If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and
landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps $25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital photography... I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the occasional product shot or advertising shot but definitely not for what I have made a living doing for 43 years. I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement and a digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet. Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that, might also give me and edge! I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography. Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work was always with medium and large format cameras. I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge by a computer I can't program. I am fed up with the cost of digital photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot but sub machine guns never made an accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of rounds in the hope of hitting something too. I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He used a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the ****ty dynamic range of the camera. I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the subject, encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed them last night and all are in focus with just 3 throw away. The camera with 2 lenses cost $850(AUD) on EBay and the film + chemicals cost maybe $30(AUD). I can buy some fine lenses for this camera with the cash from selling my latest digital. I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery and ready to sell to print shops tomorrow. I couldn't do it any faster with digital and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin, blowing away the specula highlights. It's all over red rover. The digitals are simply not good enough for my work. This post is not about "is digital better or worse" it's about a decision I've been contemplating for some time. Maybe Australian sunlight and 40C daytime temperatures with Queensland's 27/7 humidity over 80% might affect the sensors and the results, maybe not. What I do know is my most popular posters are all shot on film. Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras as opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered by a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my investment. -- Having climaxed... She turned on her mate and began to devour him. Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
"random user 12987" wrote in message
... The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps $25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital photography... I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the occasional product shot or advertising shot but definitely not for what I have made a living doing for 43 years. Wow - this is music to my ears. I'm fast reaching the same conclusion, though only after a measly 25 years or so of shooting, many of those years professionally. While I am predominantly shooting 35mm (Nikon) I only possess one DX lens (12-24) and increasingly these days the digi is staying in its bag and I'm recreating the love with Velvia and film in general. One of my favourite things is to take the old FG out with an old Nikkor 24 f/2.8 and the 50 f/1.4, a few rolls of Velvia 100 and a tripod. The other day I was doing this and some guy puffed out his chest and approached me, held his new Sony Cybershot X-something so it was obvious and asked me... wait for it... "How many megapixels mate??". Welcome to the new "photographic" consumer driving the new world photography machine. rant I would love to see more like you stand and begin something of a wave of awakenings to the *real* costs of digital - which IMHO go far beyond the processing time, gear costs etc. To me the digital world is taking photography away from photographers and into the fast-paced consumer world of electronics where there exists a hungry cycle of 'improvement', one which must be satisfied in order for manufacturers to remain alive. The focus in digital is on hi-tech features and easily quantifiable parameters (megapixels being the most obvious, data transfer rates, signal to noise ratios etc.) and away from the 'art' and technique elements of photography. These days I hardly hear talk of technique in tricky lighting conditions, how to frame awkward subjects, approaches to exposure etc. for all the noise of "how big can I print an 8Mp image", "which card is going to give me the best data transfer", "how do I Photoshop (the crap out of) this image", "how do I move the histogram to avoid blowing out the highlights" etc... Traditionally camera companies have had to exist in a very different consumer environment. True, digital has opened up photography to many more people - most of us these days are far more familiar with computers and emailing shots of the kiddies is a wonderful way to communicate with far-flung rellies and friends. Sadly, it appears to me that the whole photographic world is heading this way and forgetting that at the end of the day, a good photographer with a box camera will take better shots than Joe Wally with the latest D2X or 1Ds. This is the greater cost I'm referring to - the whole shift away from purposeful photography which requires photographic technique, practice and application. Already these changes have cost us - Minolta, Agfa, Blad (XPan), Nikon film gear etc. just as a start. I guess it all comes under the heading of progress but no longer is photography in the hands of photographers - it is the new breed of consumer who must have the latest thing and really knows nothing of, or cares little about good photography. Of course this is just my opinion and I feel the same way about elements of the 'music' world and other areas of creative pursuit where the big digital generator has to keep producing something new to keep the interest of its market. And if you think I'm just an old luddite, I have owned several small (and successful) software companies and have been working in the tech world in some capacity since the early 80s. :-) /rant So thanks for your contribution. I think you struck a nerve here and I really hope to see more of this. I implore amateur digital photographers to try something - try covering the display on the back of your cameras and really think about the shot and get away from the 'machine gun' approach (if that's what you do). Wait until you get home (back to the office) and feel the anticipation of seeing your shots (it is a good feeling, lost to the film world). I bet you see huge improvements in your results and experience an increase in your knowledge. It is composition and exposure that maketh a good shot - not megapixels dear friends. Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement and a digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet. Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that, might also give me and edge! I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography. Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work was always with medium and large format cameras. I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge by a computer I can't program. I am fed up with the cost of digital photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot but sub machine guns never made an accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of rounds in the hope of hitting something too. I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He used a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the ****ty dynamic range of the camera. I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the subject, encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed them last night and all are in focus with just 3 throw away. The camera with 2 lenses cost $850(AUD) on EBay and the film + chemicals cost maybe $30(AUD). I can buy some fine lenses for this camera with the cash from selling my latest digital. I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery and ready to sell to print shops tomorrow. I couldn't do it any faster with digital and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin, blowing away the specula highlights. It's all over red rover. The digitals are simply not good enough for my work. This post is not about "is digital better or worse" it's about a decision I've been contemplating for some time. Maybe Australian sunlight and 40C daytime temperatures with Queensland's 27/7 humidity over 80% might affect the sensors and the results, maybe not. What I do know is my most popular posters are all shot on film. Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras as opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered by a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my investment. -- Having climaxed... She turned on her mate and began to devour him. Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
"random user 12987" wrote in message
... I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge by a computer I can't program. huh? I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He used a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the ****ty dynamic range of the camera. Just because a poor photographer is using a digital camera doesn't mean digital is bad. If he was shooting film it would have cost a lot more in film for him to get that many crappy shots. So you prove a point - having expensive equipment doesn't make you a good photographer. Imagine what a waste a large format would be in this guy's hands. I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement and a digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet. Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that, might also give me and edge! For fine art there is no substitute for hand crafted enlargements. For a bunch of stupid wedding photos there is no substitute for churning the most photos with the least amount of work. The more they buy, the more they pay, the less work you have to do, the more you get paid per hour. g I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography. Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work was always with medium and large format cameras. Ah, an elitest. certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin, blowing away the specula highlights. Probably. Film will have this advantage for quite some time. Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras as opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered by a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my investment. Probably what people are missing is the fact that photography is about patience - art takes time. Digital plays into the "i want it now" mentality. -- Mark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com/gallery -- Having climaxed... She turned on her mate and began to devour him. Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
snip
Just to clarify - I'm not trying to suggest that digital has no place. Of course this is not true. For me, I'm really saying that digital has attracted a new en-masse consumer who is driving this industry in a direction that is not necessarily related to quality and art. Sad but probably inevitable. :-( Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
In article ,
Hell and High Water wrote: In article , says... I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge by a computer I can't program. You've taken the words completely out of my mouth. Well, I can program a computer and I think digital printing is great. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
So thanks for your contribution. I think you struck a nerve here and I
really hope to see more of this. I implore amateur digital photographers to try something - try covering the display on the back of your cameras and really think about the shot and get away from the 'machine gun' approach (if that's what you do). How will I read the menu options if I cover the LCD? The only way to set mirror lock up is electronically on the 20D. My girlfriend uses an approach with her dSLR of shooting, viewing the image, shooting, viewing, until she get's the effect that she knows will give her what she wants. Like a negative, the RAW image is just that - RAW. This works very well for her. I don't see how using the tools available makes someone any less an artist. So I shoot by the numbers. I'm an engineer and getting exactly the exposure I want is easy. But I don't take as many good photos as she does. Just goes to show that art is what art is. You should be glad the consumer market is driving advancement in the industry. It's making good equipement more affordable - especially high end film gear. I wish this would happen in general aviation too. Then I could afford to own my own plane. But then there would be old guys complaining about how all the new airplane "users" don't know how to use analog guages like the pilots of old. Just my 2 cents. -- Mark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com/gallery |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
"Beach Bum" wrote in message
.. . So thanks for your contribution. I think you struck a nerve here and I really hope to see more of this. I implore amateur digital photographers to try something - try covering the display on the back of your cameras and really think about the shot and get away from the 'machine gun' approach (if that's what you do). How will I read the menu options if I cover the LCD? The only way to set mirror lock up is electronically on the 20D. Hi Mark, hopefully you can see my point somewhere in there. :-) My girlfriend uses an approach with her dSLR of shooting, viewing the image, shooting, viewing, until she get's the effect that she knows will give her what she wants. Like a negative, the RAW image is just that - RAW. This works very well for her. I don't see how using the tools available makes someone any less an artist. So I shoot by the numbers. I'm an engineer and getting exactly the exposure I want is easy. But I don't take as many good photos as she does. Just goes to show that art is what art is. You should be glad the consumer market is driving advancement in the industry. It's making good equipement more affordable - especially high end film gear. I wish this would happen in general aviation too. Then I could afford to own my own plane. But then there would be old guys complaining about how all the new airplane "users" don't know how to use analog guages like the pilots of old. Mate, all this 'advancement' you talk of - what has it done to photography, really? As for affordable film gear, you don't need a degree in economics to understand why this is so. As for the GA point - I'm also a pilot - flying to me is about the romance and joy of being up there - I'm trying not to lose sight of that in the clutter of all the new technology that's arriving... my background is in financial/software engineering, so I'm a numbers boy too. :-) The big threat to GA here is that it doesn't bring a great return and so in Sydney it is being squeezed out to be replaced by passenger-carrying operations, apartments (Hoxton Park) etc. Very sad but probably inevitable. Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) Just my 2 cents. -- Mark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com/gallery |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
"random user 12987" wrote in message
... The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps $25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital photography... I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the occasional product shot or advertising shot but definitely not for what I have made a living doing for 43 years. I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement and a digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet. Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that, might also give me and edge! I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography. Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work was always with medium and large format cameras. I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge by a computer I can't program. I am fed up with the cost of digital photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot but sub machine guns never made an accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of rounds in the hope of hitting something too. I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He used a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the ****ty dynamic range of the camera. I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the subject, encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed them last night and all are in focus with just 3 throw away. The camera with 2 lenses cost $850(AUD) on EBay and the film + chemicals cost maybe $30(AUD). I can buy some fine lenses for this camera with the cash from selling my latest digital. I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery and ready to sell to print shops tomorrow. I couldn't do it any faster with digital and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin, blowing away the specula highlights. It's all over red rover. The digitals are simply not good enough for my work. This post is not about "is digital better or worse" it's about a decision I've been contemplating for some time. Maybe Australian sunlight and 40C daytime temperatures with Queensland's 27/7 humidity over 80% might affect the sensors and the results, maybe not. What I do know is my most popular posters are all shot on film. Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras as opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered by a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my investment. I've found the same thing, however, I continue to use digital in my wedding pj work, and medium format for just about everything else. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Return to film... True!
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Photographing Nature | 15 | December 7th 05 11:03 PM |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 1 | November 28th 05 07:44 PM |
is it a forgone conclusion... | Robert S. Dean | In The Darkroom | 123 | March 18th 05 04:15 AM |
8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant | Matt | Digital Photography | 1144 | December 17th 04 09:48 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |