S
Socke
Guest
I never left film, I added digital. And fast depreciation is not an issue as I still use the D60 I bought used and I don't think it will stop working when the 30d is released sometime next year.
post-digital anyone?
- Thread starter wblanchard
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 2K
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
VinceC said:
Me stupid, I should have picked that one up! thanks Vince!
XAos
Well-known
Actually, I wasn't aware of that much detail about the model T and had you asked, I would have guessed it to have a manual transmission. BUT - it was analogy. Most cars here in the US you have an option for manual or automatic transmission. Even in this modern era, there are still a number of reasons someone might want a manual transmission. It's not seen as a luddite type thingy.
Right now most digitals are still in the auto everything no ifs ands or buts. Any color you want as long as it's black. Oh sure they may give you an Av, Tv, and M mode now on some inexpensive cameras but there are no digicams which are inexpensive, have Av, Tv, M and ALLOW (I'd be willing to live with require - but I dont expect that to happen) manual focusing, and take interchangable lenses. If they can ever put out one of those for $400 I'm in.
Right now most digitals are still in the auto everything no ifs ands or buts. Any color you want as long as it's black. Oh sure they may give you an Av, Tv, and M mode now on some inexpensive cameras but there are no digicams which are inexpensive, have Av, Tv, M and ALLOW (I'd be willing to live with require - but I dont expect that to happen) manual focusing, and take interchangable lenses. If they can ever put out one of those for $400 I'm in.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Just to add to the flavor and contrast of this discussion... I've switched entirely over to digital capture (particularly with the R-D1) and have no plans for going back to film. I have fond memories of film and the darkroom but this new medium provides a better workflow for me. At this point in the maturity of digital cameras, I'm not compromising manual control, ergonomics, sixe, etc. to be working this way. In 1999, when I began with digital, it was a different story, but much has changed.
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
Chuck A
Chuck A
wblanchard said:
I agree here completely. I sold my film stuff to get into digital and have since bought back some film stuff and am shooting more film. Digital is great for color work but I find film to be much more satidfying for B&W work. I find myself wanting to add grain to my digital B&W work 😉
VinceC
Veteran
OT:
With the Model T, you adjusted the gas with a hand-throttle, much like a modern gas-powered lawnmower. What we think of today as a gas pedal was a transmission pedal. You stomped it to the floor for low speed, low gear. You then took your foot completely off for a footloose cruising speed of 30-40 mph, depending on how you'd set the hand throttle. At least, I think that's how it worked. I've never driven one, but my older brother is an old-car buff, so when I was growing up, the only reading material in the house was often car magazines.
Back on Topic:
I agree completely about the lack of manual controls on digital cameras. I have a Canon G1 and my wife has a G2. For several years, we did all of our family-photo shooting with them, and my wife used the G1 and then the G2 for occassional newspaper work. These are fine point-and-shoot cameras than can produce professional-quality results in pinch. I even shoot them pretty much like a rangefinder, keeping the LCD swiveled closed and sighting through the smallish uncluttered unparallax-corrected viewfinder. But I learned photography 25 years ago, when manual cameras were the entry-level product and automation cost more. I never really warmed to automated cameras and preferred manual focus, manual-control models with no motor drive. Clearly the consumer market was moving in the opposite direction (they still dub motor-drive sounds in movies when you see a gaggle of would-be press photographers). The Canon G1 and G2 sort of have traditional camera ertonomics, but the controls are all different. You can't just reach for aperature and shutter speed.
It's annoying that there's no digital equivalent to the old Pentax K1000 or Nikon FM10 or other entry-level low-budget manual film cameras. If my lenses weren't all in the Nikon F and Nikon rangefinder system, I might be tempted by the Epson RD-1. But I'm no longer doing photojournalism, only family photos, so I can't justify the lofty boutique price.
Early this year, I did get annoyed at the shortcoming of the Canon digital point-and-shoot. I pulled my beat-up rangefinders out of the closet and shot a roll of the kids and rediscovered the joy of photography. I do scan the negs and use a digital darkroom, so I'm trying to use the best of both worlds.
With the Model T, you adjusted the gas with a hand-throttle, much like a modern gas-powered lawnmower. What we think of today as a gas pedal was a transmission pedal. You stomped it to the floor for low speed, low gear. You then took your foot completely off for a footloose cruising speed of 30-40 mph, depending on how you'd set the hand throttle. At least, I think that's how it worked. I've never driven one, but my older brother is an old-car buff, so when I was growing up, the only reading material in the house was often car magazines.
Back on Topic:
I agree completely about the lack of manual controls on digital cameras. I have a Canon G1 and my wife has a G2. For several years, we did all of our family-photo shooting with them, and my wife used the G1 and then the G2 for occassional newspaper work. These are fine point-and-shoot cameras than can produce professional-quality results in pinch. I even shoot them pretty much like a rangefinder, keeping the LCD swiveled closed and sighting through the smallish uncluttered unparallax-corrected viewfinder. But I learned photography 25 years ago, when manual cameras were the entry-level product and automation cost more. I never really warmed to automated cameras and preferred manual focus, manual-control models with no motor drive. Clearly the consumer market was moving in the opposite direction (they still dub motor-drive sounds in movies when you see a gaggle of would-be press photographers). The Canon G1 and G2 sort of have traditional camera ertonomics, but the controls are all different. You can't just reach for aperature and shutter speed.
It's annoying that there's no digital equivalent to the old Pentax K1000 or Nikon FM10 or other entry-level low-budget manual film cameras. If my lenses weren't all in the Nikon F and Nikon rangefinder system, I might be tempted by the Epson RD-1. But I'm no longer doing photojournalism, only family photos, so I can't justify the lofty boutique price.
Early this year, I did get annoyed at the shortcoming of the Canon digital point-and-shoot. I pulled my beat-up rangefinders out of the closet and shot a roll of the kids and rediscovered the joy of photography. I do scan the negs and use a digital darkroom, so I'm trying to use the best of both worlds.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Manolo Gozales said:
From reasons of costs and productivity for most pros there is no choice. They simply weren't competitive.
For most of them there isn't a choice any longer , but not for all. It depends on their personal business, as I was said for some magazine work still film is used, even 4X5. But that is a tiny niche now.
Anyway, most of us are no pros. Nonetheless it's getting all mixed up again and again in forum discussion and maybe this is one of the reasons why digital /analog discussions always get very emotional after a while and end with tears and / or bloody noses so often.
One should keep that properly separated. If amateurs defend their digital invests then they should use amateur arguments, not pro arguments.
If an amateur tells me I am too lazy for darkroom or scanning I say o.k. , no good reason , but at least a reason one can respect 🙂
If an amateur tells me he saves 400 rolls of film now and thus the system pays itself i say o.k., tell THAT your barber, he cannot run away and must stay polite. 😀
Leaving aside that for an amateur it is no argument to use a system just because it pays itself.Does the rest not count at all ?
We had this pro-mania attitude of amateur photogs already in former threads. For me a kinda mystery, personally I am glad that I do not have to sell my photos.
Is it the glory of some great names which makes so many amateurs wanting to be and to look like a professional ? With the 120 pocket vest and the
f 0.95 /15-1000mm zoom ?
If they really would know a bit about the world of the pros they would be happy to amateurs.
Many pros are lousy photogs btw, pro is not a stamp of quality at all.
Best wishes for the new business. As far as quality is concerned you pics are more professional than many pro fotos , I really hpe hope you can sell your work successfully !
Bertam
VinceC
Veteran
Bertam,
I agree that professional photographers often have no edge in quality but are under a lot of time stress that requires them to shoot digital.
FYI, Here's an interesting quote in Photo District News about the currently widely circulated Reuters photograph of President Bush writing a note during a UN session in which he said he needs a bathroom break:
"The photo, which quickly became fodder for blogs and e-mails among friends, was taken by Rick Wilking, a contract photographer based in Denver who recently covered the flooding in New Orleans. [Gary] Hershorn, Reuters' news editor for pictures for the Americas, says he's responsible for zooming in on the note and deciding to transmit the photo to Reuters clients. He says Wilking didn't know what the note said when he shot the picture.
"'I'm so adamant that Rick has nothing to do with this. He was just the guy who pushed the button,' Hershorn says."
Full article
In this case, you have the photo editor describing the professional photographer as "just the guy who pushed the button."
How's that for creative control of your work?
I agree that professional photographers often have no edge in quality but are under a lot of time stress that requires them to shoot digital.
FYI, Here's an interesting quote in Photo District News about the currently widely circulated Reuters photograph of President Bush writing a note during a UN session in which he said he needs a bathroom break:
"The photo, which quickly became fodder for blogs and e-mails among friends, was taken by Rick Wilking, a contract photographer based in Denver who recently covered the flooding in New Orleans. [Gary] Hershorn, Reuters' news editor for pictures for the Americas, says he's responsible for zooming in on the note and deciding to transmit the photo to Reuters clients. He says Wilking didn't know what the note said when he shot the picture.
"'I'm so adamant that Rick has nothing to do with this. He was just the guy who pushed the button,' Hershorn says."
Full article
In this case, you have the photo editor describing the professional photographer as "just the guy who pushed the button."
How's that for creative control of your work?
Sonnar Brian
Established
I use the two D1x's at work, for documentation in the lab and creating reports. I have two Nikon F3HP's that straddle the 2M SN mark. They have not seen much use. The E3 would be easier to use as it works with the SB29 ringlight. But that is my "home" digital, along with a D1, Kodak DCS200ir, and Kodak DCS420c. All of these offer full manual, the D1 is plenty for shooting JPEG's for Mom when she visits. They all use my Manual Nikkor lenses.
At home, I primarily shoot film. I do not scan as much, if I need a digital image I grab the D1 or E3. If I want to play with IR and Monochrome, the DCS200IR is the choice.
At home, I primarily shoot film. I do not scan as much, if I need a digital image I grab the D1 or E3. If I want to play with IR and Monochrome, the DCS200IR is the choice.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I may have to turn into digital... when my lab stops developing E-6 film. However... it's not the only escape route. There's always the mail-order route! 🙂
However, I must admit that my relative fascination with digital resides in that I like playing with new toys. Like Doug K., new gizmos appeal to me in such a way I feel like I gotta have them.
Now, the only thing that scares me about digital is the amount of time I may have to spend in front of a computer. While I don't do much scanning nowadays (and I find it frustrating sometimes because I don't know how to do it and I know it's not the gear's fault), I am not quite crazy about NOT doing it and syphoning images from the camera into my computer. Why? Again, time.
Plus, I like to look at my slides and, sometimes, project them.
But then, the world is pushing me that way... Can we make it so that amateur shutterbugs don't feel the "need" to go digital?
However, I must admit that my relative fascination with digital resides in that I like playing with new toys. Like Doug K., new gizmos appeal to me in such a way I feel like I gotta have them.
Now, the only thing that scares me about digital is the amount of time I may have to spend in front of a computer. While I don't do much scanning nowadays (and I find it frustrating sometimes because I don't know how to do it and I know it's not the gear's fault), I am not quite crazy about NOT doing it and syphoning images from the camera into my computer. Why? Again, time.
Plus, I like to look at my slides and, sometimes, project them.
But then, the world is pushing me that way... Can we make it so that amateur shutterbugs don't feel the "need" to go digital?
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Well...just for the record...
1. Both the R-D1 and Digilux 2 have manual controls in (mostly) the usual places. Most DSLRs are fairly easy to use in full manual mode. Small-sensor compact cameras have some limitations that some of the more expensive cameras do not.
2. Not all professional photographers do mediocre work. There's a mixture of good, bad and adequate.
Sean
1. Both the R-D1 and Digilux 2 have manual controls in (mostly) the usual places. Most DSLRs are fairly easy to use in full manual mode. Small-sensor compact cameras have some limitations that some of the more expensive cameras do not.
2. Not all professional photographers do mediocre work. There's a mixture of good, bad and adequate.
Sean
VinceC
Veteran
Actually, I do use the Canon G1 quite a bit for note-taking in my work. When I'm presented with briefing slides, I snap away at any of the important images and so don't have to track down a copy of the presentation afterwards. Also, it's saved me more than once when my laptop locked up while I was working on a story or report ... I snapped a shot of the screen before rebooting and losing all the work.
I've thought about getting an outdated professional SLR like a D1 to take advantage of my SLR lenses. But I haven't made the leap yet.
For awhile, about five years ago, I held out hope that someone would develop a digital insert the size of a film casette with the film leader sticking out that would transform any camera into a digital capturing device. I've come to realize that, while this may be technically feasible, there simply isn't enough market to justify its R&D.
I've thought about getting an outdated professional SLR like a D1 to take advantage of my SLR lenses. But I haven't made the leap yet.
