Return to film... True!

Bandicoot wrote:
"Beach Bum" wrote in message
.. .

"Dave E" wrote in message
news:43d95f43$0$1046$61c65585@un-2park-

[SNIP]

Digital technology has brought photography to many people who
might never have gotten into it because of all the perceived hassle of
film. Sure many of them are the dreaded snap shooters, but many of
them are true artists too. Anything that enables new artists, IMHO, is
a good thing.

FWIW, I know at least 3 people who started digital about 3 years
ago and now they're shooting film for the first time in their lives and 2
of them are talking about buying medium and large format cameras. I
can guarantee that they never would have taken a second look at
photography if it wasn't for the easy of entry into the digital world.



I was tutoring on a course last week and one of my students was like this.
She'd come to photography two years ago because digital attracted her where
the perceived hassle of film didn't. About six months ago she bought a
better digital camera, and on the course she produced some really good
work - she has 'a good eye'.

However, she was also blown away by what I produced shooting film (this was
Portra and 100UC because prints are more useful to pass around when I'm
teaching) and also by some Velvia and E100VS slides that I showed on onne of
the evenings. The tonality was what got her, I think, more than anything.


I recall some interesting conversations and questions when I was
exhibiting at ArtWalk last year. Some people seemed confused that some
of my images were not manipulations, and others confused how I got the
images to look that nice in the colours. Is it just me, or does it seem
like some people are surprised that any good looking prints can come
from film, especially 35 mm? Well . . . I did have one person ask a ton
of questions on techniques and equipment, and then tell me it was too
difficult, though he admitted the prints were nice.


She found that putting pictures onto her laptop was not much less bother
than dropping off film at the local lab., having a cup of tea while I
waited, and being back in an hour. So she's planning to come on, if not the
next, the next but one course I do, and to bring a film camera with her.


Interesting. I wonder what film camera she will choose.


This is someone who'd never have come to photography but for digital, but
digital allowed her to discover that she enjoyed it, and that she was good
at it - so now she wants to try film. I don't think film will replace
digital for her, but already she has an good idea of which sorts of shots it
will do a much better job for... and she was fascinated by my Rollieflex!




I have to agree with you, I think digital cameras, even those compact
P&S models, brings some people into photography. I know a few that carry
a compact digital camera often, then when they find something
interesting come back to the same spot later with a film camera.
Probably seems like a weird choice for some people.

It is possible to get a super nice film SLR for about what a bottom of
the line D-SLR now costs. There are also some nice used film SLRs for
about the cost of a mid range digital compact camera.

Just did a shoot not too long ago that was a pass the camera affair,
intended to create a book and an exhibit. The camera we passed around
was a 50 years old Rolleiflex. Definitely not an easy to use camera.
After trying one roll hand held, I resorted to shooting the second roll
with the camera on a tripod. The lens was really quite good, and the
results are much better than I expected . . . very surprising for old
technology.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Scott W wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote:

Scott W wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:
I think that terminology is rarely used in that way. Most of the
time


today, when someone states "posterized", they mean stepped aberrations
across what should be a smooth colour area. Quite often with direct
digital capture, there can be an effect of no colour tonal change, just
a solid area . . . very different from "posterization", though it might
be termed "equalization".

Could you post a samle of this?

Scott


You mean the difference between posterization and equalization?

I was thinking more of an area that comes out as a solid area.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote:

Scott W wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:
I think that terminology is rarely used in that way. Most of the
time


today, when someone states "posterized", they mean stepped aberrations
across what should be a smooth colour area. Quite often with direct
digital capture, there can be an effect of no colour tonal change, just
a solid area . . . very different from "posterization", though it might
be termed "equalization".

Could you post a samle of this?

Scott


You mean the difference between posterization and equalization?

I was thinking more of an area that comes out as a solid area.



Just ran across this item, and thought you might be interested:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D200/D200A.HTM

Since the D200 is one of the newest D-SLRs on the market, you might find
the reference to a "corduroy effect" interesting. You have to scroll
down to find it, but they do have larger sample images. Some might call
it posterization.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Amen. Unfortunately there are large numbers of computer addicts that will never give up their fix. And they buy stuff, and more stuff and more stiuff. Consequently we are forced more and more to dabble in computer skills that have little to do with photography. Due to market place profit and loss pressures. I feel the most sorry for the casual non enthusiast user. Just look at any forum and see how many problems need solving with digital, and how few with film. Digital photography is a nice toy for techno junkies and a few others.

