My DSLR takes great photos but....

[Leica Geek]

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 😛

I think you hit on what bugs me about the digital look. I really think some people are just really in love with technology and refuse to see that there's somethings film gives you that digital can't.

Digital is good for certain purposes, but I just cannot get over that there's only one Digital camera available with a full frame sensor. I think it's so lame that they just don't step up and make full sensors for all pro cameras. A Digital Rangefinder with a full frame sensor would be awesome.

Realistically, I have always been facinated with mechanical things more so than electronics. I can say with full confidence that my digital pics pale in comparison to my film pics. I think it's because of that "precise" look. That's super smooth look digital cameras give kills the life of the photo sometimes. It is like looking at a "Photo-Realistic Painting" vs. "John Singer Sargaent". One is dead and the other is still developing before yours eyes.

Leave something for the mind to fill in and you have an interactive piece of art, complete it and you've killed it.

 

[x-ray]

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 😛

I compare high res digital to large format film. I look at my 1DsII files as being the equivalent of an original piece of film the size of the image the file produces at 300 DPI. This might be hard to explain but the native size of the 1DsII (for illustrative purposes only) is roughly 11x17 at 300 DPI. I compare that files quality to an original chrome 11x17 in size. The tonality and textures are roughly comperable but the 47.5 meg 8 bit file of the MKII only has 47.5 megs of information unlike a sheet of 11x17 film which has much much more information depending on the scan size. Enlarge the digital file 600% and it falls apart because there's only 47.5 megs of actual information. Scan an 11x17 film 600% and you'll see very little difference compared to the original film. 600% is only a 6x9 print from a 35mm transparency or neg. Certainly you can reach a point with a film scan where the quality drops but it drops with smaller %'s of enlargement from a digital file. Taking a digital landscape with leaves on trees up 600% or even less and you'll start to see artifacts and srange green sea sponge looking blobs that once were leaves. Detail becomes plastic looking and the image falls apart under examination. On the other hand film just gets softer and shows more grain under extreme enlargements. This is one of the big disadvantages to digital. The fewer the pixels the less actual information. E.I. the M8 with 10mp. It might be sharp but information can not be added when resampleing to a larger size. The same is true of any digital file. I'm not picking on the M8, it's just a fact of life.

One of the real advantages of digital is the ability to shoot raw files and create your own "emulsion / developer combo". You are in controll of the look by adjusting raw curves prior to conversion to a tiff. The look of the final image can be whatever you want if you know how to handle the file. The posibilities exceed that of film / developer combinations. You can alter one color at a time or adjust contrast at any one of 255 points in curves for R,G or B or any combination. You can alter contrast, saturation, hue and on and on. This kind of controll is just not possible with film. With film curves can be altered such as cross processing but it more of a global effect rather than a selective alteration. Hope you get my point. This however goes way beyond the average digital shooter but the option is there if the shooter is willing to take the time to learn.

There are advantages to both film and digital and a smart photographer will understand them and use both tools to their best advantage.

 

[Kin Lau]

It's funny how shooting 35mm film has gotten us used to thinking that grain is natural.

What might be a better comparison instead of 4x5 film, is a polaroid. A 4x5 Polaroid (not the iso 3000 stuff anyhow) is also grainless, except a 1DsMII is more like a 11x17 polaroid with more DOF.

 

[x-ray]

It's funny how shooting 35mm film has gotten us used to thinking that grain is natural.

What might be a better comparison instead of 4x5 film, is a polaroid. A 4x5 Polaroid (not the iso 3000 stuff anyhow) is also grainless, except a 1DsMII is more like a 11x17 polaroid with more DOF.

Very good comparison.

 

[maitrestanley]

Oh digital definitely has the upper hand when shooting in RAW. However, this all still depends on whether the end user has the skills and knowledge to properly process the RAW image into an appealling photograph. For the most part, digital imaging is also optimized for colour and, in that respect, is excellent for the job.

One other reason I've shot with film so much is because 90%+ of my work is in BW and film is just better for the task. I did hear of one digital camera that was optimized for taking BW shots though..can't remember which camera that was.

 

[Leica Geek]

Oh digital definitely has the upper hand when shooting in RAW. However, this all still depends on whether the end user has the skills and knowledge to properly process the RAW image into an appealling photograph. For the most part, digital imaging is also optimized for colour and, in that respect, is excellent for the job.

One other reason I've shot with film so much is because 90%+ of my work is in BW and film is just better for the task. I did hear of one digital camera that was optimized for taking BW shots though..can't remember which camera that was.

Very well said. There are very few choice cameras that can capture digital images that are superior to film. The cameras that can are either too expensive or really big. The more affordable ones don't appeal to me at all. The nice thing about film is the choices of film and cameras of exceptional quality that can be purchased for far less. Let's not forget the monster computers and hard drive space needed to handle processing and storing digital images, that costs money too. The price to get started as a photographer these days is way too high and it really bugs me that amateur photographers are starting on digital and not really learning the roots of photography. People are way too over zealous when it comes to technology. I guess I prefer simplicity.

 

[maitrestanley]

Very well said. There are very few choice cameras that can capture digital images that are superior to film. The cameras that can are either too expensive or really big. The more affordable ones don't appeal to me at all. The nice thing about film is the choices of film and cameras of exceptional quality that can be purchased for far less. Let's not forget the monster computers and hard drive space needed to handle processing and storing digital images, that costs money too. The price to get started as a photographer these days is way too high and it really bugs me that amateur photographers are starting on digital and not really learning the roots of photography. People are way too over zealous when it comes to technology. I guess I prefer simplicity.

Most people these days start off photography with a digital point and shoot. When someone wants to become more serious with photography, I tell them to pick up a manual film camera with a light meter built in. This is so they are forced to learn the basics (And I really AM talking about basics: aperture/DOF, shutter speed, and focusing/camera handling). Most don't and their reason is that 1) it's complicated and 2) they don't want to pay for film (which is understandable considering digicams take 'free' pictures). It kind of sad because so many ppl simply buy an auto camera and they don't learn any the basics.

I have a friend that shoots with a Canon Rebel XT on 'auto' ALL THE TIME - I'm not even exagerating. She's never even tried out any of the other functions available. When asked why she doesn't use the other options, she replies that she doesn't know what they do or how to use them. Sad. Especially considering how basic they are. The reason why they don't understand the terms 'Aperture priorty' or 'Shutter (speed) prioty' is because they don't even know what "aperture" or "shutter speed" is in the first place.

Another thing that the general public doesn't take into consideration is the cost of digicams and replacements. My older sister (who is very careful w her possessions) bought her first digicam around 2.5 years ago (some HP one for $175+tax). Within 3 months, it accidentally falls to the ground in a club and bites the dust. She then buys a more expensive digicam - the Canon SD200 for around $300+tax. She figured that the higher cost means better build quality. Sure, the quality was better. It worked for about a year and some odd months before the screen cracks and the whole camera fails to turn on. She's now onto her third digicam, a Canon SD450. This one cost around $400+tax. How long will this one last?

I don't know but in under 3 years, my sister has spent around $1000 on digicams.

That's the same figure I spent on my M6 .. and my M6 came CLA'd within the year, as well. The difference, however, is that the M6 is going to last me decades, not years/months.

 

[x-ray]

Oh digital definitely has the upper hand when shooting in RAW. However, this all still depends on whether the end user has the skills and knowledge to properly process the RAW image into an appealling photograph. For the most part, digital imaging is also optimized for colour and, in that respect, is excellent for the job.

One other reason I've shot with film so much is because 90%+ of my work is in BW and film is just better for the task. I did hear of one digital camera that was optimized for taking BW shots though..can't remember which camera that was.

I wonder how may folks here are exceptional printers in the darkroom and how many send their film to the drug store? How many know raw conversion and print their own images to the highest quality with a properly profiles system? I'm not defending film or digital but don't see one having an advantage over the other. The final product is only as good as the person executing the process, film or digital.

 

[maitrestanley]

I wonder how may folks here are exceptional printers in the darkroom and how many send their film to the drug store? How many know raw conversion and print their own images to the highest quality with a properly profiles system? I'm not defending film or digital but don't see one having an advantage over the other. The final product is only as good as the person executing the process, film or digital.

Touché 😀

 

[Leica Geek]

I wonder too, but shooting digital and film are quite different these days especially with newbies. If you can shoot proficiently with a fully manual film camera, you'll get props from me.

 

[demian]

Furthermore, we are talking file sizes ranging anywhere from 4-40mb EACH image.

One requires separate hard-drives, top of the line system,etc. Talk about expense. It gets not only expensive, but absurd, boring, and lloses so much of that, well...

....Anyone see that interview with HCB on Charlie Rose? One can find it online doing a google search on CR's website.

He asks Bresson what makes a successful photo, etc? HCB gives that classic French perfume rubbing of forefinger with thumb under the nose, and says it has that flavor, that aire, etc...that, je ne se qua (I don't know what)

Those who have seen it will know instantly what I am referring to. It was one of his only (and final) interviews. I realize HCB is passe, but it illustrates my point...

My sentiments reflect the same as his and "xray" above.

Nice shots by the way. Thanks for sharing. Hope you are well. (You kindly provided much Biogon/Leica info. prior to the New Year should you remember. It was much appreciated.)


PS: FWIW, my wife has 2 new Canon DSLRs (5d and Rebel). Function normally, but Murphy's Laws always play a hand. Batteries always have been a nuisance...at least when I touch them

 

[ywenz]

it's about the PROCESS. For me, the prints are not what I strive for as the end result. Sure I want to have great photos. We all do. But the PROCESS of taking, making, creating a photo is just as important as the end print result. Sorry for getting so spiritual on you guys,,but my MP really opened my eyes. I SEE THE LIGHT!

Wow, we are so not on the same wavelength.. I definitely do no agree. Might as well go out there and shoot with an body with no film loaded.

I still shoot film because film gives me a look that is entirely different from digital. If my digital camera can emulate the look of film to a tee, then I'd have no use for the old antiquated film bodies.

 

[Leica Geek]

Wow, we are so not on the same wavelength.. I definitely do no agree. Might as well go out there and shoot with an body with no film loaded.

I still shoot film because film gives me a look that is entirely different from digital. If my digital camera can emulate the look of film to a tee, then I'd have no use for the old antiquated film bodies.

I totally agree. Also shooting with those antiquated film bodies feels great. Until the M8 there has not been a digital camera that is built like the old cameras. Film is simply more organic and digital seems too perfect and dead. I seen some nice digital imagery, but it always looks too damn perfect. Perfect is boring. I don't want to spend countless hours in front of the computer trying to make my images look like film, when all I have to do is shoot film. I might offend people here by saying this, but digital is boring. Shooting film is much more gratifying to me.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[jen729w]

You've pretty much described the new generation of shooter. Shoot digital, shoot a bunch of frames without any thought, take them to photoshop, see if there are any that can be saved with photoshop and rework one or two frames untill you have something you like.

One of the reasons I sold my digital gear was because I hated having to put in any "post-processing" time in Photoshop. I'm a photographer. I like taking photographs, with the camera. I like pressing that little button on the top and hearing the thing go "thunk" (or "barely-audible-click", as is now the case).

What I don't want to do is spend hours touching up colour curves and messing about with sharpening my L channel. That's graphic design. I'm not a graphic designer, and I don't want to be. I work all day with computers; the last thing I want to have to do with my spare time is spend more time in front of the damned thing.

 

[maitrestanley]

One of the reasons I sold my digital gear was because I hated having to put in any "post-processing" time in Photoshop. I'm a photographer. I like taking photographs, with the camera. I like pressing that little button on the top and hearing the thing go "thunk" (or "barely-audible-click", as is now the case).

What I don't want to do is spend hours touching up colour curves and messing about with sharpening my L channel. That's graphic design. I'm not a graphic designer, and I don't want to be. I work all day with computers; the last thing I want to have to do with my spare time is spend more time in front of the damned thing.

Here, here!

I also hate sitting in front of a computer with Photoshop open for hours on end. The worst must be noise removal -_____- omgwtfbbq. I cannot stress how terribly boring and utterly tedious the entire process is. I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT! (If I get a dSLR any time soon, it'll have to be a full framed Canon. Though I'd prefer a Nikon, the 1.5x sensor crop and poor high iso performance just kills it for me.)

On the other hand, I must admit that Photoshop has definitely eased the whole dodging/burning/contrast adjustments and made it a lot more precise. But, again, this precision is so synthetic and artificial that the entire process feels as dead as coffins.

I don't know. Film. Digital. Each has it's application..

 

[x-ray]

One of the reasons I sold my digital gear was because I hated having to put in any "post-processing" time in Photoshop. I'm a photographer. I like taking photographs, with the camera. I like pressing that little button on the top and hearing the thing go "thunk" (or "barely-audible-click", as is now the case).

What I don't want to do is spend hours touching up colour curves and messing about with sharpening my L channel. That's graphic design. I'm not a graphic designer, and I don't want to be. I work all day with computers; the last thing I want to have to do with my spare time is spend more time in front of the damned thing.

If you want to shoot digital you have your options just like you do with film. You can shoot JPG's and just send the uncorrected files to the lab and let the printing machines software do the rest or you can shoot film and send the film to the lab and let the printing machine do the rest. Second choice is shoot raw and do your own lab work on your files or go to the darkroom with your film and do your lab work. 6 of one or hald a dozen of the other. You can do the work or let the lab.

I don't love computer work either but it's the price you pay or should I say the client pays. I don't so the computer work for free, it's charged to the client just as if I sent the work to a lab and had film processed or printed. No free rides just because it's digital and no direct out of pocket costs. My time whether shooting or working files is worth $$$$$. Personal work is another thing. I shoot film for most personal and print in the darkroom.

 

[tedwhite]

I feel much as John does. Worse, in fact, as I am an older guy and am now convinced I will never become competent with Photoshop, so when I try to do something it's a career.

I only use my DSLR (Pentax) for commercial work. Surprisingly - and despite the 1.5x sensor - none of the images seem to need fiddling with, other than adjusting brightness/contrast or slightly moving the histogram. Most images are straightaway ready for printing. I only have Elements 5.0 anyway, and I have no desire to turn a photograph into something else (images on Photo.net come to mind).

As I have a very good darkroom it is quite easy for me to process film and make prints.

Ted

 

[Kin Lau]

If you shoot a DSLR like you shoot slide film, that is get it right the first time, you can even print straight out of the camera.

Otherwise, use the right Raw convertor, and little to no time needs to be spent in photoshop.

The RAW convertor in Elements 5.0 and also CaptureOne LE or PRO version are designed to be quick and fast w/o a lot of confusing options.

By comparison, if we get a bad batch from the lab, most of us don't have a film scanner to rescan the lot to fix and even investigate it.

 

[Pherdinand]

Frank - have yu noticed, that your avatar picture works in negative as well? 🙂)
sorry for the off topic.