My DSLR takes great photos but....

Well I heard something interesting about archiving digital images....they put them on film for archival purposes. So what we really need is a way to print to slide or negative from a digital camera, or I guess we could shoot film to start with? Each tool has it's purpose, each artist makes a choice. I'd love to afford a M8, that's the only way I'd enjoy shooting digital. More digital rangefinders please.
 
Last edited:
Leica Geek said:
Well I heard something interesting about archiving digital images....they put them on film for archival purposes. So what we really need is a way to print to slide or negative from a digital camera, or I guess we could shoot film to start with? Each tool has it's purpose, each artist makes a choice. I'd love to afford a M8, that's the only way I'd enjoy shooting digital. More digital rangefinders please.
Click to expand...

Nothing new, it's called a film recorder and many labs offer the service. I've taken some of my favorite vintage images that require retouching, made high res scans, retouched and ftp'd the files to the lab for a 4x5 B&W custom neg. This can be done from original digital files or scans in B&W or color from 35mm to 8x10 film as the final output. The results are excellent.

If you want to go to the toruble film recorders are cheap on the used market.
 
Ben Z said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are not posing a fair comparison (underlined above). To compare the transitions, you must compare going from film to digital (lower tech to higher tech) with going from paint to film (also low tech to high tech). Only now would the comparison be fairer. (I still don't think the comparison should be made but if one must..)


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

Well, this forum is evidence that they haven't taken over enthusiasts like us :D



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.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'm switching to digital RIGHT AWAY because I REALLY, REALLY, REAAALLLLY want to lug all that gear around.


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.
Click to expand...

I've been saying all along that there is no argument because film cannot be directly compared to digital because they are different mediums.....

BTW, that example was entirely HYPOTHETICAL.
 
Joe Mondello said:
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!
Click to expand...
You can practice the old ways in this digital era. For my DSLR night shots, I control exposure with a lens cap. This after taping down the shutter button! I can't stand all the dials and menu buttons to get mirror pre-fire and shutter speed configured - in the dark. I don't need an electronic circuit to count to ten for me. :)
 
I don't own a DSLR, due to poverty, not film snobbery. But one of my main complaints about the digitals I do own is battery life. And not just the number of shots, but battery readiness. I can't just leave my digital on the shelf and consider it "ready to shoot." I have to keep a battery on the charger, and be ready to swap it out, and make sure to always have a backup. My film cameras, even the ones that make heavy use of battery power, like my Olympus IS-1, go forever. I also keep an old Canon AF35M around and in my car for unexpected photo opportunities, and never have a battery problem.

But, I'm really not trying to just whine. I have a question: If you have a newer DSLR, how is the battery life and readiness factor? I plan on buying one, but I don't want to get frustrated over such things. What's your experience?
 
The only DSLR's I'm up on are the Canons since I use them. When I first went digital in the studio 7 years ago I used Nikon D1 bodies. During an average shooting day I would go through 5-6 batteries. The D1x improved on this and cut it to around 3-4 batteries. Then I went 1D and 1Ds Canons and I would use 3 on an average day. Now with the 1DsII I rarely use more than one and rarely get into the second. Batterues hold thir charge very well and charge in about a half hour or so. I also have a 20D for vactaions and smaller files and only have to charge them about once every few weeks. I rarely use it but it's always ready.
 
I started on dslr, which I think taught me the basics a lot quicker and a lot cheaper than if I had started on film. Until recently I had never shot film and began thinking their was something missing from my super sharp, silky smooth photo's. Charachter! I have just recently bought myself a Mamiya 6 and all I can say is wow! Yes there is grain/noise compared to a digital, but the photo's stand off the page, have unbelievable range of colour, and black and white has so much more tonal graduations that it makes all my digital B&W conversions look flat.

I will never be without my dslr though because thats my camera that earns me my rent. When I am shooting in a dark music club, thats the camera I know I can bring and shoot and shoot and shoot to ensure I get the shot. But when it comes to my own work, it will be film from now on all the way!
 
I think jaffa brings up a good point: the quality of digital black and white photos.

I've only shot with digital point and shoots and those fake slr's (with the fixed super-zoom lens) so the quality probably isn't as great as a pro-dSLR. The black and white conversions I make in photoshop just don't contain the same quality as a traditional film negative. They look all plasticy and fake, and I also often have to add a little bit of noise/grain to make it look somewhat realistic.

Oh yeah, another thing: grain is beautiful but noise can be downright ugly.

What do the pro-dSLR user's here think about using digital for BW photos?
 
On batteries: I have a Pentax istDS. It will take either 4 regular AA or rechargeable AA batteries. The rechargeable batteries are done after a day or two. I've never used regular AA batteries. They'd probably last longer.

However, I switched to those batteries that look like two AA batteries glued togeter (don't know the part number as the camera is down at the studio).


They last for months.

Ted
 
darrylasher said:
But, I'm really not trying to just whine. I have a question: If you have a newer DSLR, how is the battery life and readiness factor? I plan on buying one, but I don't want to get frustrated over such things. What's your experience?
Click to expand...

With our 20D & 350D, I've had batteries in them for over 1 month and have gone over 500 shots on 1 battery.

My wife uses the on/off switch on her 350D, but I don't even bother. Both cameras are "instant-on", just touch the shutter-release and it's live in .5 sec. It usually takes me longer to remove the lenscap.
 
maitrestanley said:
Oh yeah, another thing: grain is beautiful but noise can be downright ugly.

What do the pro-dSLR user's here think about using digital for BW photos?
Click to expand...

The following 2 shots were done in high-iso and converted to B&W.

300D - 1600iso
EHK_fences.jpg


350D - 800iso (I think... might be 1600)
EHK_Snowy_650.jpg


There was a thread about ISO5000 in B&W using dslrs on Nelsonfoto here.
 
One additional image. I don't remember the ISO these were shot at but just guessing without looking back i think they were 400 ISO. Shot in raw with no special tricks like noise added.

My current 1DsII is even cleaner than this and sharper.
 
Last edited:
You can practice the old ways in this digital era.

Hey cool! I wanna get one of those old posing chairs where you clamp the subject in so they can't move for a minute or 2! :)
 
Hey x-ray,

I see what you mean about the 'cleanliness' of a digital bw shot in your pics. The photos look ... precise. So precise that there is also has an artificial quality to it. It's a precision not found in a life, a precision fabricated by high technology.

One thing I really like about film is the character of each type of film and the results you can achieve through the careful selection of film. On top of that, different development chemicals/techniques can yield specific characteristic photos as well.

I like that.


BTW, have you seen that Epson printer ad with the grungy looking character with bad teeth? The quality of your first photo reminds me of that ad :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom