Still Photography (1 Viewer)

[Andrew W]

There appears to be some photographic luddites in the vicinity. If you want a very informed opinion from a very experience and very published photographer on the current state of the art of digital photography, see Luminous Landscapes This is some the best photography digital or otherwise you will see.

Cropping to standard paper sizes is very easy with digital and YOU get to pick what part of the photo you want to print, not some lab technician. I just edit everything I want printed in Photoshop and then put them on a R/W CD and drop them off to be printed.

I've used a 4MP Canon G2 and a 6MP D60. They are very comparable to a 35mm in print quality. Of course they're not equivalent to medium format, but neither is APS.

Andy

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

While there's a lot of good, useful information at Luminous Landscape, there is a lot of misinformation, incorrect information, and "placed" information. He is very well paid to speak and evangelize on current trends, and his Medium Format vs. 12 Megapixel Digital shootout results are pretty iffy -- based on the examples he shows on the web.

I do not really want to bash his site (because so much of it is excellent), but just like everything else on the web, take it with a grain of salt and do some additional research.

Again, I don't want to hijack this thread, but anyone who's interested in the deficiencies of his digital vs. medium format arguments, feel free to PM or e-mail me.

I agree that Ansel's books are pretty advanced, and actually I don't find The Camera or The Print as useful as The Negative.

Chris -- cropping is not the only problem when going to an automated lab for enlargements, or even your first 4x6 proofs. Don't forget that colour balance and density will vary wildly from place to place based on how they are set up (and if they are balanced at all for the film you're shooting...try taking a pro film to Wal-Mart, and unless they've got some on-the-ball operators running the place, the images will be worse than from cheap film like MAX, because they just don't know how to print it). Here's where I will once again sing the praises of the digital darkroom. Every year sees the prices drop and the quality increase.

Of course, the digital darkroom is also sounding the death knell for a lot of small labs, and unfortunately they don't see that what is killing them is a lack of quality and expertise -- the high-end customer becomes frustrated and seeks out a new avenue, and invariably ends up printing at home. But for years these labs have been forced into a cheaper, faster production model where quality is not the top priority.

 

[Chris Knox]

Chris -- cropping is not the only problem when going to an automated lab for enlargements, or even your first 4x6 proofs. Don't forget that colour balance and density will vary wildly from place to place based on how they are set up (and if they are balanced at all for the film you're shooting...try taking a pro film to Wal-Mart, and unless they've got some on-the-ball operators running the place, the images will be worse than from cheap film like MAX, because they just don't know how to print it). Here's where I will once again sing the praises of the digital darkroom. Every year sees the prices drop and the quality increase.

Agreed.

 

[JohnRice]

Thanks for getting things back on track a bit Aaron. You bring up a good point I had completely skipped in the arguing, and that is the wild card of labs. I acknowledge there are cost benefits to learning on digital, but I still firmly believe the best way is to start with film. Since Adam says he wants to use film, that is pretty much a moot point anyway. The best way to begin still, to me, is to use slide film for learning. There are many reasons. It is cheaper to process, and not to encourage buying grey market, but you can get 36 exp roles of something like Fuji Sensia II 100 from B&H for under $3.00. You mostly eliminate the unpredictable factor of the lab because you aren't relying on them for prints, and since slide film is in many ways less forgiving than negative films, the things you do will often be exaggerated.

I'll have to take a look at the Luminous Landscape site when I have more time. There is an enormous amount of mis-information out there, particularly as it relates to digital.


You still here Adam? Did you get chased off?

 

[Thomas Newton]

If you are enlarging your images, the only acceptable size to go to from 4X6 is to double both sides. That is to suggest 8X12, not 8X10. I would imagine that you all being Home Theater Forum enthusiasts would understand the importance of maintaining the original aspect ratio.

It's a lot easier to modify the AR and get acceptable results when you are talking about one still image -- as opposed to 90 minutes or more worth of motion pictures.

Also, if you hold the negatives or "original" digital camera files for your own photos, you can get more original-AR prints at any time. It's not like trying to watch a butchered Pan-and-Scan-only movie, where there is no good way for you to get an OAR version.

 

[Adam_S]

Still here, I've been busy, and when I check HTF I always forget about After Hours, and hit mainly Software and Movies. :p

I didn't get scared off I just forgot about the thread while I had limited computer access over the holiday weekend.

I too think that the best way to go is film, film feels right to me, digital would probably be cheaper, but even though I'm young I'm an old-fashioned sorta guy, I love modern technology, but I equally love older stuff, and there's something to be said for the 60+ yr hand crafted stuff furniture etc my parents have lying around that they inherited and still get heavy use every day. Personally I think film v. digital is a somewhat silly argument, about like whether 700p or 1080i is better or if oxygen free super copper wiring provides a monumentally superior sound to regular cables. :p Not to sound faceticious, but as the more levelheaded in the thread have said, both film and digital have their merits, and I know and understand the basic differences between them, I never asked about that (one of those unclear things in the original post). The merits I'm interested in learning right now are the ones related to celluloid, not pixels.

I don't want (or think) you can really learn photography from books, the reason I asked for books and other written material in the first place is that:
1) I wanted to get a firm handle on the lingo and slang of photography, as well as learn the various technical merits of film cameras so that I could make an informed decision about what I want when I buy one in two months or so.
2) I want to see what has gone before, when I asked about Ansel Addams I was wondering about books that are more about exhibitions of his work, with maybe some commentary (though that's more unnecessary) on why they are so great. I see absolutely no need to waste my time reinventing the wheel while I try to learn this. If I don't have a grasp of both current and past photography, I really have no idea what I want to do and will just be wildly shooting in the dark so to speak.
3) I wanted to learn a more detailed history of photography than the day we spent in American History class. when I get in on a subject, the history of it becomes fascinating to me. case in point, right now I'm reading books on Disney's Nine old men, the pre-code Hollywood movies, and Easy Riders Raging Bulls and enjoying them all, there's quite a lot of material at even the public library (and I haven't even gotten to the local university yet), so I was hoping for a little advice in that direction as well.

Somewhere on this page the thread went over my head and I started skimming, I'll go back over it tomorrow and reply to anything if I need to.

Adam

 

[Charles J P]

Reading most of this thread as a new Canon digital camera owner, I come to one conclusion. Someone mentioned the CD vs Vinyl comparison... I'll take it a step further, this is exactly like Digital Projectors vs CRTs. I am also a digital projector owner, and I realize that my PJ has shortcomings, but for the money, size, ease of setup/use, etc. it was right for me. The same is true for my camera purchase. I learned how to shoot on my mom's Canon T-70 and developed my own B&W film, but guess what; I havent taken more than a dozen pictures in the last 10 years. Now that I have a camera the size of a pack of sigs, that can hold 120 to 400+ pics on one piece of media, I can delete pics that I know I screwed up and retake, etc. and I havent stunted my photographic skills because I already know how to shoot and develop (as much as I want to learn anyway).

 

[JohnRice]

Just thought that deserved repeating. There are many ways that can be interpreted. Of course, the emphasis placed on the final statement is mine. And no Charles, I am not criticizing you. I just want to point out that some people want to learn and develop their skills more completely than others. I expect Charles is in no way claiming that he has already developed his skills as a photographer as far as they possibly can be.

I am actually not rallying for or against either format of photography, but there are many reasons for doing something other than it's ease and low cost. If that weren't the case, nobody would climb Everest. They would just drive up Pike's Peak instead, because it's easier.

I do have to take exception to the CD vs. Vinyl and Digital projection vs. CRT issue. There is virtually no comparison. When you play an album or project an image, you are creating nothing. When you create something, as in photography, what you use to create is really just a collection of tools. Refusing to consider using a particular tool is just as wrong as insisting on using only one or a very small number of tools. Unfortunately, the current trend seems to be tunnelvision toward the benefits of digital and complete denial of the weaknesses.


Sorry, enough preaching.



Also, I'd like to encourage folks to look beyond Ansel Adams where photography is concerned. He is the most well known, and often only known name in photography and while his influence was and probably always will be enormous, particularly from the technical side, he was largely a scientist and there are many others to look to who were much stronger from many aesthetic viewpoints. I recommended "The History of Photography" by Beaumont Newhall to Adam for an extensive book on that subject.

 

[Ryan Tsang]

Charles:

I don't think there is anything wrong with digital at all. To me, it's another paintbrush in photography, just like 35mm, MF, LF, Polaroid, electronic flash and so forth. The instant gratification provided by digital is both a blessing and a curse. For those keen on improving their photographic skills, getting the image right away speeds up the learning process. Experimentation with lighting, composition, colors, and filters is much easier and cheaper. However, it is also breeding a generation of snapshooters, completely trigger happy and lacking any thought process. "I'll just fire away, and dump the shitty ones."

Good photographic skills are learned when things are slowed down to a crawl. No zoom lens, no auto focus, no filters, just you, your camera, a simple subject, and the willingness to see the egg in 20 different ways. But that won't sell in this day and age will it?

 

[JohnRice]

So true, Ryan.





Reminds me of one of the best pieces of advice on how to improve your photography.


Use a tripod.



Not because of the tripod itself, but because it tends to make the photographer slow down. Faster is often not better. Ask most any woman. :p)

 

[Charles J P]

I dont know that digital necessarily promotes point and pray any more than any other medium. I've seen a few true professional photographers work, and I've seen some of them go through a roll of film in 60 seconds. Dont tell me that all those photos were "good".

I will say I am still learning my camera though. I took it on a hike yesterday in Thunderbird Park outside Phoenix (I'm in AZ on biz) and my percentage of good shots was horrible IMHO, but I dont know that I would have done any better with the "real" camera that I learned on considering I havent shot in 10 years. I did come up with (IMHO) 3 shots that I am very happy with. I signed up for photo.net, but I dont have any photo editing software on my laptop and so all my pics are over both their 800 pixel width and 100k file size restrictions so I will have to upload them when I get home.

 

[Mark Sherman]

John I am not yelling at people for all I know about photography. you and I are the same in the way that we have taught classes and have done many useful things in the photographic world. The fact that some people on this thread pick up a camera take some pictures and automatically assume that they are photographers.

 

[Craig Dulany]

Having majored in Photography in college, been published, and won awards locally, I would definately agree with Mark Sherman. There is obviously a place for digital, and it makes more sense to use digital in certain situations, or certain types of photography (sports, photojournalism, etc.), however to learn the true art of photography, and composition and lighting, I would undoubtedly recommend film. Also, there are definate lessons to be learned by making mistakes, and if it costs you something (monetarily, time, anguish) those lessons are more easily remembered.

If you had the choice of doing something right the first time and doing something half-assed but then being able to fix it later, I think most people would prefer to learn how to do it right.

 

[JohnRice]

Mark, sorry if I got carried away with you, but I definitely did feel you were being close minded about the big picture and the benefits of differents photographic mediums. Some other photographers I know locally would be amazed to see me touting any benefits of digital, since most of them seem convinced I am too much of a purist to consider digital useful at all. I do shoot digital occasionally, when it makes sense, but for what I do it usually doesn't.


Kind of getting back on track, not necessarily on Adam's first question, but for some of the other people who have responded here. There is an issue nobody has really touched on with the financial benefits of digital. The equipment is significantly more expensive than equivalent film equipment. You can spend $500-$700 on a digital camera with the capabilities of a film camera that would cost $150. You will have to shoot a lot of film before you catch up with that difference. If you want an SLR, you are talking a minimum $2,000 for a body when you can get a equivalent film SLR body used for 1/10 that. That's a truck load of film and processing. In fact, you could equip an entire 35mm darkroom and shoot and process a few hundred bulk loaded rolls before you made up the difference.


Craig, where did you study Photography?

 

[JohnRice]

Oh yeah......

Unfortunately, that has definitely not been my experience. In fact, there is a little inside joke between me and a guy I do video production with. Whenever there is something that takes a little extra effort to get right we jokingly say, "ah, we'll just fix it in Photoshop" because we hear people say that so often.

 

[Mark Sherman]

Thanks Craig, Finally someone who knows the benefit of learning by doing.



Digital does have a place in the Photography world. there are some incredible digital cameras on the market now. whether they are the PHD(push here dummy) or the highly advanced SLRs of the world. Learning a craft with the basics of basics is the way to start.

 

[Josh Lowe]

As a published photographer (twice now!) I think Craig's statements are 100% true. I only do digital now but I wouldn't be half as comfortable with it without having started with film. And film is still my favorite for the true artistic type stuff.

 

[JohnRice]

Guess I've made another enemy.



Don't worry Mark, I'm not taking it badly. I annoy a lot of people.



If the important thing is what you studied in college, where you studied, whether or not you graduated, what awards you've won, where and how often you've been published, what certifications you have, etc, etc. I'd be more than happy to trade stats with anyone here. I don't think most of those things really indicate much when it comes to photography. But that's just me.

 

[JohnRice]

BTW Craig, I just realized I skimmed right past what you said. I completely agree with you as well. I do believe digital currently is still best for sports and journalism, like you said, as well as catalog work and stuff shot solely for web use. The better equipment is still far too expensive and delicate for a lot of other work, as far as I'm concerned. I have shot film in a driving rain, even on Large Format, though that pissed me off big time. Can you imagine shooting with a LF scanning back under those circumstances? All the highest resolution digital equipment still uses slow scanning to capture the image, which can be a serious disadvantage in certain cases.

 

[Charles J P]

I think we must recognize the different levels of "photographers" here.

1) There is obviously the PHD (as Mark so eloquently put it) type, then there is a level obove that that have slightly more skill and maybe nicer cameras, but in these classes, I would say that these people are interested in capturing memories. Many of the shots will just be of people, or places they've been, etc. Being artistic does not enter into the equeation.

2) Then you have people that own nice cameras because they want to take nice pictures. Whether they do or not is a different issue, but the intent is there.

3) The next group might be true hobbiests. People who are only separated from professional photographers by the fact that they dont earn a living from it. They may develop some of their own film, etc.

4) Then there are pros.

I think that there is room for digital and film cameras in all these categories, but the types would differ for each. I would say I fall into the 2.25 range. I made a concious effort to buy a nicer, more expensive (digital) camera, I have already learned the very basics (but certainly dont have comprehensive knowledge even of sub-subjects of photography).

I think this type of person is actually the most suited for nicer consumer grade digital cams. Why? Well, they are more likely to burn a lot of "film" because they are making a concious effort to be creative. They arent the kind of person who is going to get a roll of film developed on the 4th of July and half the roll is Christmas pictures. But, they are not as likely to be as committed so they may not be as willing to spend a lot of money on developing film when many of the shots may be experimental. Additionally, They arent likely to be as "traditional" as pros or semi-pros. To use an audio analogy, they may know enough to know the advantages of an expensive, well setup vinyl rig, but simply arent willing to deal with the setup, maintenance, tweaking, balancing, etc.