Have MF users replaced 35mm with Digital

[tapas_maiti4]

Hi Guys

 

Thanks for all the answers; I guess digital is concerning all of us a fair bit - please don't get to hostile on my account though!

 

I went to my local dealer to have a look - they made Darron's comment that you need to see the digital files printed to proper photographic media not simple ink jets; I wouldn't know but the outputs they showed me from things like the Fuji S1 seemed quite impressive. I don't really understand how such small files generate such big pics when I wouldn't accept 35mm doing it, some very intensive and clever trickery going on.

 

It seems a bit unfair but I am unconsciously impressed by digital that approached 35mm but annoyed with 35mm for not matching mf - thats life though.

 

The cameras are a different matter - the D30 seemed "right" but the other P&S types like the Nikon 5000 had very poor handling though incredibly small and quiet - much quieter than a Leica! What seems annoying is that they aren't ready for action.

 

Conclusions - you cannot travel with them (not my sort of travel anyway) but have yet to have taken a 35mm travelling, I ummh and ahh and find myself on the plane with the blad. Had I not bought the Leica I would almost certainly shell out for a D30 or the Olympus E10; I think the processing savings are worth it. I am not convinced that selling a low depreciating asset like an M6 to buy a consumable is that clever. Some thinking to do.

 

Thanks again

 

Tapas

[lightcraftsman]

<i>You may be a professional photographer, but I'm a professional engineer

specializing in image processing.</i>

 

<p>Peter, you're judging something you haven't seen based on theoretcial

engineering principles. If you read my post carefully you'll see that I'm

comparing my D-30/Lightjet combination with 35mm film/pro lab prints.

These are automated prints, not custom darkroom prints, which no one

seems to do any more anyway.

 

<p><i>You are either saying that a lightjet printer smears the dots so that it

cannot accurately reproduce what's in the original image or that you and

your customers cannot visually resolve 187 dots-per-inch in a print, which

suggests that you are not looking at your images critically. If you can come up

with any other explanation then feel free to suggest one.</i>

 

<p>Forgive me for being a humble photographer who doesn't have the

engineering background to argue technical details with you. But to suggest

my customers and I are not examining the prints critically is either ignorant

or arrogant, take your pick. I examined those prints very critically before I

spent the money for two D-30s for my business. My customers spend good

money for their prints, and many of them (as I've stated) are graphics

professionals. They look at the prints with a very critical eye. Your

assumption that we don't know what we're doing is invalid.

 

<p>Going digital was a business decision for me, but I refused to compromise

quality to make the switch. The simple truth is the D-30s give me better

images than I could get using print film and an automated pro lab machine.

The cost savings made the decision a no-brainer, but only because the

quality was there first.

 

<p>You're obviously unconcerned with anything other than scientific

evidence, so I'll bow out of this argument and let you repeat your

inexperienced opinion. Anyone reading this should keep in mind that one of

us is an engineer and the other is a professional photographer who depends

upon his image quality to earn a living.

[peter nelson]

<P>Anyone reading this should keep in mind that one of us is an engineer and the other is a professional photographer who depends upon his image quality to earn a living.</I><P>

 

Earning a living only means it has to be "good enough" to meet a minimum requirement; it doesn't have to be good in absolute terms. I'm also a gardener and a gourmet cook. As a gardener I produce far better tomatoes and squash than anything you can buy in a grocery store - even though grocers make their living at it. And as a gourmet cook I can make a far better tasting and presented meal than the average "family-style" restaurant even though the latter are making meals for a living. And this is true for many avid gardeners and cooks.<P>

 

I propose an experiment. If you tell us what lab you trust to do a good job with Lightjet prints I'll send them 200 and 300 DPI test images and display the results here. That should settle it.

[tapas_maiti4]

Hiya

 

I thought I would comment again in the middle of Peter & Darron little war.

 

I downloaded a jpeg from Fuji's site a 3.7mb JPEG called fruit and printed it out on my Epson C80.

