Return to film... True!

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
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.

Hi Philip,

thanks for your response - it has been a view I've been forming for a while
for some reason. I guess it's sad to see the passing of so much of what
we've known for so many years.

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).


Certainly digital has its place (shooting animals is one example!) and I've
used it to great effect professionally as well. Last year I returned from a
trip to the Taklamakan desert in western China where I shot digital and
Velvia back to back during a desert sunrise (quite magnificent place I have
to say). Getting the shots back I quickly decided to drag out and dust off
the film gear - the digital just had *nothing* on the film results and I
certainly don't possess the skills (or time) to try to doctor the digital
images in PS. Of course now I'll inherit the scanning pain for my tranny
work but that's cool. I hope I'll still be able to buy film in the coming
years!


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.


Huh? Perhaps you can have enough cameras but you can never have enough
lenses! :-)


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.


In my experience, the 'average' new breed 'serious' amateur photographer has
spent some time with computers and loves to get wobbly knees over the specs
of their gear, new stuff etc. (IMHO, a lot of these people wouldn't know a
decent shot if you kranked one up their kollective Khybers!)


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.


Yes, one wonders just how much further this stuff can go without struggling
for a purpose. Perhaps the merging of motion and still technology under the
'photographic' heading will prevail. :-|


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).


Yes, plenty of evidence on the net of this!


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.


Nicely said. Sometimes being a bit snooty about these things feels good eh?
Zzzzzzzzz

Cheers,
Dave E (Sydney)


--
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

Yeah, I for example just bought a "like new" Minolta Dynax 9 body for
650 euros. Which digital body can you get with that amount of money?
Nothing that would come even close in performance. And second-hand
Nikon 5s are frequently sold for 500-600 euros, so get 'em while u can!

cheers, Marko

"DD" wrote in message
...
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?

Hassleblads are going for a song these days, and their lens prices are
falling, too. After using an RB67 Pro S for 4 years I decided I wanted
something more robust and with a meter built into it. I ended up with a
Rolleiflex 6008i, which is a beautiful camera, but the zeiss lenses
available for it, though optically identical to their hassy brethren, are
very expensive. Something to think about is film format. Hassy/Rollei are
6x6. The RB is 6x7. I like the square format, but it can get you into
trouble, like when I did some portraits for a family and later realized that
there was no way I could crop them to 8x10 having filled the frame just a
bit too much. There are also larger formats, like the Fuji 6x8 (expensive,
but a well built machine, and, as I recall, the only medium-format to offer
some movements to the front standard). In 6x9 you're stuck with Fuji
rangefinders, which are no longer in production, but their lenses get wild
reviews. I'd love one of those, but they're fixed lens cameras (unless you
get the first generation models, like Bandicoot did), rangefinders, so no
close focus, and they have no meters. Speaking of rangefinders, the Mamiya
7II is the only medium format rangefinder still in production, and though
it's said it's not the most robust camera, it's also said the lenses are
second to none, mtf wise. I'd love one of those, too, but they're
prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, for a camera of limited
functionallity (limited as in, no close focus, no long telephoto--nothing
over 150mm, as I recall, which in 35mm terms is the equiv of 75-80mm, and no
macro). It has a built in meter, though, which is nice, but I couldn't
really trust the one in the Mamiya 6 rangefinder I had for about six months.

So, you might just want to get the Hassleblad to get your feet wet, and if
you don't like it, it should resell easily enough.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Dave E" wrote in message
news:43d95f43$0$1046$61c65585@un-2park-

How will I read the menu options if I cover the LCD? The only way to
set
mirror lock up is electronically on the 20D.

Hi Mark,

hopefully you can see my point somewhere in there. :-)

Yes, just funning around a bit.

Mate, all this 'advancement' you talk of - what has it done to
photography,
really? As for affordable film gear, you don't need a degree in economics
to understand why this is so.

In theory the way a market is supposed to work is that the manufacturer
takes cues from the consumer. So the more involved photographers (i mean
the artist types) get with the manufacturers the better the next generation
of cameras will be. Maybe we can even convince them that middle gray isn't
middle gray.

Look at the relationship between Apple and it's consumers - that's what we
need in photography. Unfortunately it would probably take a startup company
to create such a revolution in this industry.

As for the GA point - I'm also a pilot - flying to me is about the romance
and joy of being up there - I'm trying not to lose sight of that in the
clutter of all the new technology that's arriving...

I wasn't talking so much about the new technology. My point was that if GA
took off the way cameras have in the last couple of years, it would be
cheaper to buy planes, cheaper to maintain them, cheaper to fly. And
anything that makes it more affordable to fly means I can spend more time in
the air - well that's a good thing.

Digital technology has brought photography to many people who might never
have gotten into it because of all the perceived hassle of film. Sure many
of them are the dreaded snap shooters, but many of them are true artists
too. Anything that enables new artists, IMHO, is a good thing.

FWIW, I know at least 3 people who started digital about 3 years ago and now
they're shooting film for the first time in their lives and 2 of them are
talking about buying medium and large format cameras. I can guarantee that
they never would have taken a second look at photography if it wasn't for
the easy of entry into the digital world.

my background is in
financial/software engineering, so I'm a numbers boy too. :-) The big
threat to GA here is that it doesn't bring a great return and so in Sydney
it is being squeezed out to be replaced by passenger-carrying operations,
apartments (Hoxton Park) etc. Very sad but probably inevitable.

Ditto here. We recently had a victory in St. Petersburg, FL. We saved
Albert Whitted Field via voter referendum. It was about to become water
front condos. They'll have to wait 20 years to try that again. Gotta keep
working to preserve GA - it's an ongoing struggle.

Cheers!

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery

Hell and High Water writes:

In article ,
p says...


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


You've taken the words completely out of my mouth.


YESSS!!


-Bob (Nikon F3, 55 micro-nikkor AIS)

Funny, I figure I have much *more* control digitally than I ever did in
the darkroom (and I did darkroom printing regularly for nearly 20
years). Sounds like you haven't learned how to use the digital tools.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Matt Clara" writes:

"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.

*Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly. Not the most
detailed (at 6MP), but much smoother than film.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Matt Clara wrote:

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

news-server.bigpond.net.au,
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.

I agree, film is great. It's just that he's complaining about having no
control over digital while shooting jpeg.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote

*Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly.

You mean, like 'posterized'?

If the data doesn't have noise in it there aren't enough
bits in the A/D converter &| data.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

"Nicholas O. Lindan" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote

*Smooth* is exactly what digital does superbly.

You mean, like 'posterized'?

No, I do not mean like posterized. I can, with great effort, by
expending the brightness range greatlyl (like 4 stops underexposure,
expanded back in photoshop) force posterization to happen, but it's
not a problem in decent photographs.

If the data doesn't have noise in it there aren't enough
bits in the A/D converter &| data.

Not to worry, the bottom couple of bits are mostly noise.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

In article ,
Dave E wrote:
Getting the shots back I quickly decided to drag out and dust off
the film gear - the digital just had *nothing* on the film results and I
certainly don't possess the skills (or time) to try to doctor the digital
images in PS. Of course now I'll inherit the scanning pain for my tranny
work but that's cool. I hope I'll still be able to buy film in the coming
years!

In my experience, there is not a big difference between correcting scans of
slides and print film on one hand and direct digital on the other.

Color print film is often tricky, but slide film and direct digital can
be tricky as well.

Experience with the medium is required to get good results.

Huh? Perhaps you can have enough cameras but you can never have enough
lenses! :-)

True, but if you buy them 2nd hand, you once again don't show up in
the statistics.

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.

In my experience, the 'average' new breed 'serious' amateur photographer has
spent some time with computers and loves to get wobbly knees over the specs
of their gear, new stuff etc. (IMHO, a lot of these people wouldn't know a
decent shot if you kranked one up their kollective Khybers!)

Well, the 'computer' part is new. But in past people had to have sharper
lenses, or faster lenses, or better autofocus, or better automatic
exposure.

There is always a reason to get new gear.

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.

Yes, one wonders just how much further this stuff can go without struggling
for a purpose. Perhaps the merging of motion and still technology under the
'photographic' heading will prevail. :-|

To some extend that is already there. Video cameras can handle stills and
P&S digitals can record movies. The iPod doesn't seem to have a camera.
So that will be next 'advance'.

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.

Nicely said. Sometimes being a bit snooty about these things feels good eh?

Well, I'm not saying that my pictures are anything other than boring. That
is for other people to judge. I just never got around to stop taking
pictures.


--
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