Enlightening Trip

[Joel Hershey]

Hi, First of all I'm not sending this message to flame any digital vs. analog debate, however I want to express or share my thoughts on this. Even though nowadays any time anyone seems to bring up the issue of digital to analog comparison it often times meets with quite a bit of jeering. First of all I'm not a professional photographer, I'm what you would call a super passionate amateur photographer.
Last year I took a road trip to British Columbia, Alberta, and into Alaska. Of course to see this wonderful country (first time) and also to hopefully capture some memorable images.
Took my trusted Volvo and put 11,000 miles on in 30 days.
I primarily brought a Canon D20 digital camera with an assortment of L series lenses. Even though I hadn't been using my LF and MF gear for several years since I started to use the DSLRs I brought along a Hasselblad 500 CM with 40mm and a 150mm lens with me.
I captured 500 or so digital images in my trip plus shot around 4 rolls of Velvia as well.
It was a great experience, traveling, camping out, enjoying the outdoors, AND seeing some of the most beautiful country in the world. Upon coming home I of course started to look through the digial images and minor tweaking them in Photoshop and printing about 20 or so images I thought were good and certainly memorable to me. As an aside even though using light digital gear I almost always use a tripod, usually incident light meter, etc. Basically careful in my technique. Of These 20 or so images, I printed mostly 11x14s. I thought they were pretty good in overall image quality. The Canon 20D (8mp) does a pretty nice job. One of the better intermediate DSLRs out there in my opinion.

Well in my inthusiasm of the digital images I forgot about the 4 rolls of Velvia and didn't even get them developed........then one day going through my gear several months ago I found them and got them developed................got them back from the Lab. I looked at them on my light box, saw several good shots buts didn't do anything with them until several weeks ago when I decided to scan them into my Minolta Multiscan............then looked at them through PhotoShop.........then printed a few images..........wow.........the first one I printed was of an emerald blue waters of a lake and snow capped mountains in Banf Canada took my breath away. I didn't quite at first see what it was that got my emotions up but it was a depth, deepness, richness if you will that seemed to me so much more satisfying than the digital images. I had forgotten how good the old Hassy was. Prior to this trip I had not shot MF (or LF) in several years. I had gotten into Digital and I was consumed with how cool it was, how much it saved me money in film, and how it gave me immediate gratification. It still does all thse things but for a while there (like 3 years) I had put technology first and becamed consumed with the technology and gear compared to when I was consumed about "simple photography", eating, breathing, dreaming about making the image, getting the right composition, light, mood, visualization.............................

I really don't know what this story really means other than you know I started to use my Hassy again and even took out the Linhof Technica and went to Bar Harbor, Maine.
It really was very satisfying. Last few weeks havn't thought about photo gear like I was constantly doing the last few several years. I was caught up in the "technology" and trying to justify every year for a newer, latest, more MP camera. BECAUSE all I've been hearing about in those few years is how the digital image is so much better than even MF. Went from Canon D30 (when the D30 came out Luminous Landscape said how much it was better thn 35mm film), to D60 to 10D, then finally the 20D.
Like I said this isn't about Digital vs. Analog, don't want it to be. In fact I went to a friends wedding last night and I used the Canon and got a lot of exciting images of the wedding and during the reception. Shots I couldn't of gotten with the larger gear. You use the gear most appropriate for your endevours. I like the images from the Canon, they are very nice, creamy, but it has a "Digital" look. Nothing wrong with a "Digital" look, Printing to 8x10 and even 11x14, looks great BUT it will not give you that "Other" look.
All I can say is that I think seeing the MF images of my trip last year has put better balance in my perspective and priorities in what I enjoy the most "MAKING THE IMAGE". All I know is that I won't sell off my Film Gear and in fact I'll use it right alongside my Digital Gear. Both have a place in my Life.

[Richard Schlesinger]

How is the 40mm Distagon? Lots of flare? Soft at the corners? How does it compare with the really pricey 38 Superwide? I know this is not LF, but ...? I could get one for my SL 66, maybe at a decent price these days.

[paul stimac]

Joel

You are preaching to the choir.

[Tom Westbrook]

I wonder what, if anything, will be lost when digital chips of a small size--that will fit in an SLR-sized package--are able to rival LF in image quality. Are the slower, more careful working methods due to size and/or expense of LF essential in any way to photography?

[Percy]

Been there, done that: From Olympus p/s to Nikon d100 to d1x to d70 to 20d to d70 again to selling/trading all
that stuff and shooting with a 'Blad. Nothing like a 'Blad to make you remember how profoundly satisfying
black and white photography can be. Getting my a** kicked by 8x10 right now...and loving it.

[Bill_1856]

You can't expect much better from a guy who drives a Volvo.

[Joel Hershey]

Hi Grump, The 40mm works pretty well for me. As you know it has the huge front lens element and even with the appropriate lens shade which is Big but shallow, I have to be somewhat careful and be aware of some potential for flare. It took me a while to find that lens shade by the way, as I originally bought the lens without it and they are kind of hard to come by.
It's the T* version so it is coated. Stopped down a few stops this lens is very very sharp. I have no complaints in that department. Overall a great lens, allbeit a very heavy lens mind you. I have no experience with the 38 superwide, but often thought about it...

[Steve Clark]

Bill, Volvos are , in my experience , low maintainance, comfortable, longlasting, and worth something when you sell them...

[martin_6015]

I purchased a used Superwide about 6 months ago from a friend, its an older one, not t* coated but Im fine with that. I paid $1250 with a 120 back.

The camera is amazing. Ive never seen such a clear, undistorted wide image. Ive been shooting provia 50 and 100 and some black and white.

amazing.

hope this helps!

[John_4185]

wonder what, if anything, will be lost when digital chips of a small size--that will fit in an SLR-sized package--are able to rival LF in image quality.

Disregarding for the moment that it ain't gonna happen in our lifetime, one thing that will be lost is the relative ease of movements in a physically larger camera than the same in a little SLR.

Speaking to the 40mm vs SWC with 38mm Biogon - some people can't get over having to see part of the SWC's lens in the viewfinder and they are stuck with a big lens with more distortion. For ultra-critical applications of the SWC where you would use a tripod anyway, just slip on the general purpose groundglass option and any Hasselblad finder. It's a real joy for a little camera.