 

I am extremely impressed - I don't know what they did to the original output but I assume it truly is a capture from their S1 then I am very very impressed with the output - heading me more and more towards digital.

 

Tapas

[tda]

Morning Tapas

 

I had to trade off my ETRsi for size and weight issues for an upcoming trip. I will be using 35mm predominantly but still desired medium format for the important moments (for me mainly landscape and some portraits) Basically like you I wanted the portability of 35mm but in Medium Format.

 

Roll in the Fuji GA645zi, which seems well placed to serve your needs, great for snapshots, very good lens for when you stumble across a picture moment caught short without your Hassy. Auto everything or manual over ride.

 

Or for less investment the GA645/i (which is what I have gone with) which you can pick up for under $500 used.

 

If you want the square format, and dont mind a bit more manual input then a used Mamiya 6 could be well suited (plus the advantage of interchangable lenses) More expensive though.

 

And I'm sure you could pass them on for similar to your purchase price if Digital does develop to your taste.

 

Something to consider at least.

 

Cheers tony

[vartan_grigorian]

Interesting to hear the argument about actual resolution vs. subjective print quality. I think both of you are missing something form your arguments. That is the fact that a print with sharply rendered detail at low spatial frequency can look quite sharp when viewed in isolation. The fact that there is no fine detail goes unnoticed as long as what is there looks crisp. Unsharp masking goes a long way towards achieving this. This is especialy true for action photos which are seldom critically sharp anyway. Our perception of sharpness has more to do with the contrast of course detail rather than the limiting resolution of the print.

[peter nelson]

<I>That is the fact that a print with sharply rendered detail at low spatial frequency can look quite sharp when viewed in isolation. The fact that there is no fine detail goes unnoticed as long as what is there looks crisp. Unsharp masking goes a long way towards achieving this. This is especialy true for action photos which are seldom critically sharp anyway. Our perception of sharpness has more to do with the contrast of course detail rather than the limiting resolution of the print.</I><P>

 

But this is exactly my point! That's why I made such an issue about how critically the client looks at the photo. The critical observer understands that relationship and so is not so much affected by a "perception" of sharpness. When lay observers (including art directors and advertising exec's) look at an unsharp-masked image they perceive it to be sharper; when knowledgable observers see the same image they perceive it to be unsharp-masked. <P>

 

In my experience most laymen are easily taken in by the illusion of sharpness. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to take photos with a very shallow depth of field so the subject is much more in focus than anything else. This will invariably cause people, even ones who should know better, to comment on how sharp the subject looks. Variations on this theme are to motion-blur the background, e.g., in a sports photo, or to have a very plain background, e.g., a clear blue sky. Photoshop is a goldmine of such tricks - not just unsharp-masking, but also selective blurring, adjustments of curves and color-saturation, etc. On some black-and-white images boosting contrast or making the image grainier can boost the illusion of sharpness for some observers.<P>

 

The mistake Darron is making is assuming that the willingness to pay well for a product reflects a critical knowledge of the product. But as I noted before, sales do not reflect critical evaluation; else there would be no cheap restaurant chains or large-volume supermarkets. My local Stop-and-Shop may be convenient for a quick shop on the way home, but if I'm preparing an important meal I'd rather buy my meat at the butcher and my produce at the speciality green-grocer, because I and my guests can see and taste the difference.<P>

 

My suspicion is that despite his protests about not being an engineer, Darron is well-aware of all of this and is simply afraid of killing the goose that lays the golden egg by admitting it. He knows that his customers are easily taken in by things which create the illusion of sharpness and doesn't want to say anything that might undermine their belief that they are buying sharp prints.

[durocshark]

Interesting little skirmish there.

 

While my K88's been dead, I've been using my old Minolta manual focus gear more and more. Since I have a 35mm film scanner, I'm finding I like using the smaller format better. Beautiful 8x10" prints from my $100 Epson Photo 780 printer.

 

I'm sure if I had a d30 like a friend of mine does (Lynn Farmer uses his exclusively now. http://www.lynnfarmerphoto.net/ ) I'd probably use it more too. Except for one thing:

 

I don't like auto-everything cameras. So far, no digital backs exist for my manual focus gear. I know there are ways to force a modern camera to use settings I give, but there is a contemplative feeling I get when I use this older gear that I never had when I was using my Maxxum gear. (I really wish digital film had pulled it off. Sigh.)

 

I agree there are differences between film and digital, and that digital is actually BETTER than film in some shots, while worse in others. Depends on the subject matter and final use of the image.

 

If I was rich, I'd use both. ;-)

[peter nelson]

<I>If I was rich, I'd use both.</I><P>

 

Even if you're not rich, or maybe I should say, <B>especially</B> if you're not rich you may find it advantageous to use both. When I first started doing studio photography I was deeply impressed by the cost of Polaroid test shots - around a buck a shot. Not to mention the sheer <B>MESS</B>. Also the frustration of waiting for each shot to develop. And did I say the smell of the Polaroid fixer? (although the other day I was in another studio and when I smelled it it made me nostalgic).<P>

 

Anyway, now I use digital for studio test shots and I'm a lot happier. I also use digital for snapshots, like if I'm visiting my folks in Florida and I go to Disneyworld or someplace. And also in my job as an engineer I write image-processing algorithms for digital imaging systems used in medical imaging all day long. So I certainly have nothing against digital imaging - it definitely has its place and uses.

[bas1]

Tapas,

 

Let me see if I got this right....

 

You're a MF user, that has bought Leica and Hexar RF gear for light travelling, but find that quality is too much of a compromise so now you consider digital.

 

With all respect, you need to go see a shrink and do something about your lack of selfconfidence and your buying desease. Trust me I suffer from both as well, but what you're saying here really makes no sense at all.

 

I have a Leica and yeah, its not a good as my hassy, but as far as 35mm goes, its as good as it gets. If you cannot live with that quality then get a MF rangefinder like the bronica or Mamiya 7.

 

Digital? Do your own test and see if you can live with it.

 

What I recommend is that you download some pics from www.dpreview.com of the S1 or D30 or any other that they have reviewed, check them on your system and have them printed by a pro lab. That should tell you all you need to know about the quality that you need to know.

 

If you can live with that quality, go for it. Don't ask other photog, since we all suffer from buying desease and lack of self-esteem....

 

As for travelling, forget about it. Just the batteries alone are a nightmare. I prefer my M6 for travels and love it.

[tapas_maiti4]

Hi Bas

 

Thank you for your most polite comments; my post was clearly badly written.

 

I meant to say that I always take my hasselblad travelling and use it for anything serious because I prefer to use medium format. (personal style or maybe I am used to it.)

 

My 35mm seems to be relegated to snapshots nothing more for which the Leica seems overkill - as you quite rightly intimate, the quality of the Leica is very good (though no better than anyother top 35mm)

 

In terms of snapshot; casual wedding photos - I was asking whether digital cameras would be adequate because they have advantages in terms of speed and reduced processing and printing costs and also not having dozens of reject prints lying around.

 

I also have digital needs in anycase as members of my family live in India and e-mailing photos is a method of keeping in touch thus I have reasonable computer equipment at my disposal - maybe thinking that I could produce my own colour inkjet prints rather than go to a lab was stupid of me?

 

You are also correct in that I should make my own tests but the facilities are not readily available where I live (though I am trying.)

 

I do feel that asking for feedback from the forum was reasonable as I have had and read a great deal of quality advice here (and not just on equipment.)

 

Regards

 

Tapas

[bas1]

Ooops, sorry Tapas, I seem to have been a little to sharp with my comments. I ment no offense :-}

 

From what you've just mentioned, I agree its overkill to use a Leica for those type shots and can understand your concern about having useless prints lying around.

 

I however, which I forgot to mention, had a similar thought some time ago and bought a Canon Digital Ixus with a 128mb card. My thinking at the time was sort of similar as yours, but also wanted to have something nice and small so I can take it on my business travels. Quality of this thing cannot be compared with a D30 or S1, but the result is that I have this thing and don't use it. Just a total and utter waste of money. I rarely download my pix to my PC and never ever print them. Mail use, yes sometimes, but spending over usd 900 (with the card), just a total waste of money.

 

These days, if I shoot casual shots like you describe, choose to have the film developped and then only put onto CD. No excess prints and relatively cheap.

 

Now if I could only get myself to sell the ixus on Ebay... that would improve my self-esteem.

[shutay]

I've used 35mm for all my photography (casual snapshots, holidays mostly) with my trusty Ricoh KR-10 Super. When that stopped working, I had been using a toy Kodak EZ200 webcam for fun snapshots that I knew would be e-mailed only (not printed of course!). That convinced me that perhaps a decent digital camera would fill most of my needs in the 35mm arena as well as give substantially improved quality for the e-mailed snaps.

 

I now use a Nikon CoolPix 995 for all my photography, but...I recently discovered that my Dad had a Yashica-Mat LM stashed away in his cupboard for years, so I've pressed that back into service. Now I use the MF camera sparingly, for shots that I really like, or where I really want the quality. Sometimes I'll shoot something with the digicam, and find that it's a stunning shot (to me anyway!), and I'll reshoot it in MF.

 

However, I only take the digital if I KNOW FOR SURE that I'll have some place to regularly download the pictures and clear the storage card, otherwise we'll just use a 35mm SLR or P&S for regular shots. I find it highly unlikely that I would ever buy and carry all that gear around (laptop, ZIP drives or CD-RW drives, power supplies, etc. and associated security problems, etc.) for the sole purpose of having somewhere to keep my holiday shots!!! It's a ludicrous proposition for me and the way I intend to use it. If for example my wife and I went on a trip lasting several weeks with no possibility of a nearby computer to save images to CD-R, I wouldn't bother bringing my digital. Perhaps it is because my use of the camera is non-professional that carrying a laptop around everywhere is such an unattractive proposition.

 

I have also considered purchasing a digital wallet (a device such as the ZIP PhotoShow or other) that allows one to plug a Flash storage card containing images and follow a simple procedure to dump the entire contents of the memory card onto some larger, cheaper storage, such as a built-in hard disk drive or ZIP disks. But the prices of these things almost equal and in some cases exceed the cost of my digital camera, which already costs double my wife's Nikon film SLR cost and doesn't really come near it in performance (shutter lag, focus lag, etc.), so the whole thing of digital being cheaper starts sounding like a stupid joke. I suppose it depends on how many rolls of film you shoot in a day.

 

Bottom line - I like my digital camera, it's also a great learning tool, I find I like the prints I can get from it. But if I'm going away for a long time (e.g., longer than a week) with no access to a PC (e.g., friend's or relative's house, etc. where I can backup the photos to a CD), then I can no longer rely on the digital to capture all the shots of my trip.

[pphaneuf]

All this fuss about not having enough pixels, or what have you.

 

Anyone remembers that even the lower-end film scanners (I'm talking things like the Minolta DiMAGE Dual Scan II, not cheap flatbeds with transparency adapters) have enough resolution to resolve grain, even with slow film reputated to have low grain.

 

If you have approximately the same resolution, but avoid the grain, and also avoid an intermediary (the film), one is bound to get better sheer quality.

 

That said, I don't have the money for a D-30, though I would like one, and I like the looks and speed of Ilford Delta 3200, both of which the D-30 isn't close of (though the looks could perharps be simulated in PhotoShop, the speed couldn't).

[robert_potts1]

I think you're kind of comparing apples to oranges. You need to decide what you want to produce. You can keep film images for many years. Electronic images are something you play around with for a while. I've been using a Mamiya 7II rangefinder. Getting high quality 6x7cm images with this is so simple, it feels as if I am cheating. The Bronica 645 rangefinder is even smaller. You don't have to give up quality for convenience. If you haven't tried one of these, you should at least look at one. On the other hand, digital is another world of fun. Hope I helped.