Still Photography - Page 3

Nice to see some old vitriolic posts being resurrected...

On the subject of film vs. digital: some people will always consider technological advancement as an affront to the purity of an art form. Some people will greatly enjoy the added flexibility and ease of use. That's all I'm saying on the matter.

From my point of view, I shoot digital. I already know how my shot is intended to look when I shoot it. Photoshop allows me to quickly and easily achieve the look I'm going for, while helping minimize any unintended flaws in the original image. I'm also just a hobbyist, so I cannot justify spending $$$ on filters, lenses, etc...

That's the funny thing. As far as I'm concerned, digital is less flexible in almost every aspect. I suspect the problem is, so many people these days think so many things are only possible with pure digital. Since anything shot on film can be made digital, all the potential of pure digital is available with film as well, plus multiple things which are not possible, or financially feasible with pure digital. Just because it is (usually) cheaper and faster does not mean it is more flexible.

I'm in the digital camp as well, and would not recommend film for a beginner simply due to the wasted cost of film and processing. You can learn just as much with a good DSLR. For my purposes, which includes high quality print, the resolution of my Rebel is fine. As someone who works in production, I have yet to see a film photograph come in that didn't require some kind of adjustment. It still needs scanning and color correction at the very least.

I have worked with many pro studio photographers, and all of them would take rolls of film when looking for a specific shot. Even in the old days, prints were routinely touched up with an airbrush, or cropped for composition, doing this in the digital realm is just changing the tools.

If you want to learn more about how manual (or automatic) settings affect exposure or depth of field, you don't have to make notes when shooting with a decent quality DSLR, as all that info is stored with the shot allowing easy study. The types of shot I try to capture come along once, so I use my experience and judgement to shoot at a variety of settings, and can instantly see if I need adjustment. Having done major location shoots in the past only to have to redo them due to unforeseen problems, digital makes it very easy and affordable to make sure I get what I want the first time.

For those who prefer film, all the power to you, but I see no point going back when I get the results I'm after with digital. And with all the cash I'm saving on film and processing, I can afford to expand my kit if I so choose.

There's nothing about "digital" that's going to get rid of the need for lenses. Whether the recording medium is film or a CCD/CMOS sensor, it can only record what a lens sees.

As for filters, you can buy a LOT of filters for the price of a full version of PhotoShop ($550+). (I'm not knocking PhotoShop, just being realistic about its cost.)

I still shoot medium format film for most of my client work because they either like the look of what I do with it or want to make it really big.

Digital and film are just two different tools -- you use them for different things, because they have different strengths and weaknesses. I did replace my analog darkroom years ago with an all-digital darkroom and would not go back, but I'm still not sold on creating the majority of what I do on digital.

With the Pentax 645D announced and supposedly clocking in at 22MP while still being a run-around, from-the-hip style of camera, I'll be interested to see how it performs. But at its rumored price I can buy a hell of a lot of film and processing. And if the tonal range ain't a whole lot better than what we get from DSLRs now, I'll still be shrugging and saying "meh". But we won't know that until we see the thing.

(The Pentax 645nII -- the film camera this new digital body has evolved from -- is of similar size and weight to Nikon's older pro 35mm-style digital offerings; I'm very curious to see how the 645D weighs in.)

In recommending DSLRs for beginners, I'm a fan of the Pentax *istDL -- manual control and the ability to use a huge range of vintage lenses (with some limitations, obviously -- no auto aperture on lenses prior to about 1984, no autofocus on lenses prior to about 1989), many of which can be had really cheaply and some of which are quite unique. And the camera is cheap as dirt, really.

Aaron

"With the Pentax 645D announced and supposedly clocking in at 22MP while still being a run-around, from-the-hip style of camera, I'll be interested to see how it performs"

Sounds interesting, but years ago I worked for a photographer that had an early 645, and it always felt like NEARLY a pro tool, does it still??

I really wish that Bronica had been smart enough to go digital a few years ago, they could have stayed healthy, no I'm stuck with a few pieces of SPA stuff that's not work anything, and Bronica is gone.

I think the diggest difference between digital photography a chemical based nowadays is that digital is done mostly in Photoshop, , where al you need is a basic photo, where chem based is still and art and a skill

Brent

I never much cared for the original 645 (I bought a P67 instead), but the later 645n and 645nII were beautiful machines. Simple, tough and powerful.

Photoshop is like a darkroom in which you have more tools. The same guys who did all their work on their neg in the darkroom to pull out a good or great shot now do all their work in Photoshop.

I really don't see the difference.

You have a point there if someone is purchasing Photoshop...personally, I got a copy from work.