For awhile, about five years ago, I held out hope that someone would develop a digital insert the size of a film casette with the film leader sticking out that would transform any camera into a digital capturing device. I've come to realize that, while this may be technically feasible, there simply isn't enough market to justify its R&D.
Sonnar Brian
Established
You mean this concept:
http://www.edigitalphoto.com/accessories/0006edp_silicons/
I think the battery problem killed them.
http://www.edigitalphoto.com/accessories/0006edp_silicons/
I think the battery problem killed them.
VinceC
Veteran
I think some of the frustration is that you have to go fairly high end to get manual controls.
However, to put things in perspective, when the all-mechanical film cameras from the 1950s and 60s were new, they were very, very pricey. After inflation, they cost the equivalent of one of today's high-end digital SLRs or an RD-1.
However, to put things in perspective, when the all-mechanical film cameras from the 1950s and 60s were new, they were very, very pricey. After inflation, they cost the equivalent of one of today's high-end digital SLRs or an RD-1.
VinceC
Veteran
>>You mean this concept:
http://www.edigitalphoto.com/access...06edp_silicons/
I think the battery problem killed them.<<
Yup. Woulda been grand, if it had worked.
I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, someone like Cosina-Voigtlaender made a cottage niche industry out of creating digital backs for some classic cameras. Unfortunately, the affordability of components is probably five or more years off, and the biggest market -- Leica -- would be challenged by the bottom-loading cast bodies that don't lend themselves to new backs the way a Nikon or Contax RF would.
http://www.edigitalphoto.com/access...06edp_silicons/
I think the battery problem killed them.<<
Yup. Woulda been grand, if it had worked.
I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, someone like Cosina-Voigtlaender made a cottage niche industry out of creating digital backs for some classic cameras. Unfortunately, the affordability of components is probably five or more years off, and the biggest market -- Leica -- would be challenged by the bottom-loading cast bodies that don't lend themselves to new backs the way a Nikon or Contax RF would.
XAos
Well-known
Well, while we're setting the record straight, the RD-1 is nowhere NEAR inexpensive. They said - hey rangefinders go for a lot of money, I think we can increase our profit margins selling to this niche of wackos. IMO they took all the wrong lessons from it. It will die soon enough, because big iron PC product makers don't understand the tens of thousand units market.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Digital for colour, film for b&w, med fmt & lrg fmt. I'll probably spring for some E6 film in med and maybe even lrg fmt with the fall colours coming.
99% of my pics are crap anyhow, so I don't do hours of wet/chemical or digital photoshop work. If I can't fix it in 1 min in PS, I forget about it. That applies to digi shots or scans.
99% of my pics are crap anyhow, so I don't do hours of wet/chemical or digital photoshop work. If I can't fix it in 1 min in PS, I forget about it. That applies to digi shots or scans.
wintoid
Back to film
4 or 5 years ago my interest in photography was sparked by the Canon G1, which lead me on to the 300d and 20d SLRs. I have my 20d and absolutely love it, its lenses, and the sheer quality it can produce.
My quest for a really nice smaller camera was much harder though. I've ended up with the Hexar AF because there isn't a camera as good as this that is digital (for my personal purposes). I'm very very happy with the Hexar and haven't touched the 20d for a while, but I WILL go back to it. I loathe scanning the film, but somehow Tri-X has the magic ingredient for me.
My quest for a really nice smaller camera was much harder though. I've ended up with the Hexar AF because there isn't a camera as good as this that is digital (for my personal purposes). I'm very very happy with the Hexar and haven't touched the 20d for a while, but I WILL go back to it. I loathe scanning the film, but somehow Tri-X has the magic ingredient for me.
julianphotoart
No likey digital-phooey
Not post-digital, not pre-digital, not ever digital. Neopan 100, Astia, Ilford paper and Cibachrome. All nice and wet, smelly, full of chemicals, and magic. "Photography" and "Digital Image Capture" (DICk for short) are different things. But seriously, Bruce Birnbaum in last month's Photo Techniques had a wonderful editorial about why he is, and will be, a film guy.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Socke said:
Your post describes where I am. I have replaced color print film with digital, currently a Sony V3. Nice camera. It looks kind of like a rangefinder.
I also shoot slide film with my Canon A-1s, and Black & White print films with my rangefinders. Usually Ilford XP2 with a Leica CL, but also use other film and cameras as the mood strikes me.
Similar threads
