As we all know more is better. More megapixels, more frames per second, more focus points, and so on. Today photography has become something to be quantified rather then created. It's true that a major portion of photography is math, lenses are designed to the laws of physics, and cameras are designed with a similar prospect now as well. More is better, everything in the next model has to be better then the last. Canon has learned this lesson the hard way with all the grief they are getting over the recently announced 30D, a direct and "minor" evolution over the 20D. The simple mater of fact is that most of you out there who are complaining about getting more and more are not really using it to any plausible effect. If you spend all your time in a studio shooting then getting quality of the highest order is paramount, prints have to be tack sharp and that's where 39 megapixle digital backs or even film (gasp!) stuck to Hasselblad's and other medium or large format cameras come in.
So image quality is great isn't it? We fork over massive amounts of money to have the latest and greatest modern digital equipment. Next year we will do it again or maybe the year after, depends on who comes out with what new innovation. It's the next step up, the evolution of our art.
How many of you print 30x20 inch prints?
A few months ago a friend borrowed my Canon 20D and my Canon 17-40mm f4 L lens to shoot some photos for a poster they wanted to do up as an add for their coming up exhibition. These two pieces of equipment are what I guess you could call mid range, the 20D while capable is not quite to the level of pro, and the 17-40 with stunning image quality and that all important L designation gets let down by a rather slow maximum aperture. So maybe not the kind of thing you would want to shoot a big poster in the studio right? After all its only 8 megapixels. Surprises come in all shapes and sizes I guess, a few days later they put up the poster they had used my camera to shoot, it was titanic, I have never printed anything out this big with this camera, or ever actually. The poster was about 1.5 meters wide and 4 meters tall. It was a picture of a guy sticking out his tongue and was taken quite well. You could count the hairs on his chin and clearly identify the fibers on his tongue; you could even see the little red blood veins in his eyes. It was shocking to say the least. Later I saw the original photo, nothing special, barely stopped down, not even shot in raw.
You get my point?
Here I do a lot of gallery exhibitions, 30x20 is the general size I print at with digital and 30x24 with film. That resolution comes in handy for me. Last year I made about three dozen large size prints for shows. At that size 8 megapixles is nice, a little more could be helpful (the details of hats, carpet, etc can look a little stressed when printed this large) so there are always alternatives, but if you are not a pro or someone who is very serious about photography having all that extra power isn't going to do you any good. Remember, resolution doubles after megapixles are quadrupled, i.e. 8mp is only twice the resolution of 2mp.
Ok anyway what I am saying is that its not always about having the latest and best of everything. Who said being modern is a good thing? There is such a thing as going too fast. This revelation came to me after I had moved on from a fully manual film camera to a automatic, then to an automatic digital. I didn't think so much about what I was doing, I told the camera where I wanted to focus but was not involved in the process as much, digital didn't make it any better either. Shoot first, pick and alter later. Why not just shoot it right the first time?
Which brings me to what I have been doing lately. Manual cameras with film. Devil talk in today's digital world. A friend lent me his old Zeiss Ikon camera a while back, it barely works, no light meter, only three working speeds, a fogged up rangefinder that I can't seem to clean, and it's totally misaligned. What a joy it is to make things simple and slow down. Thought goes back into my photos, it's like I have been removed from the hive mind and I am doing things on my own again.
I would like to speak about rangefinders for a moment. I love these things. Seeing outside the image that I am taking is something I never considered so necessary. I can see what's going on and what's about to walk into my frame before it does and I waste a shot. I love how quite and discreet they are, I love how small and simple everything is. By comparison these things are Stone Age technology, gears moving mirror elements and manual film loading. But I submit to you that these things are as modern today as any digital camera. How so? Because they can take the photo just as well as any digital camera, maybe even with some advantages over them.
Film is not dead, it's still a fantastic and in my personal opinion, superior way of recording. Digital is fast and convenient but I rarely ever see a digital photo that comes out of the camera looking as good as the photo that comes out of my slides. Even though quantifiable math states that digital is superior to film, I just can't agree. Film has a special look that cant be quantified. Colors invite you in rather then invade your senses. Tones and smoothness in prints from film to digital are substantial. And whats with digital and the color green? The green that comes out of Provia or Velvia makes digital look like old puke. Look here for instance
[link] or here
[link] a recent article put up on The Luminous Landscape, when I look at those shots side by side I keep thinking that digital green looks awfully yellow.
Ok so all this has come down to a point, slow down! Take the time to enjoy your photos, emerse yourself in the scene and be part of the world around you while you are capturing it. But most of all: Get off your ass and go take some photos rather then complain that your camera is only this or only that.
And finally to sounds like a total ass and a hiprocrit I have finally decided on getting either the Canon 5D or the Leica M7. Its going to have to be the Leica M7 and the 35mm summicron asph
And, while I'm at it, your photos of children are wonderful, I admire you for it because kids are not usually the most willing models, but most of the time they are the most rewarding.
Thanks for a little bit of childhood in a world that leaves very little place for it.
My cam is what I can afford, I worked an entire summer for it.
Not changing gear every year like all people I know...
Cant afford such life style...Just taking pleasure and doing it my way...
Even if not at such good level...
I can't say that I entirely agree with you.
But if you know me, you'll know that I'm a huge fan of Velvia, slide shows, and of course my "operates-without-batteries, built Nikon tough" FM2. There's nothing, and I mean NOTHING, as satisfying and relaxing as watching a slide show of my images, seeing the fantastic blues and greens, or warm, magenta sunrise / sunset hues... My heart melts every time I look at some of my more favorite slides.
However, the slideshow is not always the end-result, nor is the "out-of-camera" RAW digital image. They must be processed in some manner before they become a print, and for film this process is all downhill as far as image integrity is concerned, while for RAW processing it is almost entirely uphill.
The scanning process for slides is either incredibly expensive or unacceptably low-quality. Even with an Imacon "as good as a drum" scanner, I have not been able to retain all the vibrance of an original slide. But with digital, I open up my RAW files and apply non-destructive processing parameters to them, elevating the final result to something truly satisfactory and pleasing...
Film:
[link]
[link]
[link]
Digital:
[link]
[link]
[link]
The film shots look pretty good, but the slides look 10x better. And they were scanned on a very expensive Nikon scanner. The digital images on the other hand look 10x better than they did on my camera LCD. But only after RAW processing in CS2.
As a digital shooter who loved his Velvia greens, such as here [link] or here, [link] ...it took me a long time to re-achieve that same natural hue with digital files. After some horrible results from JPG captures and a lack of software / computer power, yielding results like this, [link] ...I finally managed to master my D70 and get proper results, such as images like these: [link] [link]
In any case, I agree with you that from an aesthetic standpoint, film will always have my heart, and I will surely never stop shooting it. But when a print, especially a 16x24" or larger print, is necessary then I turn to digital for the best reproductibility.
It's not about the speed, nor is it about the ability to "fix mistakes". Because I don't have an editor breathing down my neck, nor am I incompetent when it comes to exposure etc. (and I know of course that you aren't asserting such, so please don't take this the wrong way) ...I simply prefer to shoot RAW, forget about the WB and other settings, and process the image myself at my own leisure.
Whether it takes more or less time than scanning I don't care, but I definitely enjoy watching my images "come to life" in digital RAW optimization instead of watching my beautiful greens and magentas, and not to mention the shadow detail, go to crap while trying to scan slides.
It takes a mastery of the digital processing techniques, that's for sure, but that's the price you have to pay when you forego the cost of film and processing for your traditional slides. I accept that tradeoff very readily, since I've made my software and computer upgrades pay for themselves many times over by now...
Take care,
-Matt-
I shoot raw in my digital camera sometimes too, when it calls for it. I like tweeking around with things in raw, its kinda neat, and yeah naturaly a negative has to be developed etc etc into a photo but im just saying looking at it straight out most digital images are kinda dull and require a lot of tweeking to get some sparkle. Also yeah, digital doesnt have much soul yet. I see those people shooting with the epson rd1, nice rangefinder, with leica lenses, lots of soul, but the results look flat and boring.
The other day a guy was arguing with me that to get good results out of scanning film you need to go buy at least a 500 dollar epson scanner, I asked him how much that D200 around his neck cost...
I wont give up on digital, but im more interested in film.
I'd say forget about the $500 epson scanner, and go straight to the $2000+ scanners, at a minimum. Heck, scanning on VERY expensive Imacon scanners, that are supposed to be almost as good as a drum scan, still don't bring out all the magic in my slides.
So for that reason I just prefer digital when printed results are the goal. Albeit partly because I can't afford the high-end $100-per-scan Tango (that's the brand) drum scans for my slides, which I'm sure are fantastic...
-Matt-
I don't really like af cameras really.
Digital does speed things up and as a parent and working person the time saving factor is much appreciated.
So now i own a k minolta 5d, i also picked up a 7000i from ebay dirt cheap so i can shoot film with the same lenses.
I have kept my ae1 and a 50mm lens and still intend to use them.
but what would be my dream digital camera?
epson digital rangefinder
ps I have a ae1 and a 50 1.8 fd as well, what a jem of a camera and lens. My ae1's internal auto stuff doesnt work anymore so it really plays like a full manual for when I need to slow down a bit. But for all its high points I would rather have a rangefinder although I will never get rid of it.
ps. that Foveon thing was adapted by sigma and is sorta defunked at the moment but I like that inovative thinking, it means that people are at least trying right?
pps. Acording to mathematics a digital camera captures light in a much higher resolution then film, but yeah, digital still doesnt look right to me I guess. This guy is adamant that digital is better [link] but Zeiss is adamant that film is the only choice for high resolution photography and recently tested one of its new lenses on film to something around 400 lpm which is shocking detailed [link]
So from all of this all I could figure out is more resolution doesnt mean its gona be faster. A car with more horse power then another doesnt mean its gona be faster if it cant put it down on the road.