P
Peter
Guest
You know what? Maybe you should just buy the R-D1 and a couple of CV lenses with it! 
leaving digital and going back to film
- Thread starter wblanchard
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 32
- Views: Views 6K
DaShiv
21st century digital boy
That would be why I'll need to liquidate some Canon EOS lenses to raise the $3k sticker price the body alone--ouch! Will need to keep the SLR as a backup though, for the wide/long ends of the range.
Will need to keep the SLR as a backup though, for the wide/long ends of the range.
S
sfaust
Guest
DaShiv, Where can I see the photos from Burning Man? I tried a search but only turned up lots of discussions, but not photos or a pointer to a book, etc.. Appreciate the help!
I also like the idea of the RD-1. However, I'm waiting for the jury to pick apart any issues with the camera before I make a decision. I think it would be perfect for daily carrying.
Time and experience will tell.
I also like the idea of the RD-1. However, I'm waiting for the jury to pick apart any issues with the camera before I make a decision. I think it would be perfect for daily carrying.
Time and experience will tell.
Last edited by a moderator:
DaShiv
21st century digital boy
Stephen, I don't know where "the" definitive Burning Man photos are at, but the little photoessay that Peter was referring to is up on my website at:
http://blindglass.org/burn04/
My current avatar is a shot I took at the event. And if you've never been to Burning Man before (something of a cross between an arts festival and a huge party) and would like some context, the Burning Man website has all the photos from previous years up at:
http://images.burningman.com/
90% of the challenge in taking photos at Burning Man is just making it out and being there, and keeping your camera functional in all that dust.
Hope to take a rangefinder there next year!
http://blindglass.org/burn04/
My current avatar is a shot I took at the event. And if you've never been to Burning Man before (something of a cross between an arts festival and a huge party) and would like some context, the Burning Man website has all the photos from previous years up at:
http://images.burningman.com/
90% of the challenge in taking photos at Burning Man is just making it out and being there, and keeping your camera functional in all that dust.
Hope to take a rangefinder there next year!
Bob, I very much like your pics of the Burning Man event. Actually, I'd never heard of it...
L
lars
Guest
I think you guys are being unfairly critical of digital.
> My wife bought me a nikon d70 kit recently and I really
> tried to enjoy it, but it's just too much for me. I shot a
> wedding and had close to 300 images on my computer that I
> had to go in and post process each one with photoshop or
> another software. You can't just batch process everything
> and expect them all to turn out the same. Each image and
> situation is different.
>
> So I'm pretty frustrated with Digital and plan to go back to
> my film cameras where I can load some Portra and not worry
> about the tones or how it will look, because it always seems
> to turn out nice.
The same thing applies to film. I can't just shoot off a roll of film and expect it to come out perfectly from any lab I try. Sometimes it turns out great from my favourite supermarket lab, other times the highlights are blown out, colour is off, etc. I can get it done at my favourite photo store lab but it costs a fair bit more.
Likewise with digital, if you don't want to do it yourself, take it to a photo lab that knows digital. If the results aren't what you like, take it to a place that will do a good job. Or tell them what you want. If it's simply a matter of need more saturation, creating a pre-recorded action in Photoshop and then run a batch job to do all your pics at once.
I know my digital prints turn out better if I send the lab files that saturation boosted 15%, so I do that to all my prints that get done at the lab. And while I'm at it, I can crop the prints that need it and correct any that I feel like correcting (ie: removing telephone wires, red-eye, etc).
> The highlights on the spotlit speaker were a tough job to
> keep within the reach of the sensor. The x-million segment
> matrix metering, of course, failed miserably; -1.3 to -2
> exp. compensation did the job.
Any camera with a live histogram makes this a pretty simple task. Just adjust the exposure compensation dial to get the histogram you're after, or for that matter, use the real-time view for feedback when adjusting the exp. compensation.
> The multilevel menu system took me at least 30 minutes to
> figure out how to set things (i'm glad i've begun messing
> with it before the presentation). I hate it.
A good digital camera won't force you to use menus, and this doesn't necessarily mean you have to buy a DSLR.
> To keep it short, the "white balance" was the only practical
> advantage versus my el-cheapo yashica GSN (or CC or
> whatever) loaded with 400ish speed film.
I LOVE having the ability to change ISO and WB on the fly.
> Sure, DSLRs give a clean image. To me, it's lifeless and
> flat. Someone recently wrote here that it was a clinically
> perfect image. Since I'm not a lab rat, I don't like
There is so much good work being done by pros working with DSLRs that I can't buy the story about digital creating flat images. With DSLRs and some prosumers, the images are somewhat flat BUT that's because it is left to you to do the post processing. The philosophy is that it is better to capture the original with minimal "enhancemencing" and let the user decide what degree of colour saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc should be added. A film analogy might be exposing for the shadows to capture as much of the scene's range on film, and then making final adjustments in the print. The other factor to consider is that really good prints generally require a really good lab. In other words, no matter how you slice it, the quality of post processing is going to be a big factor. The question is whether you want to do it, or pay someone else to do it.
> Till then, I'll be having fun on my days off and curse my
> way through the week at the office!
Although I thoroughly enjoy digital and plan on buying a DSLR, I still also enjoy shooting with my Bessa R.
> One last observation: it seems to me that the user interface
> for film cameras has been optimized over the years to make
> the photographer's life easier, while the user interfaces on
> digital cameras (I'm speaking of consumer/prosumer types
> here which is what I have experience with) seem to be
For the most part, yes, but fortunately, there are exceptions like the Minolta A1/A2 series.
> cameras totally suck. What they call manual controls is a
> good example. Scrolling through menus is not a substitute
> for the controls found on a simple adjustable film camera --
> adjusting the aperture and shutter speed by rotating simple
> dials. The digital camera that comes closest to this
> interface is the Bessa based Epson but $3000 is ridiculous.
> Cost for image quality is another issue. I get a 9 megapixel
> scanned image from my 35mm negatives. I get a 38 megapixel
> scanned image from the 6x9cm negs taken with my Mamiya
> Universal. How much are cameras going to cost that will
> equal that? There is a Mamiya Universal on Ebay (get it if
But for many people, they don't need that much resolution, nor do they ever use it. 11x14 prints are perfectly feasible with 6MP DSLR cameras. Even people with 2/3" sensors are making prints at 11x16 or a bit bigger. I use a film scanner AND a digital camera. I have to say that scanning is a PITA because of the time required to remove all the dust and scratches that inevitable plague film. Obviously we make choices based on what is good enough for our own needs, otherwise we would all be shooting with MF or LF, and we'd all be getting drum scans for digital work.
Ok, getting back to the controls aspect, it is true that most digicams have crappy interfaces. OTOH, some of them have excellent interfaces. My Minolta A1 shares many traits in common with my Maxxum 7 film SLR. It has front and rear control dials (index finger, thumb) that I have configured so that when in aperture priority mode, I can adjust the aperture with my index finger and exposure compensation with my thumb. That's just as easy as on my 7 and easier than on many film cameras. In manual mode, my thumb controls the shutter speed. Again, this is just as easy as on any manual film camera. Metering mode, white balance, drive speed, flash mode, flash compensation, timer, timer delay, can all be set without scrolling through menus. On top of all that, it is virtually silent (the only noise comes from the aperture blades closing down) and possesses a flip out LCD screen that works beautifully as a waist level finder, even in broad daylight. Also, any exposure changes are seen real-time through the viewfinder and in the real-time histogram so I can instantly check for highlight clipping.
My point is that if you pick wisely, you can have a digital camera that is, indeed, just as easy to operate as a manual camera. The only added complexity comes in the use of the additional features (if you choose to use them) and post processing (if you choose to do it yourself).
There are pros and cons for analogue and digital photography, but no one is forcing you to use a poorly designed digital camera.
Larry
> My wife bought me a nikon d70 kit recently and I really
> tried to enjoy it, but it's just too much for me. I shot a
> wedding and had close to 300 images on my computer that I
> had to go in and post process each one with photoshop or
> another software. You can't just batch process everything
> and expect them all to turn out the same. Each image and
> situation is different.
>
> So I'm pretty frustrated with Digital and plan to go back to
> my film cameras where I can load some Portra and not worry
> about the tones or how it will look, because it always seems
> to turn out nice.
The same thing applies to film. I can't just shoot off a roll of film and expect it to come out perfectly from any lab I try. Sometimes it turns out great from my favourite supermarket lab, other times the highlights are blown out, colour is off, etc. I can get it done at my favourite photo store lab but it costs a fair bit more.
Likewise with digital, if you don't want to do it yourself, take it to a photo lab that knows digital. If the results aren't what you like, take it to a place that will do a good job. Or tell them what you want. If it's simply a matter of need more saturation, creating a pre-recorded action in Photoshop and then run a batch job to do all your pics at once.
I know my digital prints turn out better if I send the lab files that saturation boosted 15%, so I do that to all my prints that get done at the lab. And while I'm at it, I can crop the prints that need it and correct any that I feel like correcting (ie: removing telephone wires, red-eye, etc).
> The highlights on the spotlit speaker were a tough job to
> keep within the reach of the sensor. The x-million segment
> matrix metering, of course, failed miserably; -1.3 to -2
> exp. compensation did the job.
Any camera with a live histogram makes this a pretty simple task. Just adjust the exposure compensation dial to get the histogram you're after, or for that matter, use the real-time view for feedback when adjusting the exp. compensation.
> The multilevel menu system took me at least 30 minutes to
> figure out how to set things (i'm glad i've begun messing
> with it before the presentation). I hate it.
A good digital camera won't force you to use menus, and this doesn't necessarily mean you have to buy a DSLR.
> To keep it short, the "white balance" was the only practical
> advantage versus my el-cheapo yashica GSN (or CC or
> whatever) loaded with 400ish speed film.
I LOVE having the ability to change ISO and WB on the fly.
> Sure, DSLRs give a clean image. To me, it's lifeless and
> flat. Someone recently wrote here that it was a clinically
> perfect image. Since I'm not a lab rat, I don't like
There is so much good work being done by pros working with DSLRs that I can't buy the story about digital creating flat images. With DSLRs and some prosumers, the images are somewhat flat BUT that's because it is left to you to do the post processing. The philosophy is that it is better to capture the original with minimal "enhancemencing" and let the user decide what degree of colour saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc should be added. A film analogy might be exposing for the shadows to capture as much of the scene's range on film, and then making final adjustments in the print. The other factor to consider is that really good prints generally require a really good lab. In other words, no matter how you slice it, the quality of post processing is going to be a big factor. The question is whether you want to do it, or pay someone else to do it.
> Till then, I'll be having fun on my days off and curse my
> way through the week at the office!
Although I thoroughly enjoy digital and plan on buying a DSLR, I still also enjoy shooting with my Bessa R.
> One last observation: it seems to me that the user interface
> for film cameras has been optimized over the years to make
> the photographer's life easier, while the user interfaces on
> digital cameras (I'm speaking of consumer/prosumer types
> here which is what I have experience with) seem to be
For the most part, yes, but fortunately, there are exceptions like the Minolta A1/A2 series.
> cameras totally suck. What they call manual controls is a
> good example. Scrolling through menus is not a substitute
> for the controls found on a simple adjustable film camera --
> adjusting the aperture and shutter speed by rotating simple
> dials. The digital camera that comes closest to this
> interface is the Bessa based Epson but $3000 is ridiculous.
> Cost for image quality is another issue. I get a 9 megapixel
> scanned image from my 35mm negatives. I get a 38 megapixel
> scanned image from the 6x9cm negs taken with my Mamiya
> Universal. How much are cameras going to cost that will
> equal that? There is a Mamiya Universal on Ebay (get it if
But for many people, they don't need that much resolution, nor do they ever use it. 11x14 prints are perfectly feasible with 6MP DSLR cameras. Even people with 2/3" sensors are making prints at 11x16 or a bit bigger. I use a film scanner AND a digital camera. I have to say that scanning is a PITA because of the time required to remove all the dust and scratches that inevitable plague film. Obviously we make choices based on what is good enough for our own needs, otherwise we would all be shooting with MF or LF, and we'd all be getting drum scans for digital work.
Ok, getting back to the controls aspect, it is true that most digicams have crappy interfaces. OTOH, some of them have excellent interfaces. My Minolta A1 shares many traits in common with my Maxxum 7 film SLR. It has front and rear control dials (index finger, thumb) that I have configured so that when in aperture priority mode, I can adjust the aperture with my index finger and exposure compensation with my thumb. That's just as easy as on my 7 and easier than on many film cameras. In manual mode, my thumb controls the shutter speed. Again, this is just as easy as on any manual film camera. Metering mode, white balance, drive speed, flash mode, flash compensation, timer, timer delay, can all be set without scrolling through menus. On top of all that, it is virtually silent (the only noise comes from the aperture blades closing down) and possesses a flip out LCD screen that works beautifully as a waist level finder, even in broad daylight. Also, any exposure changes are seen real-time through the viewfinder and in the real-time histogram so I can instantly check for highlight clipping.
My point is that if you pick wisely, you can have a digital camera that is, indeed, just as easy to operate as a manual camera. The only added complexity comes in the use of the additional features (if you choose to use them) and post processing (if you choose to do it yourself).
There are pros and cons for analogue and digital photography, but no one is forcing you to use a poorly designed digital camera.
