My DSLR takes great photos but....

[ibcrewin]

Someone pass the popcorn...

 

[Ben Z]

Personally, I don't even think 'film vs digital' can be compared fairly. People do because the end result is similar but they are still different mediums. Likewise, you wouldn't compare oil paint with film either. It just wouldn't make sense. Each medium has its purpose and neither is generally 'better than the other.' One medium will be great at one thing and other great for another.

I disagree, especially with the comparison to painting. Film photography and analog photography are much, much, much closer than painting is to film photography from the most basic level on up. How many of us could segue successfully to painting from film photography as we have to digital?

In this age, the digital format has taken over 35mm film format when it comes to journalism.

From what I'm seeing, it's taken over, period.

However, if say one was going to an area in central China that's 200 miles from any developed city to document migrating herds of ... goats or whatever ... a digital format just wouldn't work due to electrical and power constraints.

Unless of course you took spare charged batteries, a solar charger, or a 12V charger, or knew anything at all about China that there are very few places even 200 miles from a "developed" city where some form of electricity, be it a portable generator or a power take-off from a truck can't be procured.


That said, for us amateurs there is presently absolutely nothing that forces any of us to give up film. As of now it is strictly a matter of choice. So I don't see why people feel the need to concoct elaborate (and easily disprovable) arguments in defense of their personal choice in the matter.

 

[x-ray]

Ben Z:
I fully agree with your statements. Digital and analog are still photographic mediums as the wet plate was to celuloid film or tintypes. It's just another recording medium and the end result is esentuially the same.

When traveling on commercial assignments I always carry a 12v inverter to power my laptop and chargers from a car. Solar chargers are no problem either. I've often carried a portable generator to power strobes when needed.

One of the big advantages of digital vs film is what you see is what you get. If you have it you have it and there's no guess work about whether you have the shot on film or not. I download my cards to my laptop and check everything and if the client is there they approve the shots before moving on. the same is true if you're 200 miles from no where in China. Review and confirm or shoot more. Also let's not forget the issues of heat and airport x-rays on film.

I have no problem using either for the right assignment. If I were to travel to remote places on assignment my experience would dictate using high res digital as first choice in most cases.

 

[MelanieC]

digital and SLRs are a great combination for shooting sport, in general

This morning I learned that one of my cycling photos from the Tour of California won the teeny weekly photo contest on Velonews.com.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11822.0.html

Most of my shots that didn't totally suck were panning shots. This is one of those -- I didn't think it looked like much originally but salvaged it in Photoshop. I thought it might work OK as a black and white conversion with high contrast. And then I thought that being black and white might make it stand out among all the color cycling photos. On the one hand, it's a shame to lose the color because that's one of the best things about cycling photos (with the jerseys and the backgrounds, etc.), but on the other hand I'm used to seeing in black and white now.

So, it's a photo I wouldn't have gotten without the D70s, but it's one that I wouldn't have made without the aesthetic I learned using black and white film. The world wouldn't be missing out if I'd never taken it, but I wouldn't have won a free DVD either!

 

[x-ray]

Excellent image. Keep up the great work!

 

[mfunnell]

Melanie, that's a great shot - and congrats on the competition win!

...Mike

 

[mfunnell]

As the saying goes, "it's not the camera, it's the photographer". That goes for film or digital, p&s or RF or SLR or large-format view-camera.

I can appreciate some of the motivations behind "the saying". Who hasn't been irritated when someone likes one of your shots and so concludes that "..you must have a really good camera".


Still, one of the things the photographer does is choose the camera they use and (budget permitting 🙁 ) tries to select the right camera, lens etc. for the task. The equipment doesn't take the photo, but equipment selection can change the types of shot you can get. Some cameras are just unsuited to some tasks. For example, its awfully hard to use selective focus on a P&S digicam with a teeny sensor giving huge apparent depth-of-field. And the camera selected can change the balance of what kinds of shot are easy or difficult and encourage or discourage certain styles of working. I know that I, for one, compose differently, nail wide-open focus more easily etc. with my RF cameras than I do with, say, my OM-4 - even though in theory I could take the same shots with either.

I don't think a specialist RF forum is really the right place to be suggesting that camera selection doesn't matter 🙂 . I'm sure that wasn't what you meant, but it might help explain some, um, prickly reactions.

...Mike

 

[Fred]

What a breath of fresh air this thread is. I've not really had the chance to take many photos recently due to work commitments (my excuse and I'll be sticking to it 😉 ) however I had a 'job' to do where the client demanded digital so my trusty D70 was used, I fired off quite a few frames but as I'd ben used to using my film RF kit I made nearly every one count. The usual three shots per pose just to make sure that the flash didn't cause the models eyes to close.

After quite some time in front of the PC with photoshop and the album was complete. Whilst relaxing with a beer with the feeling of a job well done I thumbed through some self processed and printed shots I took using my film RF cameras and I thought how much more I enjoyed taking the shots, developing the film and hand printing the 'old' way.

There is always a time and a place where digital works better for many reasons and because of the allegedly faster workflow but for me anyway it misses the human element somewhat. I'm not going to get into the which is better argument but I know which I prefer.

Off topic bit sory:
Oddly my D70 developed a fault that saw it freez with the memory light blinking, after a call to Nikon they said that it was a problem that they knew about with some of the early D70s (mine was three years old, two years out of warrantee) and that if I sent it back they would fix it up no charge. Once again another breath of fresh air that there are still some companies around with an appreciation for the customers.

Back on topic bit:
As I'm rambling now I'll stop but just to say that I love photography regardless of the capture medium but my film RF is my preferred tool for my personal stuff.

 

[x-ray]

ra".


Still, one of the things the photographer does is choose the camera they use and (budget permitting 🙁 ) tries to select the right camera, lens etc. for the task. The equipment doesn't take the photo, but equipment selection can change the types of shot you can get. Some cameras are just unsuited to some tasks.

...Mike

Absolutely true. Unfortunately in todays digital world of professional and even amateur photography we're trying to make one camera replace the entire arsenal of cameras that we once had. Pre digital I shot with everything from 35mm to 11x14 (in the studio). As emulsions, mainly chromes) improved and seperation camera seps went to digital drum scanners the formats started to shrink. No longer did we shoot with 11x14 and more rarely with 8x10 and much more frequently with 4x5. Then as film improved we went MF 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5 with some 35mm. Now in the digital age we're trying to make our DSLR's and MF backs do the work of every one of the cameras we previously owned.

I confess that I was at the front of the rush to digital in the commercial world. But, and I mean a big but, I'm swinging back to using more film and scanning on a premium scanner. Some things are just better done on film as some are better done with digital. There'sno question in my mind that there is a place for both. I'll also add that digital has improved my work under difficult conditions where film (E-6) would have been nearly impossible to have used.

I'm constantly tempoted to buy a digital back. I was looking at the new Hasselblad H3 system the other day and fighting the temptation to buy a 31mp back and camera with lenses. The price has dropped so dramatically it would earn it's keep in a month or so. But, again the big but, I don't really see any gain at the moment over my canon system and certainly not over shootung LF film and scanning as I do now. The only real gain is speed of completion. There's no financial gain because all expenses like film are marked up and billed to the client. My time scanning is charged too so in the long run I would be making less money with the new back and gaining little to nothing.

 

[Kin Lau]

I don't think a specialist RF forum is really the right place to be suggesting that camera selection doesn't matter 🙂 . I'm sure that wasn't what you meant, but it might help explain some, um, prickly reactions.

...Mike

It's not that it _doesn't_ matter, the principle is that the gray matter a few inches behind the viewfinder that matters _most_.

A great tool is useless if there isn't some skill and effort to use it.

The great thing about RFF is that all sorts of photographers can demonstrate this skill in the use of this fine instrument. It's not an elitist club, but it does require effort on the part of the photographer.

 

[darrylasher]

...but it does require effort on the part of the photographer.

Aww gee!!! Effort? That sounds like work! 😀

 

[los]

any digital shooters flipping through prints, or mostly thumbnails? i visited friends recently who showed us their wedding pictures on a laptop.

 

[mfunnell]

any digital shooters flipping through prints, or mostly thumbnails? i visited friends recently who showed us their wedding pictures on a laptop.

If its not printed, its not a photo. If its not in an album (or at least destined for one) then it doesn't count - film or digital. (Of course, most of my film prints never make it into albums. About 50% of my digital prints do - but that's because I can eliminate most of the culls before printing.) I just wish I had more in either medium that were good enough to be framed and hung on walls...

...Mike

 

[Leica Geek]

If this 'conversion' rate keeps up we are going to get the reputation of being a strange religious cult rather than a forum ... before you know it we'll all be shaving our heads and chanting "film, film, film!". 😱

I already have shaved my head.🙂

 

[Kin Lau]

any digital shooters flipping through prints, or mostly thumbnails? i visited friends recently who showed us their wedding pictures on a laptop.

Lots of prints. Most of my wife's and my dslr shots are of birds. We usually print 4x6's of the better for each species. We also did 3 books via Lulu.

My wife also scrapbooks our trips, and weddings we attend/shoot.

 

[Leica Geek]

I myself enjoy the limitations of fully manual cameras, especially rangefinders. I have a small point and shoot digital that is a nice little camera, but that's when I don't care about what I'm shooting. Sometimes I get some good images from it, but it's just not as fun. I like doing things the hard way. I tend to appreciate things that take effort. I shot digital for a few years and never really enjoyed myself. I realized recently that I enjoy shooting my IIIf the most, because it takes more work to shoot it. Some of my best images have come from that little jewel. Also the craftmanship of a camera like the IIIf, M's in general are genius and things of beauty. A digital SLR gets the job done, but I want to hold my Leicas all the time. The feel of the tool matters to me. Yeah I can still draw with crayolas, but I've been spoiled by conte.

Cheers.

 

[darrylasher]

So, here's something to add to to the "it's the equipment!" column. Most digital cameras are simply incapable of the type of selective focus and shallow depth of field offered by any decent 35mm camera. No amount of skill can overcome this, just as no amount of driving skill can make a Kia go as fast as a Ferrari. Yes, a good photographer can take excellent, award-winning photographs with almost any camera; but certain effects will just not be available.

For a good discussion of this: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

That page has some conversion calculators to compare 35mm with digital sensors, and what results you can expect. Just something to file away to avoid frustration.

-Darryl

 

[mfunnell]

Most digital cameras are simply incapable of the type of selective focus and shallow depth of field offered by any decent 35mm camera. No amount of skill can overcome this...

All too true when talking about the tiny sensors offered on the average "digicam" (most especially including the "superzoom" variety, but also encompassing the "pocket" variety - both of which I have and use).

One of the things that brought me to RF film cameras was the difficulty I found using selective DOF on APS-C dSLRs with affordable camera bodies and lenses. Sure, I could spend x-thousands on, say, a Canon 5D - or, alternatively, I could spend x-thousand dollars on an expensive L prime to get a fast-enough lens.

Either way, it was outside my price range. So I went back to a "full-frame" sensor on my OM-4T, but found I couldn't get precise enough focus, frequently enough, if I needed to do it quickly enough, with a wide-open prime (and I'm "only" talking a 50/1.8).

So I did some research, and ended up shooting film with long-baselength RF cameras. Not only did it solve that set of problems, but the whole process has taught me a few other things as well. A lot of things.

But, in terms of sensor size on a compact digital camera, I must say I would still like to see (and, at a sensible price would buy) something like Mike Johnston's DMD. Hell, it wasn't much but even the earlier versions of Canon's G-series mid-size digicams had a sensor large enough to at least "suggest" selective use of DOF. These days, however, nobody who makes (digital, non-SLR) cameras seems to care...

...Mike

 

[Joe Mondello]

Interesting discussion.

But it isn't *really* photography unless you have your head under a cloth and have to make the exposure by removing and replacing the lens cap!

I'm being facetious but seriously, don't you think that the same discussion could have occurred 70 years ago when it became possible to use a film winder instead of sheet film holders?

;-)

 

[Kin Lau]

Thanks for the link, the calc on the page is a good tool.

Here we have another one of the interesting comparisons people like to keep using.

_Most_ 35mm film camera's are of the P&S AF, slow lenses, good-luck if you even know what it's focusing on and what aperture and shutter speed it's using variety, or the one-shot f8 or f5.6 wide'ish, not-focusable or zone focus variety.

That _decent_ 35mm camera is not how you would describe the vast majority of film cameras. Even most AF slr's were sold with slow zooms.

RFF is special in that most of us are photographers who are aware of our equipment, it's strengths and weaknesses. Without the knowlegeable photographer, the equipment is nothing.

Speaking of selective focus, one of my wife's favourite photos got the comment "but the background is not in focus" 🙄 from her parents.

So, here's something to add to to the "it's the equipment!" column. Most digital cameras are simply incapable of the type of selective focus and shallow depth of field offered by any decent 35mm camera. No amount of skill can overcome this, just as no amount of driving skill can make a Kia go as fast as a Ferrari. Yes, a good photographer can take excellent, award-winning photographs with almost any camera; but certain effects will just not be available.