Should digital users try film, and... vice versa?

[ray .]

(Brad has a 150,000 gb drive;)

 

Hmm, I don't think they're quite equivalent Lee, because we're

talking about accomplishing some of the same things in a more

efficient and productive matter lots of times with digital vs film

cams. I see your point though. It's all photography, but I think

some just close themselves needlessly to the options. I'm not

ready to get rid of my rangefinder at this point, because I still

think there are some things it does better, but getting a dslr has

been like having a new toy. It's been fun for me to see how a

different instrument can be used to the same basic end... I

guess there's some legitimacy to your idea about snapshots

being lost, but really, I think people tend to keep photos of loved

ones whether they're perfectly composed or not. I'm sure lots of

film based snaps have gotten tossed as well, when it might have

been better to have saved them.

 

In answer to your question Dennis, maybe at the core the quality

of my work won't change, but I think using a good digital cam is a

means of freeing things up for me. It does lend itself to

experimentation, and also, a dslr, like a film SLR, is just a more

versatile instrument than a rangefinder. Experimentation can

lead to meaningful innovation...well, possibly. If you haven't, I'd

recommend a look at the film about Nachtwey, 'War

Photographer'. Aside from the essential content of the film, it's

interesting to see how he approaches people and photography

with an automated film SLR, which functions in many ways

(motor drive etc) like a DSLR.

[EricM]

"Percentage of "keepers" varies. When I was first starting out I paid attention to that. I don't anymore."

 

Yes, it's a practice from film shooting. Being bound by the cost and hassle. It took me a few months to drop the film practice of being hesitant of what I once shot. Hesitant on the subject, hesitant on bracketing, on angles on lens sizes. I have a freezer full of film I'm guilty I own and am trying to use up. Film is a pain. What am I supposed to do with a keeper? Get it scanned? Okay, at home on my Epson and get marginal results, or send it out for a proper expensive scan? What am i supposed to do with the box of unwanted ones? Put them with the rest of the slides that are the only copy and that are slowly degrading? I come home with my film cam half exposed. I want to see them and play with them but I can't until I've finished the roll. Another $25 roll.

 

To return to Ray's original post. Most experienced film shooters and wet darkroom users take to digital like a duck to water. Most never return. The market shows this in both amateur and professional use. All those hours of experimenting in the darkroom, and making mistakes, are available with Photoshop. All the creative thoughts one had while dodging and burning and flashing and bleaching and multi-contrast printing, are available, under control and repeatable, with a computer. If film was invented today, it would never reach the market and take off.

 

I was leaning on the counter of my pro lab last week chatting with the owner. I had an in interest in the amount that digital has effected his business. Four years ago he used to process over 500 rolls of film a day for Vancouver's pro photographers. Today he hardly reaches 100. My one roll of Velvia was one of them.

 

In which manner, Ray, you speak of, and the level of shooter or photographer, to answer your question, depends. If one just loads film and has the local drug store develop and scan their film, then I can't see 'going digital' being much of a benefit, except cost. Two or three rolls a month? Who would really be interested in spending thousands to become adequately re-tooled in digital? Not many. If one is shooting hundreds of digital files a week, who would be interested in going to film? Not many. It's a grey mucky area for the time being. But an interesting question to ask again in five years, in ten years.

[ray .]

Actually, "motor drive" is sort of a pejorative term, suggesting a

maniacal annoying press/paparazzi photographer who shoots

willy nilly in hopes of getting something to make a buck. I don't

think too many people using DSLR's to do street photography

are shooting in continuous mode. "Automatic film advance"

might be a more useful term. It's just another distraction

eliminated to allow you to focus on getting the shot you want.

[ray .]

That said, I haven't really done any street shooting yet with my

digital. The jury is still out on how I'll feel about using it for that,

but it's definitely been useful for other stuff I wanted to use it for.

[Brad_]

What did you get Ray?

[ray .]

You mean brand? It's not the cam, Brad. ;)

 

D70... seems good.

[Spearhead]

<i>You mean brand? It's not the cam, Brad. ;)</i><p>

 

Maybe he just wanted to see if he could share lenses with you.

[Allen Herbert]

Interesting use of the wide angle lens, Brad. Nice work.

 

I enjoy using both film and digital...it just depends where i'm at in that moment in time.

 

Just enjoy the choice.

[Brad_]

<I>Actually, "motor drive" is sort of a pejorative term,...</I><P>

 

Yeah, and I ignored it further above knowing the implied negative connotation - that if you

shoot enough, fast enough, you'll likely catch something worthwhile - like a a few dozen

monkeys with typewriters eventually knocking out some Shakespeare in 1000 years...<P>

 

I view it as having an almost unlimited supply of free film (and processing), so if you see

something interesting, you don't have to think too much on weighing the costs as to

whether to snap it or not - or take multiple snaps from different positions.<P>

 

Eric raises some interesting real-world issues above on the notion of keepers and non-

keepers and how you handle them in the film world. And I think his views on the

thresholds for crossing the line to "go digital" make a lot of sense.

[dennis_couvillion]

"It's all photography, but I think some just close themselves needlessly to the options."

 

Ray, this goes to the heart of some of these discussions... dinosaurs like Lee and I don't want the digital option. We're happy still trying to master what we do now. By saying that people "needlessly" close themselves to options you are passing a value judgment. It suggests we'd be better off taking options. Our choices aren't needless, thank you very much... we're perfectly happy doing what we do.

 

As for the documentary of which you spoke and the use of an automated SLR you may be unaware that during the nineties all I used were two Nikon N70 cameras. I am extrememly familiar with the use of auto-focus, auto-exposure SLR cameras which, as you point out, are similar in operation to DSLR cameras.

 

This is what I found: If you shoot on AE you and the camera may not be on the same wave length. So I would go to a spot metering mode and point at the part of the scene I wanted to meter off of and then lock the exposure. If I was shooting on AF and I wanted to place the subject off center I would point at the subject and lock into the focus. Then I would recompose and shoot. Not the fastest way to shoot street. Once you get the hang of it you can do it fairly quickly... but I found myself fiddling with dials a whole lot.

 

That is one of the reasons I switched back to Leica in 2001 when I started concentrating primarily on street phtography again. The Leica was small, simple and mechanical... and for me much faster to use. I didn't have to mess with all those damn dials. I could concentrate more on what was in the finder.

 

With the Nikons there was sometimes the temtptaion to just leave it on one of the AE modes and blast away with the motor drive. When you shoot that way though all you actually see is the first shot. I got off more shots that way... but I can't speak to the quality.

 

Anyway, it still boils down to what Lee said... just use what you feel comfortable with what gives you the most satisfaction. I talked to a guy not too long ago who used to hang out on photo.net and now runs a film based internet site. He said "people there were always acting like there was something wrong with me because I didn't want to shoot digital." I said "I know the feeling." ;>)

 

Dennis

[ray .]

<i>...if you see something interesting, you don't have to think too

much on weighing the costs as to whether to snap it or not - or

take multiple snaps from different positions....</i><p>

I agree, this has definitely been my experience. On the other

hand, there's something to be said for limitations, depends how

you look at it or how you want to approach it. With film and

without a film advance, maybe you concentrate on making the

one shot count. I think it's definitely worked for me at times that

way in the past. In the end, I think a good photographer can take

advantage of either system.<p>

 

Dennis, I wasn't trying to impose anything on anyone.;)

[sprouty]

<I>"...just use what you feel comfortable with</I> (and) <I>what gives you the most satisfaction."</I>

<P>

Unfortunately for some that's not enough. Everything needs to be turned into a competition.

<P>

I'm pleasantly surprised to see this thread remain civil. It's actually informative and interesting to read the rational behind why some people have gone in one direction or another minus the normal dosage of bile.

[dennis_couvillion]

"Actually, "motor drive" is sort of a perjorative term, suggesting a maniacal annoying press/paparazzi photographer who shoots willy nilly in hopes of getting something to make a buck."

 

Ray, why do you say "motor drive' is sort of a perjorative term? Do you think that DSLR-shooting photjournalists don't use motor-drive most of the time? I'll bet they do to capture moving subjects and other action. And since they might not know when the action will arise I'll bet many leave their cameras on continuous mode. As Jeff pointed out:

 

"...the more you shoot, the better chance you have of getting a shot that's desirable to the editor."

 

Motor-drive is just another tool. If I was a PJ I know I'd use it. And if you've bought a DSLR you've paid for those five frames per second.

 

Dennis

[Uhooru]

Ray, excellant idea. Teaching that heals! I'd have no qualms about trying a Dslr. In fact, I've been trying street shooting with a Hassy lately. If you want, we cold get toghether one day and bring the Hassey and the DSLR out and switch for a while. (check out my LA st folder) Mixed success but enough interest to keep me going.

[Uhooru]

Al, you might suggest to your buddy to not be such a cheapskate and take a moment away from his mouse to go get an ergonomic chair. No need to suffer a bad back..there are solutions.

[socke]

Dennis, one stupid question. How do you focus your Leica? I do focus and recompose as often with rangefinders as I do it with manual or AF SLRs.

 

Only exception is the scale focus Rollei 35TE. There its "f8 and be there".

[ray .]

Barry, I've been meaning to email you, and I will, because I've

been thinking on a couple occaisions it would be good to have a

shooting companion... I've just been busy lately. Call me if you

still have my number, or I'll get in touch with you.

 

Volker, Leicas/rangefinders are meant for zone focusing, and in

some respects, they still are the fastest thing going on the street.

Can't get any faster than "click", but then you've got to advance

the film unless you pick up an accessory motor drive.

 

Brad, can I get an adaptor for my D70 to use with your

10-22mm? ;)

[dennis_couvillion]

"Dennis, one stupid question. How do you focus your Leica?"

 

Volker, there is no such thing as a stupid question; only stupid... uhh, nevermind. ;>)

 

I like it when someone asks me how I do something but I hate how "know-it-all" it comes out when I answer... but anyway.

 

To answer directly: a lot of zone focusing. Let me explain. More and more I'm finding my pictures are "one-shot" deals. I watch a situation developing and sometimes only manage to get off one shot. Sometimes I could meter and focus the shot but I'm reluctant to raise the camera until I'm ready to press the button because the subjects may see me doing it and become aware that I'm about to snap their picture. I have probabaly already checked out the lighting around me with my camera meter or a Gossen Luna Pro SBC with a Lunasphere incident attachment. I may adjust the exposure setting according to my eye. Normally I try to shoot around f5.6 or f8 because the lens is sharp at those apertures and because I know I will have significant depth of field. So I guesstimate the distance to the subject. When the moment arrives all I do is raise the camera to my eye and snap.

 

Sometimes, walking around, I have a pretty good idea of the distance parameters of where I am most likely going to find a shot (It could be six to twelve feet for example.) and I pre-focus between those numbers and pre-set the exposure to allow enough depth of field. So I just walk around and I'm ready to "point and shoot".

 

In other situations when I have enough time to check the meter and to focus, I do it conventionally. One little focusing trick I picked up years ago and which works for me is after a shot, to turn the focusing ring back to infinity. Unless I'm walking around pre-focused I always keep the lens on infinity so I always start focusing from the same spot. It seems to make focusing quicker and easier. I am so much in the habit of doing it that I automatically turn the focusing ring back to infinity after taking my shot(s).

 

Preparation, preparation, preparation... :>)

 

Thanks for asking...

 

Dennis

[travis1]

I just love the trix grain and tonal range. It's not really about the camera. If the D70 can give me that, I'll gladly switch. Is there a plugin in PS that can mimic that?

 

Besides, working in the DR is fun.

[ray .]

I'm thinkin', with the few days experience I have with the D70,

then looking at Brad's pics and Grant's blog, that control of

contrast- getting detail in highlights and shadows, is a little of a

problem with digital. I've got the contrast setting on my digicam

set at low. Then I looked at my site of pics shot with film, and

there's maybe not that much difference between the two when

the photo is made in bright sunlight. Maybe with that kind of light

stuff just comes out looking like that, unless you print drab flat.

This has probably been discussed endlessly, but anyone care to

offer their thoughts on it?

[Brad_]

I dunno Ray... I process my pix in ps to get a high-contrast look - and letting the blacks

and whites clip. Sometimes I add noise and jack up the contrast even more.

 

Maybe someone else can weigh-in that's more into preserving tonal range.

[ray .]

<i>Besides, working in the DR is fun.</i><p>You mean the part

when you close the door and leave? ;)<p>

 

Off topic just a little, the particular photo print you've asked me

for, Travis, is definitely lesser in inkjet form from a scanned neg

and Epson 2200 compared to the darkroom print. Probably

behind glass the difference doesn't show as much. I don't know

what this means in terms of digicam output, but I imagine there's

still at least a subtle difference. At any rate, I can't see ever going

into the darkroom again unless I've got something very special

that deserves the possible extra oomph... There's no denying

silver and inkjet each have their own particular beauty.

[Brad_]

Ray, here's what I mean - a quick example....<P>

 

This recent pic is more or less a pretty straight conversion to B&W.<P>

 

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images11/Normal.jpg">

</center>

<BR><P><P>

 

This is kind of what I go for now. <P>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images11/Dark.jpg">

</center>

[Uhooru]

Ray, couldn't find your number. Yeah, go ahead and email me then, would enjoy gettin together.

[socke]

Dennis, I see.

Your technique is close to mine. I have my cameras mostly on F8, too. With the focus set to 3m/9feet this gives me enough DoF on a 35 or 28mm lens to grab a snapshot fast.

 

I rely on aperture priority AE and the film latitude for exposure, even with slide film my cameras haven't led me down.

I haven't used program mode much on my Contax 167mt as I only have one lens which can make use of it. The older 139 and RTS don't have this feature. Same goes for the G2.

Last year I added a Contax TVS to my arsenal, its a nice companion to the G2, and I use it in close ranges at its widest setting around f4 - 5.6 mostly in AP, too.

 

I do focus and recompose with longer lenses at wider f-stops when I have time to do it, although I'm not the "third eyelash from the left in focus, everything else not" type of photographer. Then I mostly use AF with my Contax G2 and Canon D60 as they are in my experience faster and better than I am :-)

 

Anyways, I've got three rolls of Astia left from my hollidays, the weather is fine and there are pictures to be taken :-)

 

See you

 

Volker