MoioM wrote:
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
:
:
: random user 12987 wrote:
: "Gordon Moat" wrote in message
: ...
: . . . . . . . . . .
:
:
: Sadly Gordon I have a lot of examples of digital disasters where none
should
: exist. Canon's Sensors can produce some very strange behaviour which is
: neither predictable nor repeatable but does result in faulty images. I
also
: have some examples of D2X (before it was stolen) demonstrating it also
can
: behave badly under some circumstances.
:
:
: Well, I have used a D2X a few times. The only issues I found were in
: darker areas, and I really had to look to find any problems. Sort of
: like the time needed to spot scans in PhotoShop, most of those were
: correctable. However, I will stick to renting a D-SLR if I need one, I
: have no interest in buying one.
:
: I really hate to say this, since it will **** off lots of people; the
: Canon 10D and 20D are amateur cameras. They do not go through the same
: rigorous quality control as a 1Ds, they are not as well built, and they
: do not handle much abuse without problems. Sure, some people have these
: and they are very reliable. The point is that if you need one to make
: money from, then buy the better D-SLR; in Canon that now means a 5D as a
: minimum, and in Nikon that would (probably) mean a D200 (I have not seen
: one yet, so I might change my mind on that).
:
-----------------
Well I have some information that if your statement hasn't ****ed 'em off,
this certainly will...

Canon Australia has officially declared the 5D to be an *AMATEUR* camera. It
is excluded from all the Professional benefits available to a 1D series
owner. The most significant for a working professional is the exclusion from
a loaner and 2 day repair turnaround. Mine has back focus errors and the
sensor is loose. It needs to be repaired under warranty but 6 weeks wait is
ridiculous.

I own a 5D and I can tell you absolutely that it is very little different to
the 20D, I replaced accept for an amateur camera, it is sadly lacking in
features other amateur cameras (even cheap digicams) have.

I got fooled into believing that because Canon striped out all the function
features and the inbuilt flash, it was an "entry level" Professional
camera... It is not.


I am not too surprised by that. On PDN forums, a few people got 5D
bodies and made similar remarks. There was one good posting comparing a
1D Mark II N (not 1Ds) to the 5D, and if you needed a reliable body I
could see why the newest 1D would be a good choice.



. . . . . . . . .

To officially declare a camera to be an amateur only camera and charge $5000
AUD for it, at the same time providing less functionality than a $500 AUD
digicam, is about as bad as it gets in catering for people like me, who
believed the pre-release bull**** and overseas advertising from Canon and
thought is would serve as a slightly lower cost replacement for my stolen 1D
MkII. I'm only glad now I didn't also by Canon to replace the D2X that got
swiped with it.


Well, you cannot put much faith in marketing behind these cameras. Every
amateur out there would enjoy thinking that there D-SLR is pro level,
even if it is not the top of the line. If you consider that when 2 MP
and 3 MP, then 6 MP top of the line D-SLRs were considered really great,
and talked up quite a bit, then it should not be a surprise that some
amateurs now believe any 6 MP or better D-SLR is just as good as the
professional top of the line gear of only a few years ago. The emphasis
is still on MegaPixels, because the never ending early marketing push
was mostly only about MegaPixels . . . now the companies are sort of
getting in a bind, though a few consumers are figuring out there is more
to MegaPixels than meets the eye.

Spending levels are a different matter. I had an interesting
conversation a few nights ago with some long time ASMP photographers.
The spending in the past was not cheap, but it was possible to buy a
film camera that lasted a decade or more with fairly low maintenance
costs. Today it is a different story, with those older guys stating no
more than 3 years to expect out of any digital gear, including the
computer hardware and software, and the printers (some people suggest
replacing everything every 18 months). Their justification was that
photographers had it easy for decades with somewhat low costs to run a
business. Now they compare it to being an auto mechanic, in that one
must constantly buy tools, and continuously replace things . . . and
that costs a fair bit of money. So the justification of high
professional costs is that now photography is not much different than
any other small business . . . . . . . . I sort of disagree a little on
that, because the average fees that a photographer can charge have
barely changed in a couple decades, while what the average auto mechanic
makes has gone up.


The thing about Nikon D200 is that it has all the supposed "Professional"
features like environmental sealing of the body but it is priced at half
what a 5D costs. None of the current DSLRs from Nikon can hold a candle to
an F6 as far as professional usability is concerned.



Well, the F6 is the newest top of the line body. There is more
difference between an F6 and a D2X than an imaging chip and some
electronics, despite that the body castings are similar. I think ten
years out of an F6 would not be beyond expectation, while none expect a
D2X to still be in use that far in the future.

Whatever Nikon brings out to replace/update the D2X will probably
incorporate some aspects of F6 thinking, and some aspects of the D2X.
These products are evolutionary, which is sort of the path of Nikon.

Maybe it sound crazy to some, but I would think you could make money
(profits) from using an F6. There again, I don't think you could only
own an F6, a back-up body would be a very good idea. There would also be
a good need for a very good film scanner, and a computer to run it. A
professional level printer would also be a good idea. Put the cost of
all those together, and it is not a whole lot of savings up front over
getting two D2X bodies. The difference would be in a few years the D2X
replacement cost, while the F6 might only need a tune-up. Tough call,
but I think there are still profits to be made from shooting film, if
you don't mind using labs and a slightly slower turn-around.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

sobolik wrote:
Amen. Unfortunately there are large numbers of computer addicts that
will never give up their fix. And they buy stuff, and more stuff and
more stiuff. Consequently we are forced more and more to dabble in
computer skills that have little to do with photography. Due to market
place profit and loss pressures. I feel the most sorry for the casual
non enthusiast user. Just look at any forum and see how many problems
need solving with digital, and how few with film. Digital photography
is a nice toy for techno junkies and a few others.
Well first off in this day and age just about everybody should know how
to use a computer, this is very much like being literate in the last
century was.

But you statement that "digital photograph is a nice toy for techno
junkies and a few others seems odd" It seems that the vast majority
of people shooting photos are happily doing so with digital cameras.


I see a lot of people who simply take their memory cards to a photo
kiosk and get prints made without every putting them on a computer.

But if you wish to have more control of your prints having the photo in
a digital format gives you a wonderful level of control. Even when I
make prints from film I always scan it first and print from a digital
file. If I don't do this I am at the mercy of the lab that is making
the print and this has proven to be hit and miss at best.

Scott

:
: 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.
:
: Sounds like this is more about the photographer than the medium, with
: the exception of the dynamic range.
:
: Are you carrying this outfit on your (removable) back?
:
: Good luck.
:
: Roger

If the guy I paid was a fellow off the street or a student I would not have
bothered to question the pics but this fellow is a seasoned photojournalist.
We both agreed the dynamic range of the camera he used (his own D100) was
the problem. I have photoshoped nearly all the pictures and they are more
than passable now. Really... You shouldn't have to do this.

So can we see some examples, MoioM aka Random User 12987 aka Douglas
MacDonald?

Otherwise it is just words. I have saved a copy of a previous webpage
that Douglas posted (but has now withdrawn, like he always does)..
That webpage was intended to show that the Canon had deficient dynamic
range, and that of all things, the Panasonic FZ20 exceeeded it! This
was the original post:
http://tinyurl.com/c2k2n

In that thread, Douglas stated, and I quote:
Maybe I've lost the plot here but I'd have thought a 20D (read 1D II
as well) would be better at recording detail under adverse lighting
conditions than a lowly P&S camera like the Olympus C760 or
Panasonic FZ20. Surprise, surprise!

The webpage he had put up as evidence (now long gone, of course)
*actually* showed that by poor metering, he had simply underexposed the
shot terribly. And of course he *wasn't* shooting Raw..

Douglas, may I simply remind you that *you* are the one making the
outlandish claims without substance or example, and that *you* are the
one who posts evidence like this:

http://www.geocities.com/chrlzs/flinders-20D.htm

1. Would you care to deny that you originally posted that page?

2. Would you care to note that I am refraining from insults, and am
simply addressing the issue...?

3. *You* claim the camera/s were at fault.

4. I, and others, have asked for evidence.

5. In the past, you have posted claims like the webpage I have archived
above. That webapge simply shows underexposure (and a bad choice of
metering), and very poor post-processing.

6. Whenever your claims are disputed, you pull your webpages. So I now
save them.

7. This would appear to be another similar claim.


Goodnight.

In article ,
MoioM wrote:
We both agreed the dynamic range of the camera he used (his own D100) was
the problem.

So basically, you picked a very low budget photographer, and now you
got low budget results. Sound like the way it is supposed to be.

The guy should never have taken that assignement if he knew that his
camera couldn't handle it. If he didn't know, he just an hobbyist. Next
time, get somebody who knows what he is doing.


--
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