A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Return to film... True!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 26th 06, 10:41 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 26th 06, 11:35 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Return to film... True!

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)


  #3  
Old January 27th 06, 12:09 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 27th 06, 12:10 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 27th 06, 12:16 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 27th 06, 12:29 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 27th 06, 12:38 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 27th 06, 12:46 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 27th 06, 12:48 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 27th 06, 02:19 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Return to film... True!

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Photographing Nature 15 December 8th 05 12:03 AM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Digital Photography 1 November 28th 05 08:44 PM
is it a forgone conclusion... Robert S. Dean In The Darkroom 123 March 18th 05 05:15 AM
8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant Matt Digital Photography 1144 December 17th 04 10:48 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.