exposure.

A third possibility is that your metering technique of wrong, but I doubt that given your decades of experience as a professional photographer.

No question about the optimism of some camera's ISO settings. Knowing a lot of people are shooting on automatic and without any exposure bias, I think manufacturers are just trying to protect people from overexposure which can be especially detrimental in digital work. In digital those evils of overexposure are uncorrectable and the evils of underexposure are relatively easily corrected. My problem with incident metering with my digital cameras is really a camera problem. I often work under very contrasty light and while the digital file can produce detail in the shadows, the EVF on some of my cameras has trouble showing me that detail while I'm shooting. I grew up on Spectra and Minolta incident meters, and they still get used in the studio.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

For me it's about what I [now] do use - the aperture priority auto exposure feature. For years I shot with an M2 or M3 with no meter, generally guessing the exposure within a stop (two at most); I was abut 85% accurate - even on slide film.

Nowadays, I need to use my M2 sporting an MR meter (I always hated those things), or I'll likely miss the exposure. My spidy senses for light readings are now vaporized, but I'm working on getting them back.

 

[DougK]

If you're in tricky light conditions, a grey card can still be useful. I also still love filters; the digital equivalents never seem to look quite right.

 

[kshapero]

Biggest concern is forgetting how to shot manually where you control the exposure not the computer, er, I mean the digital camera. Also forgetting how to see the exposure with your eye, Sunny 16 anyone?, can truly make us an idiot. I recently returned to Manual everything film wise, and yes, I have become an idiot. But at least there is hope.

 

[Oren Grad]

Just one problem. In suggesting exposures that protected highlights, the incident meter often called for exposures that produced digital viewfinder images that were so dark as to be impossible to work with.

Many digital cameras with EVFs have a "disable exposure preview" setting for the viewfinder that should prevent this.

 

[Wenge]

it's all trial & error now with each digital camera (computer) and lens. Not a bad thing, just how it is.

 

[olakiril]

Well discipline, patience and attentiveness seems to be tools that were of greater importance back in the day.

These are indeed the greatest tools of the film era that many tend to forget with the effortlessness of digital. I am guilty of that more often that I would like.

 

[Dogman]

I no longer use a tripod or filters, except for UV/clear protection filters--less things to carry. I no longer use a handheld meter because the in-camera meters are more accurate and the exposure compensation dial is a quick adjustment on the camera. I no longer use a bubble level, it's built into the camera. I no longer have to remember phone numbers, I just tap an icon and make the call.

Yes, I'm an idiot. A complete moron. And I'm perfectly happy with it.