Jump to content

who switched totally to digital?


angelo_smaldo

Recommended Posts

i m asking myself if in this field of photography i m the only one who

switched 100% to digital ......

 

mybe is the more conservative branch of photography, i think many of

you still usind film camera, and also Big format cameras.

 

and if yes, wich kind of equipment?

i m using now olympus 4/3 sistem and Nikons DSRL (8MP and 6MP)

 

i love the X2 multiplier lens factor when photographing animals of the

4/3 oly sistem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Temporarily all digital right now. (Nikon D70 +Canon S70)

 

I am pondering whether to get another film camera (I like to have one decent one around for B&W at least) should be a Nikon FM3a + 28mm f/2.8 AIS or whether I should snap up a bargain Bronica ETRSi (or SQ-B) system whilst some dealers still have them.

 

In a perfect world I would be able to afford something like the new 22mpixel Mamiya ZD digital SLR and a Nikon full frame digital version of the FM3A if it existed. In the same perfect world, digital would be capable of matching all the qualities of a good traditional B&W print and I would have no reason to use film.

 

Alas, a consumer digital SLR and a bargain Bronica are what I will really be using in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature photographers in general have less resources as well as less deadlines than other professional photographers, and sometimes also work in harsher enviroments, nevertheless, quite a few have made the switch in 35mm: Arthur Morris, John Shaw, George Lepp, etc... Compared to large format film cameras, digital doesn't provide either the quality (35mm digital) or practicality (scanning backs). Myself, I use a 1Ds2 and a 5x7 system. <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">Terra Galleria Photography</a>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went from 35mm to digital and haven't gone back.<br>

<br>

I use a Canon 10D DSLR and a few good lenses <br>

(6 mg and I don't need anymore unless I want to print<br>

bigger then 13"x19").<br>

<br>

If you really want exacts click my name, <br>

or click here: <A href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=442322" title="Click to Open my Photo.net page" target="_blank">I list the equipment I use. </a><br>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artie Morris & others have switched. Most who have are users of 35mm and some medium format gear. Large and UltraLarge format just doesn't get replaced with digital nearly as easy. A whole different world with swings, tilts, shift and control of the image at the taking stage paramount. Then you have contact printing from the large negatives, something pixelography just doesn't have. Add to that the world of staining developers & hand coated papers from platinum to carbon as well as 'sun prints' and you have a hands on process that is unique. One at a time creations that can't be duplicated, part of the attraction of these larger cameras.

 

If something happens I can still photograph, develop and print without electricity with my 5x7, 8x10, llx14 and larger. I can even enlarge with minor modifications to the enlarger head. Without electricity digital is dead.

 

One isn't 'better' than the other, just a personal choice in how one works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>Without electricity digital is dead.</I>

<P>

Well, without electricity, you wouldn't be able to read photo.net and do a lot of other things. Meanwhile, without film and processing chemicals, your film cameras would be useless and you wouldn't be able to make prints.

<P>

If I were you, I would be a lot more concerned that film and processing chemicals going away than electricity and computers. Electriicty and computers are so integrated in our life that they are far more likely to be around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If I were you, I would be a lot more concerned that film and processing chemicals going away.."

 

These aren't going to go "away"anywhere. You need to print the images to view them and a computer monitor isn't going to do it, even at Bill Gates' house. Prints do need chemicals and processes that are not totally different than film processing chemicals. Photo.net and other electronic fora have not replaced photo magazines, journals and galleries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can you do with film that you cannot do with digital? How about infared - both b&w and false color ir slides.

What happens when batteries die? I still carry my old Canon F-1 with me on shoots because I know how to expose without the use of electronic metering and it work with my manual focus lenes over and over again with no batteries.

 

Will I ever go 100% digital? No, I will alway carry some film with me as backup.

 

As to equipment:

 

Canon F-1, EF and A-1 with lenses from 20mm to 500mm mirror plus extenders, macro tubes and bellows.

 

Mamiya 645 Pro with wide angle, normal and short tele.

 

Olympus E-1 with 14-54mm (effective 28-108mm) zoom and 50-200mm (effective 100-400mm) zoom.

 

Olympus 770 point & shoot (always in my pocket).

 

Canon 20D with 18-55mm zoom and 75-300mm zoom.

 

Walter

 

B&B Photography

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is confusing two separate kinds of photography, I think. Wildlife/bird shots require long lenses and fast operation. Digital is probably the best choice for that. Landscapes require great detail, careful thought, and lens movements are a big help. Large format is hands down the winner. I'm not even remotely considering replacing my 4x5 with a digital for landscapes and architecture for the time being. For wildlife, digital begins to make sense. I still shoot an F100 35mm though. I only use ~300 rolls of 35mm film in a year, and digital doesn't make sense economically for me yet.

 

Sure, the 2x effect is great if you shoot birds/wildlife, but my most used lens is my 18-35mm. Digital sucks for ultrawide. Yes, they have 10.5mm lenses now, but they are expensive and far more prone to distortion. And then there is the heavy dust to contend with in the environments I like to shoot in.

 

 

Kent in SD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digital scan backs for 4x5 have been around about a decade now. The "obsolete" one I use is only 35Megapixel; and has a 7x10cm active scan; with a wimpy 5000x7000 pixel image. With a studio shot; or still day landscape; a several minute image is really no problems at all. This gives a 105Meg file; with little noise. During some prescans one can get the focus spot on; and get the exposure spot on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think digital is very useful for macro and wildlife photography: in fact, technically and aesthetically the best results are obtained with digital capture. Black and white is clearly the exception where film is much better.

 

In many other fields, film has many advantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I> I only use ~300 rolls of 35mm film in a year, and digital doesn't make sense

economically for me yet.</i><P>

 

Kent: I don't know what emulsions you're shooting, but when I stopped using Fuji Velvia in

favor of going digital a couple of years ago, film plus processing was $8-$10 minimum for a

36 exposure role. If that's what you use for 300 roll/year, you could easily get yourself a

D70 in a few months time from film savings, even with a few CF cards thrown in. I agree,

though, that your 18-35 would suddenly become pretty disappointing on a 1.5X APS

sensor....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

There was so much critcism on the Nikon forum (!) about the 1Ds MkII's performance with wide angle lenses.

 

In your experience-

 

Can you get acceptable images with your full frame DSLR and wide angle lenses?

 

Is there severe light fall off?

 

How do take care of that?

 

Do you use any non Canon lenses (like a Zeiss Distagon with an adaptor) on your camera?

 

TIA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, some confusion here. 'This field' is in fact many niches under the general heading of 'Nature'. The former 35mm guys are naturals for digital, even lowly 6Mp DSLRs, because their subject matter works with it. The crop factor helps with reach for wildlife and macro works very well. The detailed landscape is a far tougher taskmaster and one for which digital is far from optimal at present, in the opinion of many, including myself. Digital's MTF works great, clean files, easy workflow, and consumers tolerate it very well, so I understand pros doing it for those reasons for small prints and/or certain subject matter.

 

I have a developing theory that one camp of photographers 'see' in digital, and love its characteristics of sharp edges, grain freedom, pastel palettes, etc; as evidence, I have heard even LF guys talk in terms of the cleanness of the images from D70s, some suggest for small prints (say, 10 x 8) digital is the equal of film. Others, however, are bothered by the aesthetics of digital files, and prints derived therefrom. I know pros who shoot it for the money jobs but not for themselves. Pure nostalgia? Probably not, in the majority of cases. Many believe low to mid-end digital: looks plastic, the mid-tones are poor, prints lack 'dimensionality' or depth, highlight detail rendering shows poor tonal separation, skin tones are poor, OOF highlights are mushy, interpolation-rendered smoothness just looks phony (perhaps because it actually is!) and fine detail is deprecated for mere edge sharpness - these are common criticisms from shooters who seem to 'see' images differently to the first-mentioned camp. [Note this comment does not apply to the megabuck topend of digital backs.] Yes, you can do plenty in PS or PWP or PSP, but the image starts out looking very strange, too often, and prints can appear to represent a world other than Earth.

 

What is interesting is the use of film images in some magazines who are not busy raving about the latest digital releases - the British Photography Monthly seems more interested in images than gear, and most of the good images, even in the low res world of magazine repro, are film-sourced.

 

Kelly, my understanding is that digital backs are just not ready for prime time for fresh air, real world use, despite some enthusiastic boosterism (not dissing you, your posts are always informative). If one needed 60 secs plus s/s, well, one would not take many images that were not demonstrations of blur photography. Everything moves and the effect is clearly visible in high quality reproductions, and is usually ruinous. QT, most (all?) of your trad landscape images are clearly LF-sourced and look wonderful, even on screen. Your 1DsII is for other subject matter, perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walter Beck , may 28, 2005; 11:15 a.m.:

 

"What can you do with film that you cannot do with digital? How about infared - both b&w and false color ir slides."

 

===========================

 

Walter, many, many photographers are using digital for infrared and UV photography now. It's been several years since film had a monopoly on those styles.

 

However it is true that some digital cameras are better suited than others to IR photography. At least with most (not all) film cameras all that is necessary is to load up the desired film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>You need to print the images to view them and a computer monitor isn't going to do it, even at Bill Gates' house.</I>

<P>

Maybe at Bill Gates' house but not at mine. Very few of my images ever get printed. Most of my images are simply stored on hard drives or posted on line for sharing. In fact, DPReview cited some study last year that most people simply share digital images on the web or e-mail them to friends and relatives. Therefore, it is a matter of time that a lot of those "one-hour photo" places will go out of business.

Of course, some people will still get some images printed once in a while. But the overall demand will be considerably lower.

<P>

And Kent, yes, 300 rolls of slide film a year is at least $3000 in film and processing, not to mention that you need postage or driving to get your film processed. But if you shoot digital, you'll likely spend more time in front of the computer doing "digital darkroom" work. However, the biggest advantage of all is that you can see your results immediately and adjust your images while you are still there.

<P>

I am currently at the Redwood National Park at the north-western corner of California. Pretty much all motels here have high-speed internet connectivity. Here is an image from yesterday. My DSLR is an "ancient" Nikon D100 from 3 years ago, but it still work well for macro shots.<div>00CMM0-23811584.jpg.aff0727204179d3ec58bba7dfda34557.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One local Walgeens has so much 1 hour business they have now have two machines. The 1 hour buinesss got saturated Saturday with the holidays; and turned to a many hour turnaround. Some folks actually want prints too; to send to older relatives who dont want to fartaround with email; lost as to how to print the images. In documentation of cameras repaired; I am abit totally digital since the last 8 years. With parents and kids who want school sports prints; I like film; easy to get doubles; a CD made dirt cheap. This saves a huge amount of time and money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is rather an interesting question; one that bothers the cell camera makers; and inkjet sellers. The "bother" is where to grab your cash. With cell cameras; most all dont really make any prints; a many just download direct from the camera to computer; IF the phone provider has expensive fees for "handing photos". Many of my friends that are "totally digital" rarely ever print anything; some even have two Epson printers; 13" panoramic papers; etc. The fun dropped after several paper and cartridge replacements. Some do use the local digital labs for 4x6 prints; but there is over edit; lets not print much; like they are bloody a buck a piece; but really just say 17 cents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went 100% digital for bird/wildlife photography, which is what comprises most of my subject matter. If landscape was a more serious pursuit I would consider film. As a backup we brought a film cam on our last trip and I did enjoy taking some snaps with it... will do so next time as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...