Return to film... True!

I believe this will be my approach in future Matt. Although I will most
likely use more contract shooters for "package" Weddings and retain the
personal use of Film for those willing to pay for traditional Wedding
portraits rather than a couple of hundred digital happy snaps.

Digital has a place in my business, not my life. I sell pictures but enjoy
taking photographs... If that makes sense?

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
:
:
: I've found the same thing, however, I continue to use digital in my
wedding
: pj work, and medium format for just about everything else.
:
: --
: Regards,
: Matt Clara
: www.mattclara.com
:
:

What's that movie where Lee Marvin sings with Clint Eastwood? I think I
recall them saying much the same about the advantages of horses over those
new fangled automobiles.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group

"random user 12987" wrote in message
...
The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and
landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps
$25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital
photography...
I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the occasional product shot
or
advertising shot but definitely not for what I have made a living doing
for
43 years.

I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always
expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who
recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement and a
digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to
allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet.
Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that,
might also give me and edge!

I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography.
Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional
work
was always with medium and large format cameras.

I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge
by a computer I can't program. I am fed up with the cost of digital
photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot but sub machine guns never made an
accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of rounds in the hope of
hitting something too.

I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for
Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with
uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He
used
a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do
the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the
****ty dynamic range of the camera.

I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the
subject,
encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed them last
night and all are in focus with just 3 throw away. The camera with 2
lenses
cost $850(AUD) on EBay and the film + chemicals cost maybe $30(AUD). I can
buy some fine lenses for this camera with the cash from selling my latest
digital.

I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery
and
ready to sell to print shops tomorrow. I couldn't do it any faster with
digital and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin,
blowing away the specula highlights.

It's all over red rover. The digitals are simply not good enough for my
work. This post is not about "is digital better or worse" it's about a
decision I've been contemplating for some time. Maybe Australian sunlight
and 40C daytime temperatures with Queensland's 27/7 humidity over 80%
might
affect the sensors and the results, maybe not. What I do know is my most
popular posters are all shot on film.

Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras
as
opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered
by
a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my
investment.

--
Having climaxed... She turned on her
mate and began to devour him.
Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman?

On 2006-01-26 16:41:25 -0500, "random user 12987" said:

The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and
landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps
$25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital
photography... I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the
occasional product shot or advertising shot but definitely not for what
I have made a living doing for 43 years.

I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will
always expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also
those who recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted
enlargement and a digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of
these people around to allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive
for another few years yet. Besides, being one of the last in town to be
using film and MF at that, might also give me and edge!

I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography.
Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional
work was always with medium and large format cameras.

I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my
knowledge by a computer I can't program. I am fed up with the cost of
digital photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot but sub machine guns
never made an accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of
rounds in the hope of hitting something too.

I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for
Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred
with uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use
for. He used a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD)
worth of CFCs to do the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to
(try and) overcome the ****ty dynamic range of the camera.

I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the
subject, encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed
them last night and all are in focus with just 3 throw away. The camera
with 2 lenses cost $850(AUD) on EBay and the film + chemicals cost
maybe $30(AUD). I can buy some fine lenses for this camera with the
cash from selling my latest digital.

I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the
gallery and ready to sell to print shops tomorrow. I couldn't do it any
faster with digital and certainly would have had problems with the
suntan oil on skin, blowing away the specula highlights.

It's all over red rover. The digitals are simply not good enough for my
work. This post is not about "is digital better or worse" it's about a
decision I've been contemplating for some time. Maybe Australian
sunlight and 40C daytime temperatures with Queensland's 27/7 humidity
over 80% might affect the sensors and the results, maybe not. What I do
know is my most popular posters are all shot on film.

Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film
cameras as opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to
be bothered by a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of
the magnitude of my investment.

I just spent $32 on ebay for a nearly mint Olympus OM10 to go with my
motordrive OM2. The two bodies, 3 Zuiko lenses, 2 3rd party lenses and
the motor drive and dedicated flash cost me less than $300. And their
images are better than anything I have seen on digital. Of course, that
means comparing a real photographic enlargement with a digital
enlargement, not digitizing the negative or slide and printing it
digital. And when I REALLY want to blow away the digi's I take out my
Pentax 6x7, a twenty-five year old camera. And my forty-plus year old
Rolleicord, even with its desperate need of a cleaning, takes 6x6
chromes that make digital look like a toy. That doesn't include the
feel of a real solid metal camera in your hands instead of a
plastic/fiberglass temporary housing for a soon to be outdated
microchip.
--
Michael | "You're going to need a bigger boat."

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
news-server.bigpond.net.au,
p says...

by a computer I can't program.

We keep telling you to shoot RAW. But that's fine, MF film sounds awesome,
sounds like fun.

RAW is better than JPG, but a 6 MP file in any format won't enlarge as
smoothly, with as much detail as decent 35mm film (Reala, Velvia, Astia,
Portra). I suspect that's not true of the top of the line Canon/Nikon, but
I believe the jury still's out on the rest of the DSLR selection.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message
news:i7gCf.3259$0n4.2966@trndny05...
What's that movie where Lee Marvin sings with Clint Eastwood?

"Paint Your Wagon", I believe.

I think I
recall them saying much the same about the advantages of horses over those
new fangled automobiles.

In article ,
p says...
The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and
landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps
$25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital photography...
I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the occasional product shot or
advertising shot but definitely not for what I have made a living doing for
43 years.

I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always
expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who
recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement and a
digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to
allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet.
Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that,
might also give me and edge!

I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography.
Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work
was always with medium and large format cameras.

I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge
by a computer I can't program. I am fed up with the cost of digital
photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot but sub machine guns never made an
accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of rounds in the hope of
hitting something too.

I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for
Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with
uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He used
a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do
the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the
****ty dynamic range of the camera.

I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the subject,
encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed them last
night and all are in focus with just 3 throw away. The camera with 2 lenses
cost $850(AUD) on EBay and the film + chemicals cost maybe $30(AUD). I can
buy some fine lenses for this camera with the cash from selling my latest
digital.

I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery and
ready to sell to print shops tomorrow. I couldn't do it any faster with
digital and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin,
blowing away the specula highlights.

It's all over red rover. The digitals are simply not good enough for my
work. This post is not about "is digital better or worse" it's about a
decision I've been contemplating for some time. Maybe Australian sunlight
and 40C daytime temperatures with Queensland's 27/7 humidity over 80% might
affect the sensors and the results, maybe not. What I do know is my most
popular posters are all shot on film.

Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras as
opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered by
a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my
investment.

Welcome to the club.

It seems to take about three or four years for serious photographers to
realise that the digital scene is not all its cracked up to be. My
advice is to buy the stuff you want now, while suckers are selling it
for next to nothing on the used market.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes.

In article ,
says...

I've found the same thing, however, I continue to use digital in my wedding
pj work, and medium format for just about everything else.

Hey Matt, what would you recommend as a decent MF setup for someone
wanting to get into it?

I used to have a Bronica ETRS with a few lenses but I swapped the whole
system for an F5 years ago. The guy I did the swap with is looking to
sell it again, but I am not so sure it would be the right thing to get.

Hasselblad? Mamiya?

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes.

In article ,
Dave E wrote:
This is the greater cost I'm referring to - the whole shift away from
purposeful photography which requires photographic technique, practice and
application. Already these changes have cost us - Minolta, Agfa, Blad
(XPan), Nikon film gear etc. just as a start. I guess it all comes under
the heading of progress but no longer is photography in the hands of
photographers - it is the new breed of consumer who must have the latest
thing and really knows nothing of, or cares little about good photography.

Real photographers have been just a tiny fraction of the overall market
for photographic products for many decades.

Many real photographers switched to digital for two good reasons:
- if you know what you are doing, digital gives much more control than
handing over some film to a lab. Or, is much less time consuming than
scanning film.
- high-end digital provides a higher quality in the same package.
(And then there is the film costs issue).

At the same time, the people who stay with film simply continue what they
allways did. They don't need to buy any new equipment (well a scanner
if you want to go partially digital). So, they don't show up in any
market statistics. Why buy a new Nikon F80 or FM3a, if there are plenty on
the 2nd hand market. And I guess that most people who have been serious
about photography for more than a decade will have more than enough
cameras anyhow.

Why do people ask so many questions about digital issues. Simply because
that is new to everybody. The people who know about photography, need
to learn the digital stuff. People who just started photography want
to know how to make a big print that looks sharp, and has the right colors.

Anyhow, it likely that things will be sort of back to normal soon. Physics
places hard limits on what can be done. There is no point in having tiny
10 Mpixel sensor in a P&S if you also want a 10x zoom.

Most consumers are not going to see a big improvement from 12 Mpixel sensors
compared to 6 Mpixel sensors, because their technique is not good enough.
(No tripod, and slow lenses in low light).

And a large group of people will probably figure out that the cameras
may have changed, but that their pictures are just as boring as ever.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

After three years and perhaps $25,000 (I never kept count) spent on
the pursuit of digital photography..

Frankly, given all the wonderful resources around explaining the
differences between film and digital, and the costs, both direct and
indirect, I find it a little hard to understand how someone could
caught changing over to a format that wasn't suitable to them. Even
without all those freely available resources, surely a good
photographer should be able to ascertain within a couple of weeks
whether a particular device or format is appropriate. $25,000 and
three years????

I have likened this sort of thing before to a professional wedding
photographer hearing that Velvia was a cool film, and then buying a
truckload of it for his next few years weddings... Disappointment
awaiteth such a person. And little sympathy from me.

I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always
expect you to use the very latest equipment..

Who - clients??? If it's anyone else, who cares. I have never once
felt pressured or 'expected' to use any particular type of format or
equipment. And if there was such an expectation from a client, I would
gently explain to (and show) them why I was using something other than
they thought. And if they disagreed, point them to the yellow pages to
find someone else. I still use my dear old Yashicamat when I feel like
it...

recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement
and a digital print.

Everyone will vary on this point, but IMO the digital prints I do now
at home exceed (comfortably) those I was getting from about 80% of the
pro labs. And those pro labs are now getting thinner on the ground.

Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to
allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet.

Yes, of course there are. And if that 'old bugger' is doing
enlargements to 20 x30 and beyond, he should never have even strayed
towards the digital formats he did. An FZ20 for 20" x 30" and above?
No thanks.

Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that,
might also give me and edge!

And might not. Depends on who else lives nearby, and how good they
are. (O:

I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography.

But didn't you author this thread and others, about almost endless
enlargability???

http://tinyurl.com/8thnu

Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional work
was always with medium and large format cameras.

I would really like to know why do you say this? On that other thread,
and many like it, you claim that 24" x 36" enlargements from 6Mp
digitals are perfectly sharp using your system. You must therefore do
an awful lot of work at larger sizes than that... And the only
examples you ever posted about dynamic range problems were simply
wrongly exposed. So what is it about MF and LF?


I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge
by a computer I can't program.

Most digital cameras produce RAW files - they are almost completely
unprocessed. So do you mean you can't handle photoshop and color
calibration perhaps? Or what *do* you mean?

I am fed up with the cost of digital photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot
but sub machine guns never made an accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of rounds in the hope of hitting something too.

But sub-machine guns *do* hit things - and they are not sniper rifles
nor are they intended to be. When used for the purpose they are
designed for, most things work quite well..

I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for
Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred
with uncontrollable crowd intervention

So you hired a dog. Put a film camera in his hands and it would be
different.. how exactly? A bit more expensive and even less keepers, I
would wager.. Says more about your ability to hire a decent worker
than anything else.

Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the
****ty dynamic range of the camera.

He used a flashgun to overcome dynamic range problems, did he? (O:
While a fill-flash can be useful in some circumstances, I have noticed
that many photographers who complain about limited dynamic range with
digital, simply have little idea how to shoot in difficult
circumstances. Sorry, film diehards, but most DSLRs nowadays have more
dynamic range than the vast majority of films. See here for some
details:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

If the camera is using out-of-the-box contrast settings, or shooting
jpegs, or the images are simply badly exposed, it may well have poor
dynamic range, but that just shows a poor tradesman at work - the
potential is there.

I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery

Like I have always said. These sizes require MF if you are serious.

I couldn't do it any faster with digital

I could. But it would have to be from a 1DSMkII if they had to be
*sharp*.

and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin,
blowing away the specula highlights.

That's speculaR. And specular highlights, by common usage, *are*
generally blown. *Real* blown highlights (ie one's you don't want)
should only be a big issue if you can't meter to save yourself, or if
you have the camera poorly setup.

By the way, it's lovely to see you back with a new identity, Douglas
MacDonald!

It's very strange that once the bull**** is removed from your posts, this is
all that is left



:
: By the way, it's lovely to see you back with a new identity, Douglas
: MacDonald!
: