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?

In article ,
p 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.


YESSS!!


-Bob (Nikon F3, 55 micro-nikkor AIS)

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

news-server.bigpond.net.au,
p says...

by a computer I can't program.

We keep telling you to shoot RAW. But that's fine, MF film sounds
awesome, sounds like fun.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
news-server.bigpond.net.au,
p says...

by a computer I can't program.

We keep telling you to shoot RAW. But that's fine, MF film sounds awesome,
sounds like fun.

RAW is better than JPG, but a 6 MP file in any format won't enlarge as
smoothly, with as much detail as decent 35mm film (Reala, Velvia, Astia,
Portra). I suspect that's not true of the top of the line Canon/Nikon, but
I believe the jury still's out on the rest of the DSLR selection.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" writes:

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
news-server.bigpond.net.au,
p says...

by a computer I can't program.

We keep telling you to shoot RAW. But that's fine, MF film sounds awesome,
sounds like fun.

RAW is better than JPG, but a 6 MP file in any format won't enlarge as
smoothly, with as much detail as decent 35mm film (Reala, Velvia, Astia,
Portra). I suspect that's not true of the top of the line Canon/Nikon, but
I believe the jury still's out on the rest of the DSLR selection.

*Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly. Not the most
detailed (at 6MP), but much smoother than film.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote

*Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly.

You mean, like 'posterized'?

If the data doesn't have noise in it there aren't enough
bits in the A/D converter &| data.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Matt Clara" writes:

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
news-server.bigpond.net.au,
p says...

by a computer I can't program.

We keep telling you to shoot RAW. But that's fine, MF film
sounds awesome, sounds like fun.

RAW is better than JPG, but a 6 MP file in any format won't
enlarge as smoothly, with as much detail as decent 35mm film
(Reala, Velvia, Astia, Portra). I suspect that's not true of the top
of the line Canon/Nikon, but I believe the jury still's out on the rest
of the DSLR selection.

*Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly. Not the most
detailed (at 6MP), but much smoother than film.
--

But it is that very 'smoothness', and lack of subtle tonal gradation that is
the major reason that some digital images can look 'plastiky' - not a
problem for all subjects, but it is an issue for many.



Peter

Matt Clara wrote:

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

news-server.bigpond.net.au,
says...

by a computer I can't program.

We keep telling you to shoot RAW. But that's fine, MF film sounds awesome,
sounds like fun.


RAW is better than JPG, but a 6 MP file in any format won't enlarge as
smoothly, with as much detail as decent 35mm film (Reala, Velvia, Astia,
Portra). I suspect that's not true of the top of the line Canon/Nikon, but
I believe the jury still's out on the rest of the DSLR selection.

I agree, film is great. It's just that he's complaining about having no
control over digital while shooting jpeg.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
: Matt Clara wrote:
:
: "Paul Furman" wrote in message
: ...
:
: news-server.bigpond.net.au,
: says...
:
: by a computer I can't program.
:
: We keep telling you to shoot RAW. But that's fine, MF film sounds
awesome,
: sounds like fun.
:
:
: RAW is better than JPG, but a 6 MP file in any format won't enlarge as
: smoothly, with as much detail as decent 35mm film (Reala, Velvia, Astia,
: Portra). I suspect that's not true of the top of the line Canon/Nikon,
but
: I believe the jury still's out on the rest of the DSLR selection.
:
: I agree, film is great. It's just that he's complaining about having no
: control over digital while shooting jpeg.
-------------------------------------------


That's wrong Paul. The "No Control" is as Gordon pointed out, something that
takes place in the camera's computer and you simply can't control it. I have
no real problem with digital images. I enlarge them and print them on canvas
for a living. What I have a problem with is digital photography.

Having seen so many digital pictures and only a remarkable few which are
dynamically equal to hand made film prints, I dusted off my Durst Enlarger
and took the processor out of mothballs to do a few trials over Christmas. I
can see now why so many people are fooled into believing digital is somehow
"better" than film. Maybe this is why there are so few large processors for
sale on the used market.

For some people digital photography no doubt is better than film. Certainly
digital cameras have produced a new breed of quasi professional shooters
with little or no understanding of photography who know nothing else than
the artificial look of a digital image and ask not what the wides aperture
is but how many frames they can shoot continuously, knowing the more they
take, the greater the likelihood of getting a some keepers.

Maybe it will be like the pioneers of our past. They hated the winters of
Alaska and the desert of Kalgoorlie but stayed and bred, in hope of riches
from gold. Their children knew no other land and simply accepted where they
were, pining for it when taken away. Maybe it is only people who 'cut their
teeth' on 100% manual cameras who have this problem? The Audio industry
cracked up at the reduced dynamic range of sound when digitizing of CDs
started years ago but we seem to have accepted them now.