DMR: I JUST TOOK THE PLUNGE

Well, after a few weeks of Photoshop CS2 and a new ultra fast Dell

with a CG210 color screen and other accessories, I just put in my

order for the DMR. Rich Pinto assures me that I will have it in a

few weeks.

I am convinced that the quality of Digital is now equal to that of

analogue and that the time for an ORDERLY conversion is now. i will

always love film and plan to use it with my M7 for the foreseeable

future. I planned this transition about one year ago and have done

it gradually. I first attended an excellent Digital photo course

given by Maynard Switzer at ICP here in New York and then started

assembling both the hardware and necessary software. I did this with

a colleague of mine who is a tech genius and that made it much

easier. I have a science background but had eschewed computers as

much as possible. Now that I realize that it is really quite

straightforward, I kick myself for not jumping in a few years ago. I

say this to encourage the other members of this Forum who are also

postponing the inevitable for sundry silly reasons as well! The next

step was learning Photoshop CS2: I considered taking a course at ICP

but was dissuaded as many of the students who take the initial

course have minimal backgrounds and do not even attempt to read or

learn the basics before the course. I therefore bought the Photoshop

CS2 book and read it cover to cover and tried to extract as much as

possible from this working with the computer. I also contacted one

of the ICP teachers, Carol Dragon and we have been doing weekly two

hour tutorials. She is excellent and because I did the homework, I

feel that I am making tremendous progress. I realize that there is

an enormous amount to learn but I remain undaunted about this. Alot

is intuitive and it is also fun to learn it. Next month, I move on

to the next step... the DMR. So far so good.

BTW, one important point about scanning your slides: I have used the

Nikon Coolscan 5000 and cannot rely on hte software. Youi must use

the advanced controls and realize that you should also use 16 bits

and not 8. The result is a file size of 60 to 130MB, yes megabits

per slide. Consequently, forget about CDs or even DVDs. Just get

your TWO 500GB or 1TB Hard Drives!

How many minutes to scan a slide? And do they need to be Photoshopped afterwards? Thanks.

What difference does that make? It's the final image that matters.

Good work. You certainly must be impressed.

Albert, welcome to the 21st century. Why are you even worried about scanning slides when you have ordered a DMR? I realize you wish to convert your old slides so you can work on them in CS2, but with a little work you will be taking too many new images with your DMR to worry about the old stuff. Maybe?

Albert, I abandoned the Nikon software a long time ago for Vuescan and have never felt like going back.

 

I'm sure you'll be very pleased with the DMR.

I hope I don't get to see your expected dull, drab, synthetic colored and... textureless, experimental-digital nature photos for criticising on the gallery forums. That is unless you paid megabucks for the new Canon 5D, whose 12.8 m pixels results I have not yet had the chance to compare with a decent fuji/kodak/agfa and top leica, zeiss, or other superior optics.

Well, you are leading the way for us, Albert. I'll be watching for your posted pictures. Soon it will be time for another trip to Europe for you (Italy, wasn't it?), and another Viewfinder article!

Congradulates, Albert!

 

When you do it, you really do it! Great.

 

The digital darkroom is a salvation for those of us who have neither to the time or space

for dealing with the wet darkroom. You'll find that film and digital are a part of the same

process.

 

I have a film scanner at university, a Konica-Minolta 5500 and a Canon Pixus MP900 at

home. The later is a copier, scanner, printer and is capable of amazing things (as I am just

finding out).

 

The nice thing is that that you are in New York. Anything you need by way of instruction is

there.

 

Looking forward to seeing your work.

Congrats on what it seems an educated purchase. Use it in good health. IMHO, it's quite a clever product: modular, allowing the use of film and digital with the same body and lenses. BTW, what is the DMR crop factor, 1.33? Leica should approach a digi-M the same way: Change the back door, use the spaces for film for electronics, and add a baseplate the size of a Leicavit/Rapidwinder for storage/batteries...

Al - I wish I could follow but whether I would if I had the money I do not know. A friend who is now an expert in photoshop and had the earliest Canon digital says he is fed up with having to find cash to uprate his gear every 18 months and longs to go back to an M. He says he just hates the thought of having to dispose of his digital at knock down prices. I am completely torn and the situation was made worse recently by Les Gediman's return to a IIIF and Summitar. I do hope you keep us posted on your thoughts as you make the great transition. I have seen some superb digital prints, but are they superb photos ?

<i>I have seen some superb digital prints, but are they superb photos ?</i><p>

 

Seriously, why wouldn't they be?

Dr. Al

 

No question that the primo 'accessory' for digital photography - regardless of whether the

original capture is film or digital - is a fast, up-to-date computer with massive storage

capacity.

 

My own move last month from a 7-year-old Mac G3 with 4 gigs of hard drive (NOT

memory, hard-drive space!) to a G5 IMac with 250 gig-drive (plus 2 x 250 gig externals

for backup) plus CS2/CameraRaw 3.2 has made a huge difference in being able to

rationally compare film and digital capture and think about where I want my photography

to go.

 

For me it will be the digital-M a year from now (I'm just not an SLR guy). In the meantime I

picked up a Sony R1, which is a clunky design delivering beautiful 10 Mp imagery. My film

M's will serve when I need a 90 f/2 or a true 15mm - the Sony (a DMR for the common

man) will do everything else until the digi-M appears.

 

Storage capacity is critical - it's much better having every picture you ever scanned or shot

digitally right at your fingertips, rather than having to dig through CD/DVD files (and I

have CDs 5 years old that are already corrupted).

 

it really does open up the horizons, doesn't it?

 

BTW - google-search "calibrating RAW" and read the Bruce Fraser article on how to

calibrate the RAW color of your DMR - if your ICP courses haven't already covered it. You

can not only achieve lovely neutral color with 1 click at the RAW stage - you can also tweak

and save saturation and hue settings of R/G/B to go directly to "Velvia" or any other look

you prefer while still in the RAW conversion.

<I>The result is a file size of 60 to 130MB, yes megabits per slide. </i><P>

 

That would be mega<B>bytes</b>, not megabits (1 byte = 8 bits).

Albert , you made a very sound investment in the DMR. I have owned it for six moths and am a working pro. probably the soundest investment I made in the digital world yet. I encourage you to read everything you can and egt you on the right track in the digital world. just a heads up it is a long process and do not get discouraged there is a lot to learn,. I am still learning after thirty years of doing this 24/7. here is a thread i will point you too, there is a ton of info on the DMR but it is also a complete novel. Man is it long but besides the comparision to the canon which really you can skip over there is much info to be had on the DMR and hundreds of images to look at and appreciate from a bunch of folks. I don't normally post here anymore because of the lack of positive attitudes on this site but when i see a new DMR user than i am always willing to help in any way i can. Please if you have questions than let me know. Here is the thread http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/267995

 

Now a word of warning i have been getting this for months , i paid too much , it is not good enough, it is not a M system or comparable to the 1dsMKII or 5d or Nikon system and the whining goes on and on and on. TRUST ME you made the right decision and ignore everyones negatives comments and the trolls that exist everywhere otherwise you will do more fighting than learning.Right now you have a lot of learning ahead of you but it is very satisfying shooting the DMR and getting great images and at the end of the day , that is all that matters.

Ditto Guy's advice.

 

Peter, I think there are more than 2 of us ; -)

albert, good for you for making the leap, I have been using the dmr with cs2 - the cs2

bridge software works great with the raw images.

you are right about the hardware, you need a big fast computer to keep the workflow in

16 bit for the first stages of image processing.

I have flexcolor but have found that bridge works great on raw images.. get that monitor

calibrated, use the new series of epson printers and you will be pleased..I am.

once you experience the level of control you have and gain visual fluency with the process,

it will make going back to film seem limiting. For me going back and forth was not that

productive, and it was only when I committed to using and mastering digital that I felt

great about it.. I guess I can't multi task, it is a different way of working.. and it requires

does require work.

 

 

to film hard..

...rather save vinyl, save film and same human mankind...

 

I don�t think that smal sensors (crop-factor) are a step forward.

Held latest Canon Professional yesterday with full frame and was impressed - still will resist for this un-integer klick klick load battery stuff... still the R9+dmr has a solid feel - this is good...

sorry about that ending on my post - was falling asleep at the keyboard, should read " it

does require work" and ignore " to film hard.." whatever that means.

"Storage capacity is critical - it's much better having every picture you ever scanned or shot digitally right at your fingertips, rather than having to dig through CD/DVD files (and I have CDs 5 years old that are already corrupted)"

 

Andy, glad hear someone acknowledging a problem that most people just try to ignore....film has to be the best storage medium, love that Kodachrome.

Peter A said:

 

"Storage capacity is indeed important. However, people do make a big deal of

this. In my case, I haev levels of storage fr digi shooting. First level is cf card

full transfer to computer.

 

Second level is, delete stuff not worth taking to raw procesing mode ( exit 95%

o shots)

 

next level is raw processing. Atthis point I ususally save original file nd RAW

processed file.

 

next leel is revisit these files a while later -exit 95% of shots. "

 

You know, I totally understand this philosophy and it would save a massive

amount of storage space. My concern with keeping only the "best" shots is

that later, upon reflection, you may find work that you really like now, but didn't

think were "keepers" at the time.

 

This recently happened to me. I needed to make a big print of an image that I

shot several years ago at a client's request and therefore wanted to go back

to the original RAW file and re-work it. In the process of browsing through all

the shots, I found about 10 "non-keepers" that I've now decided are

"keepers." Granted, I do delete shots that are clearly useless (way out of

focus or underexposed, etc). But I keep everything else.

 

This, of course, would not be practical for people shooting high volume

(weddings, etc.).

Oh, and Albert, I also have a DMR and love it. It's far from perfect, but is

unique in many ways. Enjoy!

I don't see film and digital as an either or question. I shoot both, and have been shooting more digital because of the convenience. However, digital has its own aesthetics, just as each film type does. This depends on sensors and the printing technology, among other variables. To get your colors right, you need to include a color checker in each shot; practical for studio photographers but not so for most others. With film, I know what my results will look like, based on the fact that I loaded the camera with Kodachrome, Velvia, Plus-X, Ilford 50, Porta 160 VC, etc. With digital, I rely on fiddling with Photoshop, and then the printing of the service bureau to which I upload images. The pictures are often good, but they usually have their own "look" which is rarely what I intended. Digital is convenient, and it beats Polaroids, but having said that, I'm not doing hand-stands over it. Additionally, film has archival properties, such that no computer is needed to read it; all you need is light. Finally, you lose two f-stops of contrast with digital. This really comes into play outdoors with strong sunlight. In lower contrast scenes, by definition, it is not a factor. So much for my ramblings. By all means, embrace digital. I did, but I still buy and use film.

" the arrogance of some people on this forum with respect to their cavalier attitude

towards huge sums of money"..-J.M.

jm, I think you need to keep you cards closer to your chest.

we all share an interest in leica, we all don't have the same means and time.

Digital is not cheap, leica is not cheap, I aspire to create beautiful photographs employing

both of these, it is an expensive proposition.

Good for the doctor for having the passion to pursue this new technology, at 45 I really

had

to push myself to learn something new, to survive in the business of photography It is a

big learning curve, even for one who has mastered traditional photography.

I'm sorry that photography has taken this turn for you, and in the uk and other places

the costs are even higher than in the U.S. but don't attack the folks who have worked to

achieve the the means to forge on down this path.

and on another note, I just filled up a 2 yard debris box with 120 - 8x10 transparencies.

I wish I had a nickle for each piece of film I dumped.. life is short, and you can now make

archival prints digitally, I store raw on one drive and layered tiffs on another, when they

fill up I buy another drive. you have to learn to edit as you go. a 160-250g hard drive is

way cheaper than buying film and processing for the same images.. and those will get

cheaper.

"Finally, you lose two f-stops of contrast with digital. This really comes into play outdoors

with strong sunlight. In lower contrast scenes, by definition, it is not a factor. So much for my

ramblings...-EB "

maybe you need to rephrase this, I have no idea what 2 stops of contrast means..

and if you can't restate it better, I think you need to reread a book on tradiional photography,

then attempt to understand the lattitude of digital.. from your self described ramblings I

don't think you get it.