I'm relatively new to it, but having that historogram on the DSLR is a Godsend. It is the single best thing that's come out of digital IMHO. I love my battered Pentax spot meter, but the next time I'm in a critical situation I'll be using both the spot and my DSLR to meter.
It would be awesome if there was a "Polaroid-Graflock" style digital back insert that could provide preview, color temp, and exposure info on a large LCD - not as an image capture device, but as the ultimate meter.
One thing that I don't seem to hear people discussing is the learning curve. I use a digital camera for work (I need to take pictures of properties for reference and to put into reports), and make small adjustments for contrast and sharpness, but I haven't spent much time trying to learn programs like Photoshop. Maybe its easier than I'm aware of to master digital, but I'm still learning to get more out of darkroom processing, which I love doing. I'm not a professional photographer, and I don't have the time to learn, never mind, master a variety of processes. So I stick with LF silver gelatin film and papers, and try to get the most out of it. I personally don't have anything against digital, and if I were a professional, it would be an important part of my business. When I came into photography, it was the work of traditional photographers that inspired me, and set out the path for me to follow. I'm still on it.
I also had the feeling that digital was taking off and I was not on that boat. I would compare cameras, photo format, medium, etc. with cars and trucks, you use what is the best tool for the type of work you are doing. Example, my creative work I'll do it with film, wet darkroom. Why? Resolution, cost, stability of the medium. If I had to do commercial work, probably will be digital. Why? Most of the commercial printers use digital, almost all editing is in the computer (magazines, corporate brochures.) Also the argument goes for format (4x5, 35mm, 35mm digital, etc.) There is also in the middle, you can take a 4x5 negative and have it scan, and printed from digital format. It will cost you around $250 to $350 to have a big print out. Let say that I go all digital (medium format digital, and large format digital, a lot of money.) I have to maintain a fast computer, with a lot of RAM, disk space, plus CD, printers, and a lot of ink. Each cartridge of ink for a regular inkjet is about $25 to $35. I think that for photography you have to pick the right tool. Cost effective, great resolution, etc. By the way remember that Ilford, Kodak used to make money with papers, film, etc. now Epson, Canon, Software and memory manufactures shifted that business towards them. I do not see one medium better that the other, just like a sedan car is not better that a humbee. One you drive around town the other to take to Iraq. You can also take to humbee to get coffee at Starbucks and you can also take your sedan to Iraq, but that is a deferent discussion. Regards.
Actaully, I believe folks with a background in traditional darkroom technique have an advantage transitioning to digital. If one already has a thorough understanding of film curves, dodging, burning, and how to create expressive prints, etc. they are well on the way.
It is true that Photoshop is a deep program that can take years to master. It shouldn't be scary, though. Like visiting a big city, it might be intimidating at the outset, but after one learns a few primary routes, they can navigate with some confidence.
My love affair with the histogram is because I prefer a graphic interface over numbers. It is a personal thing, like the old Mac vs. PC programmer rants. I waited to acquire a digital camera body until there was one that offered the histogram in a lightweight package at a reasonable price tthat could result in a quality print. While I'll have to check on the weight comparison with my meter, I don't ever recall being able to take a picture with my meter. I WAS able to capture a fleeting moment with the Rebel recently in the Sawtooths when I had the view camera pointed the opposite direction while waiting for the light to change. I would have missed it entirely, other than "neurochrome."
It is also an incredible teaching tool in the field, both for compostion and exposure, not to mention accurately assessing the results of varying the length of an exposure and depth-of-field.
I became a true believer 20 miles into the Yosemite backcountry two years ago when one of the photographers in our group brought along his digital 35, an Apple laptop and solar panels. He'd create 300 images during the day. At night download them to his laptop and burn a CD to archive them to a CD, wipe the flash cards clean and start fresh the next day. The solar panels kept his system charged and he never ran out of "film."
Photographing moving a river scene, the rest of us with our traditional gear crowded around to see his review images to evaluate the look of his blurred water. When we got out of the woods, we later crowded around the 24x30 prints from his D1s off an Epson 7600. Stunning. That said, I equally appreciate the look of a hand-crafted platinum print and the skill that goes into creating one. Different, but both beautiful in their own way. I am not urging anyone to abandon their old gear. Use the old and the new together.
Where's the beef? Its like Van gogh arguing with Cezanne as to which brush is best to use. It all hinghes on the desired end result. It's like arguing color vs B&W. Like Hamelt said," Tis niether good nor bad but thinking makes it so."
I know I'm not the only one in this category because I've talked to quite a few people who feel the same or similar.
To some of us, the end result is _NOT_ what it's all about! It's the _process_. The trip, not the destination that counts!
I have been involved with computers and digital imaging ever since there was such a thing, in kit form only! I still do some digital for the web. I had to buy a new printer, so I bought an Epson Photo Printer. Why not? I spent days and $30 worth of ink just trying to get a decent color print out of it and gave up... And people consider me a computer geek because it's my job... I'm a hobby photographer not a pro...
To me and many others, it's the whole LF photography process that has meaning. And all in silver! Even if they ever came out with an 8x10 digital back that came close to silver resolution, I wouldn't bother. Why? It's not part of the process as we enjoy it. I sit in front of a computer all day long. I certainly do not want to involve computers in my photography!
Present digital technology photography will soon evolve into something different from the traditional still photography as we've know it.
Personally, I love the loupe and lightbox too much. Processing film is a labor of love.
I don't mean to berate anyone's choice. I feel personally that digital photography is a waste of precious time because of the nature of the capture and lack of a physical master.
Transparencies and negatives are potential artwork to me.
I think digital is a great way for handling many things, especially in professional photography, but I stay away from it for quality reasons just like I don't bother to shoot small format and enlarge. The results just aren't quite as satisfying.
Another important thing to me is the process of making the shot with LF where you have the ability to manipulate the focus and perspective, I feel like I am wasting my time with a point and shoot. I approach the task differently, and the results show it.
But I really like having the ability to scan and manipulate a photo digitally; nothing fancy, just color balance and contrast, dust particles, things like that. I have a local lab that makes excellent prints from my digital files (on photo paper).
I took my pictures to show friends at work and it was great to see their jaws drop at the beauty of a 1st generation 8x10. I don't think it's really possible to capture the same quality with a tiny lens and tiny film plane, no matter how many megapixels you have.
My .02 cents worth....I have a D-100 Nikon to use instead of 35mm Nikon.Small format(at least to me) is for documenting an event or place out of sheer convenience; a no brainer....instant gratification with the D-100 and "fix-it in the mix" with Photoshop, a wonderful tool for the application at hand.It's too damn easy!!I can drive down the freeway through downtown Houston and hold the D100 up and shoot out the window rapid fire at the skyline and come up with magazine quality shots.(what a challenge...NOT!!) You can do amazing things with electronics in photography,but I will not be coined as an "camera operator"..that would really suck!
LF(4x5& 8x10),on the other hand, requires time.And thought.And Vision.It is a precision tool which requires Human Intervention to create Art from your Vision.There is nothing more rewarding than setting up you rig at the site you scouted first, selecting the lens,composing and manipulating the swings and tilts, metering your subject and calculating for bellow draw.....you know the routine.I love it!!I tell my friends who suggest subjects for me to shoot.I tell them"it had better be darn good for me to set up this heavy @#$%$#@ camera!!"Needless to say, I scout my own subjects.
I love film.There's something about coming home from a shoot and processing those big negatives; like a kid getting up early on Christmas morning and seeing what FATMAN left...
I beleive digitals,35mm s,MF RB67s all have a function in a time and place,tools if you will, but I consider the (LF) stuff is where art comes from! Just my thoughts.... Richard
After a year of DSLRing around with a Canon 10D - I have returned to my film bodies, purchased another film body, a 4x5, and another polaroid propack. I use all of them (well i haven't used the 4x5 too much, shame on me!) Digital is convenient, 150 RAW format images on a 1 gb card, fix in photoshop, etc. I have enlarged to 16x20 and people have wondered if i shoot medium format. The prints are good, but not as great as upsizing a 4x5 to a 16x20, that's a no brainer. I have sold a couple shots of a lily, and have had people ask if the lily was real! The digital image, in all it's plastic flawlessness was lacking a reality that only film can show.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks