These times

[Tim]

There's another issue with the digital media which hasn't been mentioned here yet.......
Let's use an example.....If I produced a bunch of old Lotus 1-2-3 files (a standard format) there'd be no problem reading them on a current PC, yes? But what if they were on a 5 1/4", or worse, an 8" floppy?
To me, the same applies to digital storage. Companies are already getting into trouble and having to spend serious money on converting data stored on one media to a more current one. There will be a time, probably not too far (10 years?) in the future, when CD's will probably be considered archaic, as all computers will have a "whatever" drive. Then it won't matter a toss whether programs can read your BMP/JPG/RAW/XXX file formats.
But - you get an old glass plate negative from the early 20th century, and not only is there a good chance that it's still in good condition, but you can view and print from it......even if you have to cobble together the gear to do it.

Again, not to say there's anything wrong with digital - it's just that this (the longevity and storage factor) is just never considered by the "Must Have It NOW" crowd.

Digital for short term convenience, Film for artistry and long term (IMHO)

Oh, and by the way, I write with a Cross Fountain Pen........



tim

(Voigtlander Bessa R2, Leica IIIf, Contax IIa, Olympus 35SP, Canon EOS 300D, Minolta Dimage Xt)

 

[hinius]

Now, I'm not against digital, and when I said that film would turn film users into artisans I referred to the care you must put in the exposure, due to the ethereal quality of the image and its meeting with the film emulsion. In other words, as Richard said above, the metering (whether in spots or not), the control you have over the exposure, and the fact that it's you who is deciding what to expose and what for to expose, and not a matrix meter.

Hi Solares,

Thanks for your welcome and counter-points. This is by far the most mature, rational and polite photography forum I've had the privilege to stumble across.

Regarding your statement using exposure as an example, surely the point you are making is one more of photographic discipline than medium? After all, with manual operation commonplace on most mid-range digital cameras these days, there's nothing stopping a digital photographer from following a workflow almost identical to yours. In fact, given the poor exposure latitude of digital cameras, one could argue that this would be an even more exacting process than film!

Leaving aside the technical aspects of exposure latitude / resolution / crop factor, and completely ignoring the issues of developing/processing photographs, I'd be curious to know if you'd ever contemplate using a digital camera (let's say, the upcoming Leica Digital M) that provided an identical interface and allowed you to follow the same "manual" photo-taking process that you currently use with your M3. The only difference (once again, excluding processing), would be that the images would be written to a CompactFlash card as opposed to, say, a roll of Tri-X.

Having played with and fallen in love with an Epson R1-D1 digital rangefinder (with its manual winder) while I was in Japan, I feel that the above-described hypothetical situation is arriving quicker than many of us anticipated. Indeed, there are rumours that Contax might announce a digital G2 or digital X-Pan at Photokina in a couple of weeks time. I for one, am eagerly anticipating such an announcement.

best regards,
Hin

PS. I find all your opinions and counter-points fascinating and enlightening. Like I said before, I've never used a film camera in my entire life, and I've only been taking photos for a bit more than a year.

 

[Peter]

Hi hinius,

Saw your work and I am very impressed with it, especially you have been shooting for only a year! What I feel is that different formats and mediums have their merits and there is no one perfect tool. From a consumer's point of view, he/she does not care whether the photo was made with medium format or a digital. But for most visual artists, the means is just as important as the end. Photography for me is an experience. Through photography I actually discover more of myself. It is more like a Zen excercise for me than just to make pretty photos. It is a discipline that makes me more in touch with my inner psyche. I find that I am able to achieve this state of mind when I am using a full manual RF and when I am practicing Iaido. The state of my mind is the same when I shoot with my camera and when practicing Iaido, there is no mind. Do take a look at my work in the members' gallery and I would be honoured if you could offer me some comments.

Regards,
Peter

 

[taffer]

# I work with computers and numbers five days a week. When I want to express my creative side I want to get away from LCD displays, plastic buttons - even batteries.

# as mentioned I like not having to rely upon batteries,

# when using a classic camera such as my Leica M3 I like holding and using something that is 40 years old and that could easily live for another 40...and doesn't need any firmware updates...

seems we share some brain cells Richard

 

[Pherdinand]

Your photos do stand on their own, Hin, don't worry I really like them, i think my quick favs are gravity, reservoir dogs and the lunch break-pic

As to the topic of the above discussion: fact is, today one still can get a fully manual camera new, if he really wants one. The only real objection I have against today's photo equipment is actually the way they sell them (read: push them down our throat). I refer to ads in PHOTO MAGAZINES (intended for photographers thus) that begin with "The camera that thinks for you."
Oh yes please, i'd like to buy such a wondercamera, maybe he can interpret my measurement results and write my thesis so i can browse the RFF in that time?

In the same time, i wish there was some more automation in the old camera my non-photographer parents and/or grandparents owned, so i'd have more well-made family snapshots from that time

 

[RML]

I'm perhaps a bit differently inclined than many others here. I don't really care what medium I use, though I know that different films and formats have their own merits and artistic capacities. What I dearly want is a medium that lets me capture my shots as I do now with film, but negates the need for hours and hours of scanning.

I'm completely in favour of digital media for this purpose, and I'm eagerly looking forward to the arrival of the Epson R-D1, the Leica digital M, or any other high quality digital RF camera. I just can't be bothered anymore with SLR's (either digital or film); they simply no longer appeal to me.

And the digital cameras that are available nowadays don't offer the ease of use I find in my Bessas, my CL or my M2....

I don't want a gazillion options built into my camera, of which I probably will use hardly 1% after the initial buyers' high.
I don't want fiddly buttons that are too small for my fingers or spaced too closely for any decent use.
I don't want to have to look at a tiny digi screen for focussing and framing.

All I want is a manual camera that uses a digital sensor as the recording medium. Simplicity is the key. But it seems that it's harder to design and build a manual, digital RF than it is to design and build an atomic bomb or send a telescope into space. Maybe we as RF users are just too demanding.

 

[taffer]

Welcome Hinius !! You have some great work in your gallery. It's amazing that you've been into 'serious' photography only for a year, keep 'em coming !

I think this thread reflects the wide range of options we photography lovers have available to create our images, and how we can debate about it with lots of POVs, all different but each one very interesting.

Btw Remy, this morning I've fallen asleep in the metro and had a vision of a Leica CL with a CCD instead of a film pressure plate, don't give up

 

[RML]

Btw Remy, this morning I've fallen asleep in the metro and had a vision of a Leica CL with a CCD instead of a film pressure plate, don't give up

Wouldn't that be nice! A digital CL or CLE... I'm already salivating a Pavlovian dog.

That whole idea of a digital film wasn't so bad after all. Just too bad it never materialised.

 

[oftheherd]

Well, it didn't give me and inelectable urge to run out and grab a rangefinder for my next sycophantic photo, but

"Not to run down digital; I realize it's a blessing for those who work against time, like journalists and scientists, but to pretend one system to be ineluctably better than another just because it's newer strikes me as sophomoric, sycophantic and dumb."

certainly sent my hidden sophomoric self scrambling for my dictionary, which I haven't had to do for oh, I don't know, at least two or three days. I felt so dumb.

The true teacher, always challenging and educating.

Thanks.

 

[GeneW]

Francisco, true to my Gemini nature, I DO use a fountain pen -- a nice Sheaffer -- AND a Palm with fold-out keyboard for notetaking. Guess that's why I shoot both film AND digital

Gene

 

[JohnL]

This seems to be a very active thread, so I thought I'd add my 2 cents (or maybe a little more): I have nothing against film, but I do believe it will slowly die out as digital technology advances and becomes able to handle more and more of the many different specialities within the field of photography. For me this has already happened. Here are some of the thoughts that went into this decision.

Of course, this is an individual thing …

Initial investment
For serious cameras at any given quality level, a digital body is much more expensive than a conventional body. The total difference, by the time you have accumlated a fair selection of lenses, is not really significant. There is also the question of computer gear. You can get by without it, but it really is needed to get the most out of digital photography. A large part of the civilized world already has a computer, so this is getting to be less of an issue. At the point-and-shoot level, camera costs are not so far apart.

Operating costs
Digital is cheaper: you don’t have to buy film or pay for processing. Nor do you have to take or send it to the lab, or collect it when ready. Individual prints still cost more for digital, but most serious digital photographers only make prints of their “keepers”, and therefore don’t have to pay for “one of each”.

Convenience
Digital wins hands down: at the time of taking the picture, you can see your results right away, and check that exposure and focus were OK. After, for those who like to do their own post-processing, digital is quicker and less messy. If you don’t, I’d say it’s a draw.

Control over results
Digital post-processing is more flexible and easier to control than traditional dark-room work. This is probably the one factor that has convinced me to switch to 100% digital since three or four years ago.

Quality of prints
The prints I can make on my mid-level ink-jet printer are far better than the average 4x6’s I used to get back from the lab. There is not much between them at the custom level – both traditional and digital prints can be outstanding.

Dynamic range
B&W neg is best (up to about 9 stops with normal processing), then colour neg (maybe 8 stops). Digital and colour slides are about equal, around 6 stops or so.

Speed of operation
The fastest camera to use is a manual rangefinder that has been correctly pre-set for exposure and focus, with the right lens as well. Next comes just about anything fully automatic, even with a zoom lens. After that (and very close in really expert hands) comes an MF rangefinder that has AE or has been correctly preset for exposure. After that real speed of operation is no longer available. This is not a film vs digital issue, except that there are no real digital RFs available yet.

The medium
Film offers many creative alternatives. Digital offers enormous flexibility in post-processing.

Maybe there are some other things, but I haven't thought of them yet ...

Best wishes to *** all ***

John

 

[SolaresLarrave]

hinius... your hypothetical question is tempting, and it'll force me to admit one thing: if I weren't as lazy as I can be, I'd be one of those foam-in-the-mouth digital shooters. It simply happens that I never took the time to even consider learning about digital because:

a) I was already a bit familiar with film photography when I re-started my hobby.

b) Gear prices were way beyond my reach.

Now, in response to your question... I may buy a digital camera for the sheer fun of shooting everyday situations, my own classroom activities, stuff to sell on eBay and to use it as a kind of Polaroid back. Now, if Leica came with an M rangefinder and the price were right... I may consider it very seriously. Why not? I got into medium format, I really fell for rangefinders and it all started when I took to shooting with a Canon SLR!

Oh! I switch fountain pens. My favorites are a Parker 45, a green lacquer-looking Waterman Phineas Fogg (extremely affordable and smooth) and a Parker Sonnet in silver (gift of my wife).

 

[RML]

I kindly have to disagree with your post, JohnL.

This seems to be a very active thread, so I thought I'd add my 2 cents (or maybe a little more): I have nothing against film, but I do believe it will slowly die out as digital technology advances and becomes able to handle more and more of the many different specialities within the field of photography.

No doubt film will be used less and less, but I doubt whether it will die out as you state. Even if it ends up as a niche product for artists and experimenters it will still have a market, like fountain pens.

There is also the question of computer gear. You can get by without it, but it really is needed to get the most out of digital photography. A large part of the civilized world already has a computer, so this is getting to be less of an issue.

In the developed world, yes, but move out of the developed world into the developing world and you'll be hard-pressed to find people with even a basic pc at home. Still most people in this world rely on internet cafés, even for writing a document in MS Word.


At the point-and-shoot level, camera costs are not so far apart.

This simply isn't true. A decent digital camera costs from 250 to 600 euros; SLR's are even more expensive. A decent film based camera can be had for less than 100 euros.

Digital is cheaper: you don’t have to buy film or pay for processing.

This isn't true either. I shoot tons of film on ayearly basis but still it would take me about a year to break even if I'd buy a digital SLR (the closest digital camera to offer the functionality I want). The R-D1 would take me 2 years to break even. And than we haven't yet talked about all the extras one needs for digital photography as flash cards, card reader, protable storage, etc.

Digital wins hands down: at the time of taking the picture, you can see your results right away, and check that exposure and focus were OK.

This true but I reckon for most RF users hardly a deciding matter.

After that real speed of operation is no longer available. This is not a film vs digital issue, except that there are no real digital RFs available yet.

Really? What happened to the Epson R-D1? That used to be a digital RF, right?

Even if focusing speed is not an issue, recording speed is. The lag time most digital cameras have, is atrocious.

Film offers many creative alternatives. Digital offers enormous flexibility in post-processing.

Most that can be done on/ with film can be done on/ with digital. I'm not a digi basher, far from it, but I'd like to keep some perspective. And most of the advantages that digital cameras claim to have over traditional film based cameras are not the functions and advantages I'm looking for. I don't want more, faster, better; I want the same as I already have but want a different medium. The R-D1 is the first digital camera that offers that, though at an enormous premium.

 

[oftheherd]

hinius... your hypothetical question is tempting, and it'll force me to admit one thing: if I weren't as lazy as I can be, I'd be one of those foam-in-the-mouth digital shooters. It simply happens that I never took the time to even consider learning about digital because:

a) I was already a bit familiar with film photography when I re-started my hobby.

b) Gear prices were way beyond my reach.

Now, in response to your question... I may buy a digital camera for the sheer fun of shooting everyday situations, my own classroom activities, stuff to sell on eBay and to use it as a kind of Polaroid back. Now, if Leica came with an M rangefinder and the price were right... I may consider it very seriously. Why not? I got into medium format, I really fell for rangefinders and it all started when I took to shooting with a Canon SLR!

Oh! I switch fountain pens. My favorites are a Parker 45, a green lacquer-looking Waterman Phineas Fogg (extremely affordable and smooth) and a Parker Sonnet in silver (gift of my wife).

For what it is worth, take a look at http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1020244&Sku=T24-3132 as a cheap way to get into digital.

It is 4 megapixel, that has both an lcd screen and a viewfinder (like the RF, for those dark shots), manual control of shutter speed and aperture if you want to (with histogram), P&S auto otherwise. It has a small but reasonably strong built in flash, and not so long a lag time between shutter press and exposure.

4 MP for $139 isn't bad. Especially for a P&S with some advanced features. If you do decide to get one, be sure to get another memory card. The standard 16 that comes with it is maybe OK as an emergency backup. I got the 512. If you don't have a card reader, there is also a USB cord to connect directly to your PC.

Also if you don't have one, consider a charger and the recommended rechargable batteries. I sent one back as non-working when really the only problem was that alkalines just won't work. By the way, Tigerdirect is very good about that. They had the replacement on the way while I was sending mine back.

And oh yes, you get a nice zoom Canon lens, just in case you have a preference towards Canon products.

(Now if they would just come out with an RF version to completely cut down on any lag time!)

 

[vladhed]

For what it is worth, take a look at http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1020244&Sku=T24-3132 as a cheap way to get into digital.

Hey that's my camera! Honestly for the $$ it's a great point and shoot camera - great for snaps of the family, vacation etc... and the fact that it has full manual control gives a lot of creative control.

That being said, my Nikon FE w/ 35-100 zoom is a better camera and takes better shots - it is ergonomically designed to be used on AE or manual - I don't have to look down to select some menu to compensate the exposure.

The Toshiba (and other cheap P&S digital cameras) has:
- less dynamic range (cronic highlights washed out)
- too much depth of field.
- controls are clumsy on any setting except full manual
- can't focus in the dark (there is manual focus but it's 2 menu levels down!!!).

but as long as you realize it has these limitations, and are willing to work within them, it's a great, fun camera to use.

 

[JohnL]

I kindly have to disagree with your post, JohnL.

This seems to be a very active thread, so I thought I'd add my 2 cents (or maybe a little more): I have nothing against film, but I do believe it will slowly die out as digital technology advances and becomes able to handle more and more of the many different specialities within the field of photography.

No doubt film will be used less and less, but I doubt whether it will die out as you state. Even if it ends up as a niche product for artists and experimenters it will still have a market, like fountain pens.

Maybe "die out" was a bit strong, but in terms of mainstream photography, which I was talking about, although I did not make that clear, I think it will shrink over time to an insignificant fraction of the total. That's what I meant. Of course, I could be wrong, and others may think differently.

Of course, as film volume drops, unit costs will rise, so that eventually the economics of digital will also become relatively more favorable than would result from their own fallings costs alone.

There is also the question of computer gear. You can get by without it, but it really is needed to get the most out of digital photography. A large part of the civilized world already has a computer, so this is getting to be less of an issue.

In the developed world, yes, but move out of the developed world into the developing world and you'll be hard-pressed to find people with even a basic pc at home. Still most people in this world rely on internet cafés, even for writing a document in MS Word.

Yes, there are some parts of the world still where computers are a rarity. Here in Brazil, rural areas and urban slums are still without PCs at home. They are still without cameras too, film or digital. The point I am trying to make is that PCs are almost as ubiquitous today as cameras are.


At the point-and-shoot level, camera costs are not so far apart.

This simply isn't true. A decent digital camera costs from 250 to 600 euros; SLR's are even more expensive. A decent film based camera can be had for less than 100 euros.

I am not very familiar with prices in Europe. However, in the US there are many simple digitals available for $250 or so, and even if you can get a decent film camera, however that may be defined, for $100, the difference is then only $150, which corresponds to what I said.

Digital is cheaper: you don’t have to buy film or pay for processing.

This isn't true either. I shoot tons of film on ayearly basis but still it would take me about a year to break even if I'd buy a digital SLR (the closest digital camera to offer the functionality I want). The R-D1 would take me 2 years to break even. And than we haven't yet talked about all the extras one needs for digital photography as flash cards, card reader, protable storage, etc.

I have not computed the time to breakeven, but you do recognize that you would, eventually. In this item I was referring to operating costs only. I looked at the Rd-1 and I don't think it represents value for money, for me at least. The extras you mention are part of the capital outlay, not the running costs, except they all depreciate, of course, which I recognize.

Digital wins hands down: at the time of taking the picture, you can see your results right away, and check that exposure and focus were OK.

This true but I reckon for most RF users hardly a deciding matter.

Not by itslef, I agree, but it is a consderation.

After that real speed of operation is no longer available. This is not a film vs digital issue, except that there are no real digital RFs available yet.

Really? What happened to the Epson R-D1? That used to be a digital RF, right?

Yes, but I don't yet know anyone who has one, nor have I seen any hands-on reports about it here on RFF, so if it is already out on the market, it hasn't made much of an impact since the initial flurry of interest. Additionally, it appears to be priced *very* high.

Even if focusing speed is not an issue, recording speed is. The lag time most digital cameras have, is atrocious.

Used to be true. Not any more. At considerably less than the RD-1 price level you can get a Canon 20D which can digest about 20 shots at some 5 fps before the buffer fills up. Shutter lag is still an issue, but this is more an AF / AE issue than a digital problem. I have a Canon 10D and using MF and manual exposure the shutter lag is not a problem. Actually its not really ever an issue. I'm not talking SLR vs RF, here, just film vs digital.

Film offers many creative alternatives. Digital offers enormous flexibility in post-processing.

Most that can be done on/ with film can be done on/ with digital. I'm not a digi basher, far from it, but I'd like to keep some perspective. And most of the advantages that digital cameras claim to have over traditional film based cameras are not the functions and advantages I'm looking for. I don't want more, faster, better; I want the same as I already have but want a different medium. The R-D1 is the first digital camera that offers that, though at an enormous premium. [/B]

Well, I said right off this was a very personal issue!.. Everyone makes their own choices. My main issue with the RD1, apaprt from its price, is the use of a small format sensor. Now one of the strong areas of an RF is the wide-angle end, at which many fine fast lenses are available in LTM and M bayonet. The RD1 has a crop factor of about 1.5 (don't remember the exact number) so your 25mm, for example, becomes a 40mm, and you need a 12mm to get down to about 20mm EFL. In the SLR market, it seems likely that demand will be sufficient for shorter lenses to be made available to cover only the smaller format. Indeed, Canon has announce a 10-22mm zoom for the new 20D, which translates into 16-35mm EFL or thereabouts. This does not look imminent in the RF world. More likely, Leica will come out with a full format sensor model in about a year and a half, but it will probably cost considerably more than even the RD1.

Thanks for your feedback. I do hope you can see my viewpoint, even if you don;t always agree with it!

Best regards, John

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I feel diferently than some here, I use a DSLR for a small portrait business my wife and I own. We use both digital and film, Fuji S2 Pro, Nikon f4s and a 'blad. The Fuji produces incredible color and resolution, allows my customers to see their proofs in minutes and allows me to "rush" an order (for an extra fee $$$$ ). I print all my own digital files on an Epson 2200 and I defy anyone to tell the difference between the prints. My customers are happy because the turnaround is faster than a "Wally World" portrait session with better results.
Yes it was expensive, the body originally cost about two thousand dollars, but I have made that much in one or two portrait sessions!
That being said I still use film for everything else, especially B/W as there is no digital comparison yet. The carbon ink sets for my printer are very close in some regards to matching B/W but are still cost prohibitive for me.
So for me it is a matter of which one is the correct tool for the job and fits my customers needs and my wants!
I do think the whole process of digital photography is "cold" and without feeling when compared to the romance of a classic camera, but it is here to stay. Have you noticed how easy it is to get supplies for digital photography? Paper, ink, flash cards, etc. You can go into any store, even "Wally World", and pick these things up now. Crazy!

Todd

Fuji S2 Pro:

 

[Kin Lau]

Funny how people keep dragging out the same old misinformation. There's open source software to read JPG's and just about every other picture format there is, including the Canon Raw format (not sure about Nikon). That means _anyone_ in the future can re-implement the software routines to read those files.

I gave a few digital prints of a friend's wedding to her on the weekend, and she didn't realize they weren't wet prints till she turned them over and saw the epson logo. I only have a Canon i860, _4_ colour home-office printer, not the "photo" model.

I love my film cameras, and enjoy the darkroom work also, but let's not blind ourselves to the facts. There's room for both, and many of us shoot film, and then scan anyhow, so digital advances benefit us also.

 

[taffer]

After reading the posts today, I downloaded some manuals on the Kodak DCS200. I have a dead one, at least a dead disk drive. Would be fun to get going again. I will need a parts donor for the Digital SP.

The fun part is knowing you may be able to do it ! Hey maybe not directly on the SP, but how 'bout a digital Canonet ??? There are enough ones out there to experiment with them...

 

[taffer]

One thing I love from negs/slides/prints is they are universal, you can instantly share them physically with anybody.

Some people even record their digital files on film to have a 'master' backup in case the electronic media is damaged. You can have mold, fungus or damage on some negs and still be able to clean and recover them or at least save some frames, if a CD or DVD goes wrong (happened to me) then that's all... Also, my experience is each cd reader/burner/media is a world.

I think each media has its advantages, digital seems a great tool for professionals who need the speed and inmediate digital output, but if photography is your hobby and you shoot for pure pleasure, then it has no sense to become obsessed with that.

It's like being on a Seat 600 club gathering driving your car and complain because it's slow and uncomfortable.

So, I shoot mainly B&W film because I like it, that's all