Does the “D” in digital – Stand for Dirty?

[eddie]

I don't know, very few people ask me anything when I'm out and about. Probably because I try to avoid interactions rather than go looking for them.

i need to go shoot with you and observe how you do this......i try to keep to myself out there in the field as well.....it does not seem to work. i have tried all kinds of techniques, i even tried hiding under a black cloth! "they" still find me.

[Marko]

i need to go shoot with you and observe how you do this......i try to keep to myself out there in the field as well.....it does not seem to work. i have tried all kinds of techniques, i even tried hiding under a black cloth! "they" still find me.

Not a bad idea, given how different we are, perhaps we could learn something from each other. And maybe even end up with another one of these discussions, only this time over beer rather than keyboard?

[Steaphany]

Why does there seem to be such a caustic attitude between the film and digital worlds?

The tension is not solely between film and digital, has anyone ever witnessed the brand wars that go on within the digital world ?

Nearly everyone seems to have a "My equipment is better", "My technology is better", "My methods are better" attitude. The internet allows these types to stand on their soap box and force their views, like evangelical preachers out to convert the masses.

It's my view that no one needs to be converted to or from anything. If you are happy with your photographic efforts, regardless of the equipment, technology, or methods, then that's all that matters. If not, then you need to learn how to achieve your goals despite the limitations inherent in your chosen equipment or find equipment that will deliver your goals.

[Gem Singer]

Steaphany,

If you are happy with your Sigma digital camera, why did you inquire about purchasing a large format camera outfit???

[Marko]

Gem,

Besides being digital, Sigma is a small format camera.

Digital and film (or to use your own analogy: grainography and pixelography ) are not formats, they are technologies. They determine the nature of the capture. Formats define size of the capture.

Speaking for myself, I own a couple of cameras each for small format (digital and film), MF (film) and LF (film). If or when digital becomes affordable enough in larger formats, I will surely switch there too.

[Gem Singer]

Marko,

FYI, I own and use a Nikon DSLR, a Mamiya 645 roll film camera, a 6X9 back for my 4X5 monorail camera, a Canham 5X7 camera, and a Canham 8X10 camera.

I fully recognize the advantages of using the proper format for the shoot (the proper tool for the job).

I was yanking Steaphany's chain. She and I have exchanged several private Email communications regarding the choice and price of large format equipment.

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

I am secure enough in my own selection of gear and technology that I don't spend much time thinking about this. I have seen some amazing photos done on film and pixels. I prefer film.

Did people have debates like this when film started appearing...

"Sirs, With all due respect to Mr. Eastman I do not see how any gentleman who doesn't process his own plates inside a dark tent can call himself a photographer. On my word, this film is a rude invention that will destroy our fair profession!"

[Steaphany]

The Sigma is good at what it does, but it has no provisions for shift, swing, rise, or tilt between the lens and film plane. I see SLR cameras, whether film or digital, as being a compromise - Loose a level of control to achieve an acceptable level of utility and greater convenience. I have a greater level of control and function with my SD14 than I would with a cell phone camera, but my SD14 can not achieve the level of control possible with a view camera.

Researching View Camera equipment (See I have been busy), I found a couple companies who produce a bridge between the SLR and View camera worlds:

Horseman LD View Camera for SLR Digital Cameras

Cambo X2-PRO system for DSLR

Both amount to view cameras which mate to a dSLR's lens mount.

None are available with a Sigma SA mount, so along with spending a lot of money, I'd have to have components machined and customized.

Obviously, there is a market and photographic need to combine a View Camera with a dSLR body. Even the lensbaby is a gimmick heading in this direction. At least I'm not alone recognizing the limitations of a SLR.

So, I'm in the market to expand, not replace, my photographic equipment to include a view camera, precisely because I understand my present equipment's limitations.

[Stefan Lungu]

I am also coming from digital in the last few years, and by now I have a 6x4.5, a 6x9 and a 4x5 plus a DSLR. I like the negatives I get from my 6x9 and 4x5, but I would not try to shoot pictures of our little one in action with a 4x5. I like them all as far as I like the pictures that I get from them, but I can shoot good or bad pictures with all of them - not a problem of the format. I also have some very nice pictures shot with a bridge camera from 2001. It is no use to have 24MP or a big sheet of film if the pictures suck.
BTW, the wars on CaNikon were there before digital also, so nothing has changed, only that at that time there were no forums to spend all day writing nonsense.

[Harley Goldman]

I shoot both. I get the most pleasure out of 4x5. I enjoy the setup, the pace and the contemplative nature. It gives me far more joy.

When I want to travel very light, I take a 5DII. On most road trips where air travel is not required, I take both, but the 5D never comes out. I could drag the 4x5 along when flying, but the digital is far less hassle.