S
Socke
Guest
Or this one?
Transition to digital ?
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 170
- Views 2K
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Interesting photos, they definitely weren't taken in George Bush's home state of Texas, which is where I live.:bang:
S
sfaust
Guest
Marc,
If running on manual with film gets you the shots you need, there is no reason you can't do the same with a high end digital SLR. When I machine gun anything, I run the digital cameras on fully manual as appropriate, and I get consistent excellent results.
Turn off the AF and run manual if you are having problems with it. There is a learning curve with AF since the sensors are not exactly where they show on the viewfinder. Thus, once you understand where they are, and how best to use them, you can get very consistent results with it. If you are not aware of the actual placement, it can run haywire on you. But luckily, there is manual focus!!
You can pre-set the auto white balance to whatever file type you would normally use (ie, daylight, tungsten, etc) If the conditions change on you, use a color correction filter just as you would on the film camera. Once you preset the color balance, it is extremely consistent. Its neat that you can look into the files and see the actual numerical values, as it does show the consistency in pre-set modes. I've never had a problem with inconsistent white balance on the S2, S1, D1x, or D100. I haven't really noticed on the consumer cameras, since I never looked closely. The S2 cameras get high praise from the wedding photographers who are deadly concerned with white balance and color casts due to the brides white dress. And they shoot in event situations with varied and mixed lighting.
If you are getting exposure errors, turn off AE. However, I've found the Nikon matrix meter to be so good, I use it all the time. However, I am acutely aware of whats going to fool the meter, and under those circumstances I adjust it as needed. But 95% of the time, I find it doing exactly what I would do manually, so I don't mind delegating that task at all, so I can concentrate on my subject and composition.
You use top level digital SLRs, so they are all able to run under complete manual control. You might want to try that, just as you would with your manual cameras. Then any issues will be you, and not the camera, and thats easier to fix than the other way around. Once the digital camera is under manual focus, manual exposure, manual color correction, etc, the sensor will act just like a piece of film would, and I can not understand how you wouldn't get consistently excellent results because you have completely eliminated all the issues you brought up.
But I also have a hard time thinking the digital camera is the problem since the majority of amateurs I've met are getting consistently better results than they ever did with film cameras. And they don't know photography. They don't know how to read a scene. They just point and shoot, and get nicely exposed images, balanced flash, etc. Even my mother improved 500% when se got a digital consumer camera. And they suck compared to a prof SLR.
If the opposite is happening, there is something wrong! Especially if you are using top quality digitals. I don't know of one professional I work with that has the issues you are running into. They all praise the speed, consistency, and accuracy of the top end stuff, and are delighted that most images need no post processing at all. The pros are changing in droves to digital, so I find it hard to believe such a picky bunch of people are moving in that direction if their consistency and results are diminished. Its their lively hood, and if they weren't getting better results, they wouldn't be going digital
Check out my Photo.net gallery.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=584167&include=all
90% of the images are digital. Few were processed other than to resize and compress for the web. A few were sharpened or levels adjusted, but most are direct from the camera, resized, compressed, and uploaded. Most of the stuff I do post process are B&Ws for conversion, toning, dodging and burning, and artistic reasons.
If running on manual with film gets you the shots you need, there is no reason you can't do the same with a high end digital SLR. When I machine gun anything, I run the digital cameras on fully manual as appropriate, and I get consistent excellent results.
Turn off the AF and run manual if you are having problems with it. There is a learning curve with AF since the sensors are not exactly where they show on the viewfinder. Thus, once you understand where they are, and how best to use them, you can get very consistent results with it. If you are not aware of the actual placement, it can run haywire on you. But luckily, there is manual focus!!
You can pre-set the auto white balance to whatever file type you would normally use (ie, daylight, tungsten, etc) If the conditions change on you, use a color correction filter just as you would on the film camera. Once you preset the color balance, it is extremely consistent. Its neat that you can look into the files and see the actual numerical values, as it does show the consistency in pre-set modes. I've never had a problem with inconsistent white balance on the S2, S1, D1x, or D100. I haven't really noticed on the consumer cameras, since I never looked closely. The S2 cameras get high praise from the wedding photographers who are deadly concerned with white balance and color casts due to the brides white dress. And they shoot in event situations with varied and mixed lighting.
If you are getting exposure errors, turn off AE. However, I've found the Nikon matrix meter to be so good, I use it all the time. However, I am acutely aware of whats going to fool the meter, and under those circumstances I adjust it as needed. But 95% of the time, I find it doing exactly what I would do manually, so I don't mind delegating that task at all, so I can concentrate on my subject and composition.
You use top level digital SLRs, so they are all able to run under complete manual control. You might want to try that, just as you would with your manual cameras. Then any issues will be you, and not the camera, and thats easier to fix than the other way around. Once the digital camera is under manual focus, manual exposure, manual color correction, etc, the sensor will act just like a piece of film would, and I can not understand how you wouldn't get consistently excellent results because you have completely eliminated all the issues you brought up.
But I also have a hard time thinking the digital camera is the problem since the majority of amateurs I've met are getting consistently better results than they ever did with film cameras. And they don't know photography. They don't know how to read a scene. They just point and shoot, and get nicely exposed images, balanced flash, etc. Even my mother improved 500% when se got a digital consumer camera. And they suck compared to a prof SLR.
If the opposite is happening, there is something wrong! Especially if you are using top quality digitals. I don't know of one professional I work with that has the issues you are running into. They all praise the speed, consistency, and accuracy of the top end stuff, and are delighted that most images need no post processing at all. The pros are changing in droves to digital, so I find it hard to believe such a picky bunch of people are moving in that direction if their consistency and results are diminished. Its their lively hood, and if they weren't getting better results, they wouldn't be going digital
Check out my Photo.net gallery.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=584167&include=all
90% of the images are digital. Few were processed other than to resize and compress for the web. A few were sharpened or levels adjusted, but most are direct from the camera, resized, compressed, and uploaded. Most of the stuff I do post process are B&Ws for conversion, toning, dodging and burning, and artistic reasons.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Socke - she has great breasts, but still it's the last one which I like most😉
peter_n
Veteran
Good point. I'm about to get a scanner so maybe I should have added a percentage for that. Up to now I've had my film scanned by a lab when I've needed it.oftheherd said:
Total agreement. There is no comparison. For those who are interested in archiving to CD, I recommend BurnQuick as a simple extension to the file Explorer in Windows that does a great job writing files to a CD. And since people are already finding some CDs unreadable after only a few years, only use Mitsui Gold CD-R disks for archival purposes.sfaust said:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I've migrated probably 90% to digital (Olympus C2020, then C4040, then Nikon D100, now supplemented by Epson R-D1.)
It's okay, but I often wish there were a way to migrate back.
As others have noted, moving up to a high-end camera gets you past a lot of the digicam nuisances such as shutter lag, slow AF, etc., so the shooting experience is not a problem.
And I like the convenient distribution: putting images on a web server so my friends and subjects can see them (eliminates the need for a lot of "courtesy prints"), being able to burn "slide shows" on a DVD and show them anywhere there's a TV, etc. Eventually I'll probably buy an iPod Photo and be able to carry around hundreds of slide shows in the space of a deck of cards. That'll be cool.
(Yes, you can do all this from film by scannning it; but if you shoot a lot - scanning gets very time-intensive.)
So why aren't I perfectly happy in the digital world? Simple: When I pull out my old b&w prints that I shot with a Canon VI-T and printed in my own darkroom, and compare them to my spiffy new prints shot with the D100 and printed on my state-of-the-art Epson printer... the new images just aren't as good. Not even close. They're OK as images and people like them. But they just don't have the aesthetic beauty of the old ones.
I'm very self-critical about my photos right after I've shot them, but after a year or so has gone by the picture loses the quality of "something I made" and starts to take on a life of its own. That's when I can start to see the difference between the good ones and the merely-OK ones. I've got framed black-and-white prints on practically every wall of my apartment. I've been looking at some of them every day for 20 years and never get tired of them. I have yet to make a digital image that makes that cut.
At this point somebody is probably saying, "Why not do both?" but that doesn't work for me. My theory is that you've got a certain commitment level to photography -- let's call it X -- and also a certain amount of time and creative energy that you're willing and able to devote to photography. If X fully utilizes that time and energy, you'll be satisfied.
So my problem is -- it may be bad math, but for me, devoting X/2 to digital and X/2 to film just doesn't add up to X. I don't feel like I'm fully committed.
So for now, I'm snapping busily away with my digital cameras and spending all the rest of my photography time in front of a computer, and people tell me they like the photos. And then I look up at the b&w prints on the wall and think, "Damn, I'm never going to be able to do anything that good again."
So if you're happy with your photography now and haven't yet gone digital, don't do it. You may find that you can't go home again, and it's a bummer.
It's okay, but I often wish there were a way to migrate back.
As others have noted, moving up to a high-end camera gets you past a lot of the digicam nuisances such as shutter lag, slow AF, etc., so the shooting experience is not a problem.
And I like the convenient distribution: putting images on a web server so my friends and subjects can see them (eliminates the need for a lot of "courtesy prints"), being able to burn "slide shows" on a DVD and show them anywhere there's a TV, etc. Eventually I'll probably buy an iPod Photo and be able to carry around hundreds of slide shows in the space of a deck of cards. That'll be cool.
(Yes, you can do all this from film by scannning it; but if you shoot a lot - scanning gets very time-intensive.)
So why aren't I perfectly happy in the digital world? Simple: When I pull out my old b&w prints that I shot with a Canon VI-T and printed in my own darkroom, and compare them to my spiffy new prints shot with the D100 and printed on my state-of-the-art Epson printer... the new images just aren't as good. Not even close. They're OK as images and people like them. But they just don't have the aesthetic beauty of the old ones.
I'm very self-critical about my photos right after I've shot them, but after a year or so has gone by the picture loses the quality of "something I made" and starts to take on a life of its own. That's when I can start to see the difference between the good ones and the merely-OK ones. I've got framed black-and-white prints on practically every wall of my apartment. I've been looking at some of them every day for 20 years and never get tired of them. I have yet to make a digital image that makes that cut.
At this point somebody is probably saying, "Why not do both?" but that doesn't work for me. My theory is that you've got a certain commitment level to photography -- let's call it X -- and also a certain amount of time and creative energy that you're willing and able to devote to photography. If X fully utilizes that time and energy, you'll be satisfied.
So my problem is -- it may be bad math, but for me, devoting X/2 to digital and X/2 to film just doesn't add up to X. I don't feel like I'm fully committed.
So for now, I'm snapping busily away with my digital cameras and spending all the rest of my photography time in front of a computer, and people tell me they like the photos. And then I look up at the b&w prints on the wall and think, "Damn, I'm never going to be able to do anything that good again."
So if you're happy with your photography now and haven't yet gone digital, don't do it. You may find that you can't go home again, and it's a bummer.
S
sfaust
Guest
peter_n said:
Good point Peter. There are some very cheap blank CD's on the market, with a poor lifespan. You get what you pay for. I hate how that works 🙂
(is there a pool on how long the breasts will stay online?)
JLW, I understand what you are saying. I have a medium format camera for shooting B&W (or even C41, and E6) that I'd like to blow up to anything over 11x14. I find the MF far exceeds anything I can do with 35mm (film or digital) so thats why I went that route. I wish I still had my 4x5, but I know I wouldn't use it as much as I would the MF equipment. So MF is a great compromise.
I guess I'm saying that I compare 35mm and MF prints like you are comparing 35mm flim and a digital. After shooing B&W in 4x5, MF is the only other option for me going down the format chain. So 35mm B&W is a moot point for me.
Once the printing process comes of age, I may dump the MF stuff and just shoot 35mm digital for color or B&W prints. But thats not going to be for a couple more years. B&W printing just isn't close yet, but it will be in the near future with all the advances they are making.
And for those that truely cant' make up either minds, just go all MF and shoot both with interchangable backs. You can then setup your shot, put on a 120 back with E6 film, then the back with B&W film, then the C41 film, and finally put on the digital back and grab a 25mp image. That is the ideal world in my opinion, and available today. Its just expensive, but its getting 30% cheaper each year. A used medium format back currently costs no more than the top level digital SLR's! In 3 years, it will be half that, and still take awesome images.
Hang on, the next 5-10 years will be very interesting!! I'm glad I don't own any stock in film companies. Nikon is evern considering dropping all their PS& film cameras. From 1.9million units to a total of 50K last year. Ouch!! Film SLR sales are declining as well, with digital SLR's climbing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Stephen - you better download it now🙂 you never know!
Solinar
Analog Preferred
"Why not do both?" In my case, I have to. The expectation at work is to have results within a couple of hours rather than a couple of days.
For personal use, I'll stick with a mechanical film camera from the 1950's for no other reason than I like the slow, comptemplative mode of a manual camera.
This doesn't mean with digital, that you can switch off your brain. With the above soccer ball shot, I would have switched off the auto-flash, opened the aperture, selected the fluorescent setting for the light balance and prepared for the ensuing slow shutter, hoping to catch the soccer ball as it was moving upward.
There is room for creativity in both media.
I have a darkroom and love the traditional look of B&W, but believe me some folks really do prerer the look of digital capture and digital printing.
For personal use, I'll stick with a mechanical film camera from the 1950's for no other reason than I like the slow, comptemplative mode of a manual camera.
This doesn't mean with digital, that you can switch off your brain. With the above soccer ball shot, I would have switched off the auto-flash, opened the aperture, selected the fluorescent setting for the light balance and prepared for the ensuing slow shutter, hoping to catch the soccer ball as it was moving upward.
There is room for creativity in both media.
I have a darkroom and love the traditional look of B&W, but believe me some folks really do prerer the look of digital capture and digital printing.
Last edited:
S
sfaust
Guest
I've got more breast shots that I already know what to do with. I don't need more. Models have to be the least timid people I know!
But then again, I don't hae any waving at me with a black fishnet shirt on 🙂
But then again, I don't hae any waving at me with a black fishnet shirt on 🙂
S
Socke
Guest
sfaust said:
Standing on a trailer towed by a 450HP Mercedes Truck in front of speakers powered by a 15,000 Watt PA playing a techno mix 🙂
And she is no modell.
S
sfaust
Guest
I was actually talking about models I work with, not so much in reference to your photo specifically. I didn't assume she was a model. I've had many of them just change right there between takes. Not timid at all. I guess it is efficient and quick, and some are used to modeling nude, so why not I guess.
S
Socke
Guest
Stephen, nudity is nothing special in germany, not to far from here is a lake with a nude only beach. The problem is, most nude don't look that, hm, pleasing 🙂
If the weather permits, you'll see barebreasted women sunbathing at the river. May be it's connected to the usual bad weather around here
If the weather permits, you'll see barebreasted women sunbathing at the river. May be it's connected to the usual bad weather around here
S
sfaust
Guest
I know. Been to Europe a few times, and its a common thing. I think it should be less of a deal here in the states, but society dictates whats acceptable. So we just save it for the movies!
But as you say, there is pleasing, and there is, well, not 🙂 I would not want to subject ANYONE to seeing me in a speedo !!!! Even my worst enemies!
But as you say, there is pleasing, and there is, well, not 🙂 I would not want to subject ANYONE to seeing me in a speedo !!!! Even my worst enemies!
R
Richard Black
Guest
I use Minolta Z2 for pictures to post to Ebay and for some grandkids' photos, but 98% of the time it is film. TriX, Ilford HP5 and some C-41 B&W in 35mm and mainly B&W in medium format with a small amount of color. Digital is fine but the storage problems concern me. I have pictures my mother took with a Brownie Hawkeye that are clear and sharp even after 50+ years. Digital is a necessity, it is not my passion.
S
Socke
Guest
Richard, digital storage is not a problem! Realy! Ask your bank how they store your account.
I have CD-Rs which are perfectly readable after 11 years and Kodak Color negatives which are falling apart after 5 years. The CD-Rs are high quality media and the Kodak negs developed in a mass production lab and a Kodak Minilab.
If one takes care with the choice of media and storage it will last a very long time and in 50 years it'll be easier to find a device to read old CDs than a light bulb for an enlarger. At least I can't find one for a 1957 Leitz projector today!
You can hook up a 1982 Comodore C64 "Datasette" or a cassetteplayer to your Windows XP PC's soundcard and read the files but how do you do that with your double 8 films?
I have CD-Rs which are perfectly readable after 11 years and Kodak Color negatives which are falling apart after 5 years. The CD-Rs are high quality media and the Kodak negs developed in a mass production lab and a Kodak Minilab.
If one takes care with the choice of media and storage it will last a very long time and in 50 years it'll be easier to find a device to read old CDs than a light bulb for an enlarger. At least I can't find one for a 1957 Leitz projector today!
You can hook up a 1982 Comodore C64 "Datasette" or a cassetteplayer to your Windows XP PC's soundcard and read the files but how do you do that with your double 8 films?
P
pukupi
Guest
I moved from digital to film with my first RF in December 2004. Before that, along with the usual offsite hard disk backup, my favourite digital shots were printed "just in case".
Now, all my film is scanned and stored digitally as I've spent so many years with Photoshop I prefer to work this way.
Now, all my film is scanned and stored digitally as I've spent so many years with Photoshop I prefer to work this way.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
sfaust
Guest
Photoshop is the best thing since sliced bread. The creativity is endless and far exceeds what a traditional darkroom offered. Its done for print work what digital effects have done for the cinema.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Still film only
Still film only
As long as digital outdoor B&W photos look as they do look I won't waste money for a consumer DSLR which is after 3 years nothing but a demonstration what innovation circles mean in digital technologies tho it has costed 3 times more than it's analog sister.
If I want blown out highlights and closed black shadows I can have the same effect with sloppily exposed C41 B&W film for much less money 🙂)
Emulsionly,
Bertram 😀
Still film only
As long as digital outdoor B&W photos look as they do look I won't waste money for a consumer DSLR which is after 3 years nothing but a demonstration what innovation circles mean in digital technologies tho it has costed 3 times more than it's analog sister.
If I want blown out highlights and closed black shadows I can have the same effect with sloppily exposed C41 B&W film for much less money 🙂)
Emulsionly,
Bertram 😀
W
wblanchard
Guest
I'm about 99% digital and 1% film. I'm just loving my Leica D2. I still have a Canon EOS 3 which is my backup for weddings. Once I start burning some film through my R3A I think the percentage will even out more.
Similar threads