Larry
W
wblanchard
Guest
Lars
I didn't mean to sound like I didn't like digital..it's just the workflow that i can't handle, all the buttons and menus, edit, crop, etc.
What amazes me is that I can load some color film in my Contax G2 or T3 and 98.9 percent of the time the exposure is dead on and I'm happy with my results. With the digital (even with the histogram) my shots still come out nice, but I can see a difference between the film shots and digital. And IMO the film looks better. Thats just me. Maybe its what someone said earlier about digital looking too clean and sterile.
Thats why Im selling my D70..because i'm happier with my film results and will make someone who enjoys digital prints happy by selling them the camera kit.
I didn't mean to sound like I didn't like digital..it's just the workflow that i can't handle, all the buttons and menus, edit, crop, etc.
What amazes me is that I can load some color film in my Contax G2 or T3 and 98.9 percent of the time the exposure is dead on and I'm happy with my results. With the digital (even with the histogram) my shots still come out nice, but I can see a difference between the film shots and digital. And IMO the film looks better. Thats just me. Maybe its what someone said earlier about digital looking too clean and sterile.
Thats why Im selling my D70..because i'm happier with my film results and will make someone who enjoys digital prints happy by selling them the camera kit.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Hey, lars, i'm sorry if i made the impression of a "digital sucks" oppinion. I don't think that myself; and I am thinking of the minolta D7 for the future (when the price drops with 50% )
I just presented here my latest experience with a certain digital camera (which is not the cheapest/worst but not the best neither!) in a certain, quite difficult, situation. My housemate has an A1 too, i know it has a much better interface and somewhat better noise/iso performance.
To change ISO on-the-fly, you do need a reasonably big sensor, however. I mean, changing iso from 50 to 200 on *this* digital olympus results in extreme noise increase. And that's only 2 stops.
The LCD screen preview, on the other hand, is a bit too small *for me* to really see what's the story. I can't exactly judge if the white balance is correctly set (i "almost" managed to do but not exactly), i can't exactly judge if some highlights are too bright or not, i can't exactly judge what the noise level and sharpness will be. So in a way, this instant gratification and keep-only-the-keeper idea is tricky.
All this should be easier, of course, with practice, when you can already predict how the camera will perform in these situations with certain settings.
So, long live digital! But please don't kill film
)I just presented here my latest experience with a certain digital camera (which is not the cheapest/worst but not the best neither!) in a certain, quite difficult, situation. My housemate has an A1 too, i know it has a much better interface and somewhat better noise/iso performance.
To change ISO on-the-fly, you do need a reasonably big sensor, however. I mean, changing iso from 50 to 200 on *this* digital olympus results in extreme noise increase. And that's only 2 stops.
The LCD screen preview, on the other hand, is a bit too small *for me* to really see what's the story. I can't exactly judge if the white balance is correctly set (i "almost" managed to do but not exactly), i can't exactly judge if some highlights are too bright or not, i can't exactly judge what the noise level and sharpness will be. So in a way, this instant gratification and keep-only-the-keeper idea is tricky.
All this should be easier, of course, with practice, when you can already predict how the camera will perform in these situations with certain settings.
So, long live digital! But please don't kill film
S
sfaust
Guest
Noise is relative to the sensor as you suggest . My S2Pro does very nice images at ISO 1600, while my smaller P&S seems to fall apart at ISO 400. Here is a shot I just took this morning (got to love the immediacy of digital) which was shot under available light at ISO 1600. It was a quick grab shot before he turned away.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
nice quick grab one, Stephen
peter_n
Veteran
You were at Hogwarts this morning, Stephen? Nice shot!
Nice shot!
K
khingdheano
Guest
Gordon Coale said:
Gordon, have you checked out the Leica Digilux 2? The interface is exactly what you are looking for at a mere $1850. I believe the Panasonic LC1 version can be had for around $1200 now.
Regards,
R. Dean
S
sfaust
Guest
peter_n said:You were at Hogwarts this morning, Stephen?
I just now caught this Peter!! Nice one. Although, I won't tell him you said that just in case you and he meet some day. He has taken a disliking to the Harry Potter comments since he hears them so often. We were just discussing this two days ago regarding a halloween costume
But he is a perfect likeness for Harry, especially when his hair is cut the same.The only thing I don't like about the S2 at 1600ISO is that in the grain you can detect a vertical or horizontal pattern, rather than a pure random pattern as in film. Luckily, its easy to hide that by using a grain filter in Photoshop, then coverting to grayscale, and back to RGB. It tends to hide it almost completely. But most people never notice it unless I point it out.
Last edited by a moderator: