emasterphoto
Established
Appreciate the detailed reply. I'll try to address it as best as possible.
You seem to have misinterpreted my meaning, which may be partly my fault due to trying to keep it brief. When I was referring to being able to tailor my camera to my liking I was referring only to customization of the physical operating controls, not the output. This means things like the function mapping of buttons and dials, metering preferences and offset, AF preferences, bracketing setup and the like. In other words solely customizing the way I interact and work with the camera to take my photos. And while I can appreciate and often enjoy shooting with a simple camera, the fact of the matter is that using and understanding the complex technology in an advanced camera allows me to customize it in such a way that I can often work better and more efficiently. In other words, it makes it simpler, thus 'simplicty is often born from complexity'. That's all I meant and nothing more.
As for image quality, I shoot RAW and do all my own post-production on a calibrated workflow and with calibrated camera profiles. The only thing I expect of the camera is that it reasonably mimicks my typical output for preview purposes and the occasional times I'm required to use the .jpg engine. Otherwise, I don't fuss too much about in-camera output.
In this sense we are exactly alike, as I expect the same from my gear. I've shot my D3 for 4.5 years now and I can shoot it with my eyes shut basically. I know what it excels and also sucks at, and to me it's no more difficult to use than my K1000 or little Vito B. I mean, I don't know what your experience is, but modern pro level cameras are actually fairly stripped down. They trade the majority of automation found on consumer cameras for extreme ability to customize the interface, plus consistency, durability and reliability. In many ways, they're very old-fashioned in my opinion. Quite honestly, for the amount of control and consistency you seem to like, you'd probably feel fairly at home with one.
Not my cup of tea either, I'd rather watch paint dry. I do pay attention to it when a new camera is released in order to guage whether it may have problems or not, but otherwise, meh. I prefer to find some RAW samples and play with them on my own over anything else to determine if something meets my needs.
Here's where we differ it seems. Firstly, I do understand where you're coming from with this, but at the same time my question is, "So what?". There's nothing wrong with people who don't care about "photography" using whatever they like to take pictures, it's their prerogative. As pros and enthusiasts, sometimes I feel that many seem to forget that most people - the vast majority - aren't into image making per se, but simply want a means to record their lives and memories to share with others and enjoy again later in life. That's cool - it's a fine reason. And those folks will go for whatever they feel will allow them to do that at a level they're happy with. Some demand a higher level and buy expensive gear, and some use a cell phone. There's no arguing though, that the expensive gear will generally provide better results, even on full auto, so if someone is willing to spend the cash for that and can see the difference, then more power to them. Has no direct effect on you or me and our enjoyment of the art, although it could be argued that the constant demand and push for gear provides funding and motivation for R&D into better and more useful cameras, lenses, and accessories.
Besides, the consumer market is nothing new - not now or ever, it's always been like this. And the flood of photos is mainly due to the internet, otherwise they'd just be in shoeboxes under the bed like before. I can't view every single photo that exists anyway, and neither can you, so I selectively view what I think is worth my time and the rest of the dross floats on down the river without any effort required on my part.
Well, if you know what works for you, than that's the way you should go. Having never used an X-P1 I can't say how easy or difficult it is to use short of that from most reports it seems a fairly quirky, though capable, camera. If those quirks were what you were running into, then I can understand where you're frustration could come from.
My only real beef with your sentiments in general is that, and it may just be your tone, you come across as very condescending when discussing anything where full-on manual isn't a factor. In other words, it sounds like, "If a camera isn't full manual, or you don't shoot full manual only, or God forbid you might use a bit of some kind of automation when it suits your needs, you're not a 'true' photographer, or at least not a very skilled one." Maybe that's not your intent, but that's how it sounds. And if it is your intent, well then it's crap - manual anything in photography is just a tool in the tool box. It has pros and cons, and many times there are other, better methods, and other times not. It's not a badge of honor, a lifestyle, or anything else really. Understanding exposure and its creative aspects isn't rocket science, so once you get past the point where it's second-nature it doesn't matter what or how you shoot because the conceptual knowledge is there to guide you towards making the right decisions. It then just becomes a matter of choosing and learning the gear well enough to put that knowledge to purpose and nothing more, and learning gear is the easy part.
I agree with you about what makes images worthwhile, but the true harsh reality of technology in photography is that there is undeniably gear out there that will allow you to do things that you simply can't with other gear. And that's not a film vs. digital thing either - a 35mm negative will never approach the quality of an 8x10 negative, and my D200 physically can't shoot indoor soccer in crappy light while my D3 can. And no amount of mad skillz will change those facts. A skilled photog might be able to at least make something passible if forced to, but another photog with better gear and the knowledge to use it will win every time.
Maybe on an iPad not, but in a gallery print yes. Or maybe the photo only exists because the gear used was capable of taking it. It doesn't matter in either case because there is no excuse ever to not present your work to the best of your ability, regardless of the final output medium. Whether we like it or not, there is always going to be a leap of faith somewhere in the chain because it's impossible to micromanage every aspect of every shot put up for public cosumption. The only thing you can do is to put out your best effort and hope that others recognize it. A good photo is a good photo, and most people will usually know it when they see one.
I think we expect nothing less, so keep striving. And I also hope my comments are taken in the sense of well intentioned and meaningful discussion.
You seem to have misinterpreted my meaning, which may be partly my fault due to trying to keep it brief. When I was referring to being able to tailor my camera to my liking I was referring only to customization of the physical operating controls, not the output. This means things like the function mapping of buttons and dials, metering preferences and offset, AF preferences, bracketing setup and the like. In other words solely customizing the way I interact and work with the camera to take my photos. And while I can appreciate and often enjoy shooting with a simple camera, the fact of the matter is that using and understanding the complex technology in an advanced camera allows me to customize it in such a way that I can often work better and more efficiently. In other words, it makes it simpler, thus 'simplicty is often born from complexity'. That's all I meant and nothing more.
As for image quality, I shoot RAW and do all my own post-production on a calibrated workflow and with calibrated camera profiles. The only thing I expect of the camera is that it reasonably mimicks my typical output for preview purposes and the occasional times I'm required to use the .jpg engine. Otherwise, I don't fuss too much about in-camera output.
In this sense we are exactly alike, as I expect the same from my gear. I've shot my D3 for 4.5 years now and I can shoot it with my eyes shut basically. I know what it excels and also sucks at, and to me it's no more difficult to use than my K1000 or little Vito B. I mean, I don't know what your experience is, but modern pro level cameras are actually fairly stripped down. They trade the majority of automation found on consumer cameras for extreme ability to customize the interface, plus consistency, durability and reliability. In many ways, they're very old-fashioned in my opinion. Quite honestly, for the amount of control and consistency you seem to like, you'd probably feel fairly at home with one.
Not my cup of tea either, I'd rather watch paint dry. I do pay attention to it when a new camera is released in order to guage whether it may have problems or not, but otherwise, meh. I prefer to find some RAW samples and play with them on my own over anything else to determine if something meets my needs.
Here's where we differ it seems. Firstly, I do understand where you're coming from with this, but at the same time my question is, "So what?". There's nothing wrong with people who don't care about "photography" using whatever they like to take pictures, it's their prerogative. As pros and enthusiasts, sometimes I feel that many seem to forget that most people - the vast majority - aren't into image making per se, but simply want a means to record their lives and memories to share with others and enjoy again later in life. That's cool - it's a fine reason. And those folks will go for whatever they feel will allow them to do that at a level they're happy with. Some demand a higher level and buy expensive gear, and some use a cell phone. There's no arguing though, that the expensive gear will generally provide better results, even on full auto, so if someone is willing to spend the cash for that and can see the difference, then more power to them. Has no direct effect on you or me and our enjoyment of the art, although it could be argued that the constant demand and push for gear provides funding and motivation for R&D into better and more useful cameras, lenses, and accessories.
Besides, the consumer market is nothing new - not now or ever, it's always been like this. And the flood of photos is mainly due to the internet, otherwise they'd just be in shoeboxes under the bed like before. I can't view every single photo that exists anyway, and neither can you, so I selectively view what I think is worth my time and the rest of the dross floats on down the river without any effort required on my part.
Well, if you know what works for you, than that's the way you should go. Having never used an X-P1 I can't say how easy or difficult it is to use short of that from most reports it seems a fairly quirky, though capable, camera. If those quirks were what you were running into, then I can understand where you're frustration could come from.
My only real beef with your sentiments in general is that, and it may just be your tone, you come across as very condescending when discussing anything where full-on manual isn't a factor. In other words, it sounds like, "If a camera isn't full manual, or you don't shoot full manual only, or God forbid you might use a bit of some kind of automation when it suits your needs, you're not a 'true' photographer, or at least not a very skilled one." Maybe that's not your intent, but that's how it sounds. And if it is your intent, well then it's crap - manual anything in photography is just a tool in the tool box. It has pros and cons, and many times there are other, better methods, and other times not. It's not a badge of honor, a lifestyle, or anything else really. Understanding exposure and its creative aspects isn't rocket science, so once you get past the point where it's second-nature it doesn't matter what or how you shoot because the conceptual knowledge is there to guide you towards making the right decisions. It then just becomes a matter of choosing and learning the gear well enough to put that knowledge to purpose and nothing more, and learning gear is the easy part.
I agree with you about what makes images worthwhile, but the true harsh reality of technology in photography is that there is undeniably gear out there that will allow you to do things that you simply can't with other gear. And that's not a film vs. digital thing either - a 35mm negative will never approach the quality of an 8x10 negative, and my D200 physically can't shoot indoor soccer in crappy light while my D3 can. And no amount of mad skillz will change those facts. A skilled photog might be able to at least make something passible if forced to, but another photog with better gear and the knowledge to use it will win every time.
Maybe on an iPad not, but in a gallery print yes. Or maybe the photo only exists because the gear used was capable of taking it. It doesn't matter in either case because there is no excuse ever to not present your work to the best of your ability, regardless of the final output medium. Whether we like it or not, there is always going to be a leap of faith somewhere in the chain because it's impossible to micromanage every aspect of every shot put up for public cosumption. The only thing you can do is to put out your best effort and hope that others recognize it. A good photo is a good photo, and most people will usually know it when they see one.
I think we expect nothing less, so keep striving. And I also hope my comments are taken in the sense of well intentioned and meaningful discussion.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed reply. It is meaningful exchanges like this among relative strangers like us that allow for the web and forums like this to be such a powerful force for the sharing and shaping of ideas and thoughts.
Yes, I did, in fact misinterpret what you were addressing with the configurable controls, and I apologize if my tone came across as condescending as that wasn't my intent at all. It appears that we are, in fact, on the same page almost across the board on these issues. I am still of the mind that simpler at the onset is better, and I do get frustrated with the need to have so many controls for what, in essence, are fairly straight-forward operations: exposure and focus.
There is a market for everything and I'm not an anti-automation snob. But, I like my automation to be simple and just work out of the box (a very UN-Japanese view) which is becoming more and more difficult to find, and which is also driving photographers more and more into the realm of the green box on the shutter speed dial, and that's a shame.
So I guess my beef is this: I have paid my dues over the past 40 years. I know the technical theory, procedures, and operational details necessary to create an image. I have worked in just about every aspect of chemical photography post-production. In the past ten years, I have acquired a solid working knowledge of post-processing software and workflow. Why must I spend a significant amount of time learning how to configure my camera so that it works intuitively, and re-climb that learning curve every three or four years? I'm capable of doing it, I'm just not willing to do it any more, hence my return to Leicas.
(Mostly) manual bright line rangefinder cameras and primes are not a do-all end-all tool and they have some limitations; some of which are severe limitations... but I'm at the point that they'll do 98% of what I need to do, and frankly, knowing those limits well, I'm comfortable just passing on those few things that they don't do well in order NOT to have to begin climbing that learning curve yet again. I find with automated bodies that they have severe limits that I don't understand fully, and I can't live with that. Worse yet, each model has its own and different limitations... and it's usually in the programming where there's no way to anticipate what it's going to throw you.
That may sound like a cop-out or that I'm lazy, but the truth is that I've found I've better things to do with my time than learn to navigate yet another menu and control system, and still have the programming fail... I'd rather be confident in using my gear than trying to figure out how to use it and find it's failings as I go along.
Again, thanks for the very clearly presented and thoughtful post.
Aristophanes
Well-known
I just liked the excitement of opening the package of prints.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
The things I miss most are (in no particular order) -
Affordable film prices
Kodak Kodachrome
Kodak Tech Pan
Agfa APX 100
Ilfochrome
The Fuji GX 617
I mourn the passing of all the above but these losses do not mean that the film era is over.
There are still any number of emulsions that can be purchased today - that applies to chemistry and silver based printing paper, too. They just cost more than they used to.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
1,You can still buy cheap film, I buy 36exp Fujicolor for £1 each. Take into account inflation and film is cheaper now than it's ever been
2 Kodachrome has gone-correct.
3 There are newer sharper versions of Techpan (which was deleted in the last century) like Rollei ATP
4, APX 100 is still available.
5, Ilfochrome was re-branded Fuji/Konica depending on the timeframe.
6 A little look though shops suggests there may be some NOS 617 cameras–you should still be able to get one if you look.
Some emulsions are gone, but on the whole prices have remained remarkably stable over the last 10 years, 25 sheets of Ilford silver paper compares well even against inkjet of a similar weight!
Joe_Incognito
Newbie
I miss the ready availability of film, the days when one could walk into a convenience store and have a large selection of film to choose from, in a variety of speeds and formats. now, unless I go to a specialty photo shop, I'm relegated to Fuji general purpose 35mm film in either 200 or 400 ASA. It's not bad film per se, but I wish I could have more options without ordering it online or driving for an hour.
...I also miss (most recently) Kodak BW400CN. it was easy to get, convenient to process and cheaper than similar C41 black and whites ... OH!...and I miss Polaroid Roll film because it was fun
...I also miss (most recently) Kodak BW400CN. it was easy to get, convenient to process and cheaper than similar C41 black and whites ... OH!...and I miss Polaroid Roll film because it was fun
sepiareverb
genius and moron
When my stash of Single-Weight Adox MCC runs out about a year and a half from now I'll miss single-weight paper proofsheets the most. RC proofsheets are an abomination.
My film era ain't over.
My film era ain't over.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
The emulsions I am getting ready to buy are priced as follows at B&H -
Fuji Velvia 50 (E-6) 13536 - $11.69 USD/roll
Fuji Pro 400H (C-41) 13536 - $9.19 USD/roll
Kodak Tri-X (B&W) 13536 - $4.49 USD/roll
Not exactly what I'd call cheap, but I am relieved that they are still available...
Stdon
Established
Sorry but I really don't miss a thing about it. I specialize mainly in very hi speed motorsports though I do just about everything else from wedding, seniors, actor/model portfolios and events, bands in dimly lit clubs. My time spent with 35mm is pretty short maybe 15 years. I started as a youngster with LF and still do that but scan and print digitally. After getting that set up the way I like my B&W pigment prints are better than I could ever do with silver in the wet room and color is superior.
I don't shoot film but for the fun of getting the big cameras out. Now I finally get to use a little camera so that is for the fun of it as well.
I don't shoot film but for the fun of getting the big cameras out. Now I finally get to use a little camera so that is for the fun of it as well.
danimal16
Newbie
I like them both. RF film and digital.
But when push comes to shove it comes down to the photographer and his/her technical and artistic talent.
But when push comes to shove it comes down to the photographer and his/her technical and artistic talent.
justsayda
Member
While I've waxed lyrically about the "superiority" of both film and digital, I'm afraid that I'll miss little about film when I go back to being totally digital in (hopefully) the next few months.
As someone who doesn't have a lot of time or energy these days, I'd rather spend what quantities I have of both taking photographs rather than processing them, or waiting for them to be processed.
I'm not saying I like either one more than the other, it's just that, now digital is starting to equal if not surpass film quality (at least for 35mm / roll film), then convenience is now the main criteria, at least for me.
Photography is about taking photographs: digital allows me to take more photographs.
It's as simple as that.
As someone who doesn't have a lot of time or energy these days, I'd rather spend what quantities I have of both taking photographs rather than processing them, or waiting for them to be processed.
I'm not saying I like either one more than the other, it's just that, now digital is starting to equal if not surpass film quality (at least for 35mm / roll film), then convenience is now the main criteria, at least for me.
Photography is about taking photographs: digital allows me to take more photographs.
It's as simple as that.
Last edited:
Contarama
Well-known
I've always said learn the film camera and you will make better digital snaps...and it is also true that making snaps with a digital camera will improve one's film work. Yes, more photographs, that can help you make better photographs.
I don't miss anything about film...it was still around last time I checked.
Spanik
Well-known
While this is slowly degrading in a film-digital debate that wasn't intended, I do agree with the thread starter that digital camera's are what is keeping me from going digital. I really want a digital camera that looks feels and handles like an oldtime analog one. Shutter button, speed dial, iso setting, frame counter, bright reflex viewfinder and lenses with an aperture ring. No menu's please, no screen that you cannot read in the sun or is a hindrance in the dark, no modes, scenes or other things. And a battery that lasts a week.
This really isn't about the image, it's about feeling good while making images.
A Practika MTL3 with a digital back is fine for me.
This really isn't about the image, it's about feeling good while making images.
A Practika MTL3 with a digital back is fine for me.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Pro emulsions are more expensive overall than the amateur ones, the roll of E6 I shot this morning (made by Fuji) costs less than it did 30 years ago.
I don't know how the $ prices you quote work against late 1980's prices for say Tri-x it seems the retailer you choose is a RRP merchant rather than a cost effective solution.
In the UK I can buy Agfa Vista + for £1 five rolls of 400H in 120 is £20 you can buy 10 rolls of E6 for £40 and B&W Foma film for about £2.
At those prices film is so cheap compared to the cost of living. In 1988 I paid £2.99 for a roll of Gold 200 when petrol was 37p a litre now I pay £3.49 for the same Gold film and £1.45 for a litre of petrol.
Here a roll of Provia costs the same as a packet of cigarettes, I don't smoke but a co-worker of mine gets though the equivalent of 10 rolls of E6 a week in fags–I have more to show for my efforts.
Film is cheap, and compared to other goods getting cheaper...
rbsinto
Well-known
The Film Era isn't gone, and since I'm still very much in it, there is nothing for me to miss.
If it ever becomes impossible to either buy film or have it processed, then the Era of film will have passed, but it not, so it hasn't.
If it ever becomes impossible to either buy film or have it processed, then the Era of film will have passed, but it not, so it hasn't.