Chucking it and going to DSLR?

[Marek Warunkiewicz]

Hi folks!

I have a Canon 5D Mark II as well as an 8x10, 5x7 and 4x5. Great lenses for the digital as well as LF ranging from 1850s Petzvals to Schneiders and Rodenstocks. I rarely find myself shooting digital. It may be "easy" but I find myself not "seeing" as well with it. What I tend to do in digital is find images that I can't make with my LF cameras like panoramas that need to be stitched, pieces that I envision using Pshop to create and then most of these then get printed using very traditional methods like Palladium, Cyanotype etc. I find it very hard to be as rigorous in my "seeing" with digital, that discipline is easy to forgo since I can shoot 800 high rez images on my 32GB card. When I have an LF camera to set up, I do a lot more thinking and looking before setting up and shooting. If I were a sports shooter or animal shooter, then a smaller, faster camera would make sense, but I'm not.

It really is all about (at least for me) subject matter, my personal workflow and end product vision (I try never to shoot without seeing the final result in my mind) and what is possible with what I have at hand. I'm planning a long trip with my wife next spring and summer and have spent endless hours debating what to bring. Can't bring it all and I KNOW she won't put up with me setting up my 8x10 so I might have to compromise with 4x5 or 5x7. We'll see.

[tlitody]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I'm considering getting my first digital camera too. NOT with the intention of giving up black and white film photography but for practical commercial reasons. What worries me is that because I will be able to download images directly to PC and view immediately on screen, there might be a tendancy to become lazy about having to process film materials and that is a slippery slope to go down. But then again if film is reserved for personal work then I can conveniently seperate personal work from commercial work.

[lilmsmaggie]

Personally, I'd get a Canon 5D MK II - having said that, don't chuck your LF gear. Just think of the DSLR whichever you wind up choosing as just another tool in your photographic toolkit.

There's room for both

[Darin Boville]

Are we missing (quite literally given the number of landscape photogs here) missing the forest for the trees?

Why simply compare a DSLR to 4x5/8x10? There are many more options available, from cell phones, to scanners (to make original images), to video cameras.

Underneath many of the posts here is assumption that we will continue to photograph the same subjects in the same way seeking identical technical results. Well, of course, in that case nothing will ever substitute for whatever you are using.

Maybe there is something wrong with that assumption.

Underlying other posts is the sense of craft--that LF requires true craftsmanship while DSLR does not. Maybe. But it is worth pointing out that LF is easy to do nowadays compared to how it was just twenty years ago. Board like this one have reduced the learning curve to a fraction of what it used to be and costs have plummeted to the point where LF is less expensive than serious DSLR equipment. Low barriers to entry all around. That reduced mental burden would seem to open up the time, money, and energy to allow a photographer to master not just LF techniques but related fields as well.

--Darin

[ki6mf]

Do shoot digital, I keep mine fired up for the grand kids running around and for travel photos. I also started working in 20X24 and am thinking about rolls of paper to do larger prints. Digital isn't there yet! I claim it does not save you any time! The time in the dark room is now replaced by time in front of the computer editing and printing.

[Brian Ellis]

Do shoot digital, I keep mine fired up for the grand kids running around and for travel photos. I also started working in 20X24 and am thinking about rolls of paper to do larger prints. Digital isn't there yet! I claim it does not save you any time! The time in the dark room is now replaced by time in front of the computer editing and printing.

Yes, the time in the darkroom is now replaced by time in front of the computer editing and printing. But look at the difference in how you're spending that time. What do you actually do when printing in the darkroom? You get things set up, you mix chemicals, you bring them to temperature, you fill the trays, you turn out the lights, you make the exposure, you jiggle the trays - 2 minutes in developer, move to stop bath, 30 seconds in stop bath, move to fix, a minute or more in the fix - turn on the lights, move print to viewing area, squeegee the print, evaluate the print. Then go through that process again to improve the print. And again. And again until you get a final print, then move on to the next one and repeat the process again. And again. And again until your printing session is finished. Then you empty the trays, clean the trays, set the prints out to dry, empty the print washer, put everything up, etc., etc.

Now think about how much of all that time was spent doing anything creative. Almost none of it - maybe 10% at the most was spent dodging, burning, flashing, changing contrasts, and evaluating the print, i.e. using your creativity to make better prints. The rest of the time - 90% or more - was spent doing drudge work, the kind of stuff successful photographers in the old days used to hire darkroom assistants to do.

Now think of printing digitally. Turn on the computer. Open Photoshop. Select the image. Edit, edit, edit, edit, edit until you have a print with which you're satisfied based on what you see on your monitor. Put the paper in the printer, start the printer. Out comes the print. Evaluate it. Edit, edit, edit some more. Reprint. See the difference? Yeah, the time may be the same as if you were in a darkroom but how that time is spent is vastly different. Darkroom = 90% or more drudge time. Digital = 90% or more creative time.

Which of course doesn't mean darkroom work can't be enjoyable or that someone should prefer sitting in front of a computer to doing darkroom work. And it certainly isn't intended to say that better prints can be made digitally (though I happen to think the differences are much smaller than you may think based on your snapshots). Just that while time spent in front of the computer and in the darkroom may be the same, what's being done with that time is vastly different.

[cyrus]

I'd buy a CanonG11 which is technically a point-and-shot and not a dSLR, but it shoots RAW, is light, and has practically all the benefits of a DSLR but at a fraction of the cost and weight.

[Brian C. Miller]

Here's what I don't like with digital: at its core, it's just a blob. A square. At film's core, it's a tiny flake, floating alone.

Rotate them. The digital line becomes jagged. The film's line stays true.

Enlarge them. The digital blob becomes jagged. The film's silver flake becomes visible, and beautiful all on its own.

What attracts me to 1/2 frame? It is both soft and sharp. What attracts me to large format? Detail. Supreme detail.

What attracts me to digital? Convenience, and nothing else.

How often do I use my digital camera? Rarely. If I want fast hand-held quality, I have medium format. 40-inch enlargement? Max it out for my 645 and Kodak, and 16x20 is just getting started with 4x5.

But really, what is the point of using any camera? We make an image, we convey an idea. What does the tool we use allow us to do? "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." The same goes for photography. What good is a 4x5 negative if it's only enlarged to 8x10? What good is a camera with movements if "swing" is only a dance step, and "tilt" is only on a pinball machine?

Think about your ideas, and then think about how you want to convey them.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well said, Brian. Well said.

[Brian C. Miller]

At least Pentax 645D.

I checked it out (Pentax Japan online store) and at the current exchange rate that camera (with lens) is nearly $11,000.

I want to buy a camera, not a car.