Is our craft dumbing down? If so, why?

[todd frederick]

I guess I'll add a couple of thoughts, even though what has been said already seems to cover it.

 

I just finished watching the Preakness horse race on TV and noticed two huge camera booms towering in the sky behind the winning horse. I was wondering how the photographer would get a good shot of the horse and the jockey with those in the background and immediately I thought: "PS!" Then I cought myself getting sucked into that lack of discipline that thinks PS will save anything.

 

I come from a long history of film and darkroom work (B/W and Cibachrome), and when using such there is a tiny bit of wiggleroom but not much. What is important needs to be on the film in the firstplace and requires precapture skills I think many of us (myself included) are currently neglecting.

 

I do enjoy the immediacy of feedback with digital, but I agree that assuming postprocessing will cure all ills is very sloppy craft.

[neil_.]

I shoot primarly film with a Hasselblad, but I also am doing more and more

digital. When I shoot digital (on a 10D), I treat it like fim...I make sure that I

have the composition perfect and a good exposure. I let the lab do minor

corrections, just like film. I rarley use photoshop unless it's for my own

personal stuff that I'm working on.

[todd_k.]

Dain is right. I think a good rule of thumb for the newbies is this: If you cant cut it with film, dont try it with digital. And please do not soil this photography forum with national politics.

[andre j.]

Todd, telling a 'newbie', "If you can't cut it with film, don't try it with digital" is a bit like

saying, "Unless you can tell time with an analog watch, don't try telling time with a digital

watch."<div></div>

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

I was discussing a certain advantage of digital with a client recently.

 

When I used to shoot film and was just trying to break into the market when shooting PJ/storybook style images, when I saw an important 'moment' happening I would run over and take the picture. Due to budget limitations I could only really shoot one picture of that moment. Now with digital, although I'm still on a budget I can afford to take another picture, maybe just after as I got to see more faces, or later when a similar, more pictureworthy but similar event happened.

 

For example, I like to include a picture of the bride and groom looking/talking to each other during the meal, not set up, just taken unobtrusively as it happens. With film I would wait for the moment when they were not aware of me, and take the picture. During a speech later, just after snapping the speaker I notice that they are giggling together at something he said. The pictures are similar and tell a similar story, but this one is better. With digital I can take the photo and during post processing choose which one I like better for the proofs, this would not have been possible if I was shooting a limited number of rolls of film.

 

Moments may well only last a second, if you only get one shot then you can't wait for a better expression because you could miss the moment altogether. If you get the time then having the ability to take a second shot without worrying about having budgeted 'x' amount of film can sometimes take the image from 'good' to 'classic'. (Of course I'm only talking about the contents of the picture, composition/angle/lighting/exposure should be a given.)

 

Last wedding I did the B&G kissed for half a second, literally, at the end of the first dance. I got the shot, it's well lit and composed, it's just that she looks like she's sucking his face off (they loved it which just goes to show...) what can you do? If the kiss would have been longer the I would have shot it twice or more and made sure. With a budget on film less important 'moments' may not have allowed me the luxury.

[todd frederick]

Regarding digital, film and craft:

 

I have the feeling that when digital took-off in 2003, we will begin to see a stabalization of the frenzie, and film and digital will live happily together.

 

I also think that one can learn good photographic craft using digital, especially with the immediate feedback. There are two exceptions to this: 1) we need to avoid the temptation to believe that we can correct our sloppiness in PS, and 2) like me, there are many people (especially general digital consumers) who have very little computer skills, and will become unhappy with their digital experience.

 

My wife and I want to buy my son (23) a digital SLR camera for his birthday (probably a Nikon D-70 since he has some Nikon lenses on his film camera) but I'm concerned he may have some difficulty with the maze of instructions and options (and I know I'm going to be tempted to bug him about "how to do it right"). He's no dummy (he wants to get his PhD, but in theology, not computer science!).

[todd frederick]

Ben, I totally agree with your thoughts on this. You stated it very well. That is exactly why I enjoy digital, and think it is a good, creative, and learning tool.

[todd frederick]

PS: When I taught adult education photo classes in the 1970s and 1980s, I used Polaroid the same way I would use digital as a learning tool, but I don't have to pay a dollar a print with digital!

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

That said, the only real PS-ing that I do to images are cosmetic cloning (e.g. noticeable acne), cropping (oh, for a 100% viewfinder!) and simple conversion to B&W.

 

All of my serious event/wedding PS time and effort, including all the colour/exposure/contrast work and the subsequent actions is just to get the images to replicate NPH and believe me, it ain't always that easy...

 

As for why I bother, since going digital my prices stayed the same but my profit margin shot up as I paid myself to develop the pictures instead of the lab and never again had to pay for out of focus or closed eyes prints that went straight into the garbage.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

It took me very little time (back when I was shooting chromes and scanning) to realise that 'I'll sort it out in PS' is a lot more time and effort than it's worth. There is no way that I make enough on jobs to sit there cloning trees out of people's heads!

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

While I'm on the subject..

 

I feel that a lot of problems which need PS 'fixing' would not be there had the photographers been using a wide latitude neg film.

 

Knowing how to expose with a DSLR to preserve the highlights while not letting the shadows fall into 'deep noise' territory is in my opinion an art not easily learnt, i.e. learnt from experience. A lot of photographers who would be scared silly to shoot a wedding on chrome are now going out armed with DSLR's with dodgy flash implementations and no more latitude in the highlights than Fuji Astia.

 

I used to manage a photolab. We processed a bunch of weddings a week from different photographers. I have never yet seen a photographers negs that would provide a straight good print first time out. They were overexposing to provide shadow detail, or although they correctly over exposed for the dress but didn't bother for the suits (hey the film can handle it), etc, etc. Although their negs were no doubt better for their shooting, they wouldn't have survived a day of shooting digital and they too would have been posting images for fixing on PN..

 

Lets not even start about tiny viewfinders, spot flash metering as standard, crap ambient metering (I gave up on Av mode with my 10D, I now have my light meter permenantly round my neck, just like old times and a hell of a lot more reliable). I really do believe that to properly shoot digital you need to know a lot about colour management, exposure when dealing with very tight latitude and knowing how to 'shoot for the screen'.

 

I'll reiterate, if film was as complicated, and needed as much user input to both shooting and post processing as digital does, then I don't think that there would be any difference between the film and digital HELP posts.

 

Digital is not easier, I really do believe that it is a lot harder, the lack of realisation of this fact may have lead to a 'fix it in PS' culture.

[todd_k.]

Andre, you are absolutely correct. When I was a child my parents would not let me have a digital wristwatch until I could accurately tell time on an analogue watch. I hated it because all the other kids had these really cool monster watches. Now I can read the time off an analogue watch just as fast as most people can read it on their digital wristwatches. The idea is to master the skill before taking shortcuts, to not need the instant preview crutch, or the PS safety net. Then, and only then will you be totally free. These skills and the freedoms that they create separate the pros and the artists from the amateurs and the hacks.

[fotografz]

"I used Polaroid the same way I would use digital as a learning tool, but I don't have to pay

a dollar a print with digital!"

 

You pull a Polaroid or two to check exposure and light balance, not one before every

photo you take. Personally, I've never checked anything at a wedding with Polaroids. But,

what does that have to do with the craft issue anyway? Exponents of digital capture

always regress to the myth that digital is less expensive ... digital capture is the most

expensive form of photography I've ever engaged in. To even come close to the quality of

a Leica M and Hasselblad neg based prints you have to spend as much money on the

digital body or digital back alone as the cost of an entire Leica M or Hasselblad system

combined ... then you better have the computing power and editing programs, and then

you need the printer, then you need to upgrade them all every 2 or 3 years.

 

I like digital and am up to my eyeballs in it, but loose the money argument. It just isn't

true.

[cjogo]

Since I come from the early days of film / manual exposures,etc. -and the "shoot it right" in the camera formula ->>-digital has been a little easier transititon. Since I really never did much darkroom work, in the color area :: and the lab always performed the necessary task ^^ digital is a completely different approach ..in it's post world. Many non-professionals, consumers, now have digital cameras & dwell into the post side. A lot less people had color darkrooms/printers ~ in the early film days ~ right at their finger tips.

 

So, with digital == my clients have the choice to "dumb down the craft" by excepting their images--straight from the camera OR pay for us to work in PS. And, as my market is really begining to be ultra-price conscious, I have to be very creative > in order to maintain the same income.

 

A client can, for an example, have a 1/2 hour portrait taken ; for $250 and we hand them a straight CD (large JPEG )---or we can artisitcally manipulate to professional standards = for a fee. If "the client doesn't love" the results with a straight from the camera file or does not possess the skills...then they return to * pay the piper. The client > as the masses are getting use to with products & world commerce < must pay for a : "driving force of advancement in one's craft and art."

[twmeyer]

Mike Dixon:"<i>A bit of crude wisdom from my father: "You can't polish a turd."

Of course, you can. But it doesn't change what it is. When folks have put their efforts into making it shiny, they sometimes overlook the fundamental nature of the thing.</i>"<p>This is my thinking as well...we aren't dumbing down, we are dumbing up. Today's "pros" are working faster with more expensive equipment (that requires more frequent upgrades) to make crappier photos that we then polish up with more expensive software (that requires even more frequent upgrades) in post production. And damn if, after you're all done, it isn't <i>still</i> just a shiney turd. <p>Time is the most valuable commodity we have in this life, and is is the last thing that this new generation of digital "pros" figure into their bottom line. <p>"You only have 15 minutes to get these shots" "I only have $200 dollars for this job" <p>"Here's the crap I can produce in 15 minutes for $200 dollars, thank god I don't have to charge for my time at the computer, the upgrade to CS2 or the 17-55mm f2.8 zoom lens I need because my wide angle lenses don't seem to be as wide as they were a few years ago."<p>Maybe you should try to be truely professional, and expect, in turn, to be recognized as such. Get the shot right, turn it around quick (and easy!)and get treated like the asset you are, instead of a chimp with a turd that needs polishing... t

[diver down]

Marc,

 

IMO, In the not so distant past, wedding Photographers had no choice but to have absolute mastery of their craft. With the price of film and developing, and only 8-20 (or however many) rolls of film to "get the shots", you had to be dead on.

 

With the advent of digital and the ability to take and dispose of an unlimited amount of photos, alot of photogs have become akin to giddy 14 year olds pounding on the shutter release as if it were Playstation 2.

 

While your thoughts of "getting it right" the first time, digitaly, as you do with film, is "sound" for static portraits and formals, candid moments can slip by if your too conservative, or you may not have the time for perfect technique on the fly if that "once in a Wedding" candid shot presents itself.

 

While I don't advocate shooting thousands of pictures for a wedding, why not splurge on a hundred or two "extra" choices to select from. Anyone who says you can't quick edit from a few hundred pics to a narowed down selection for "final editing" in a reasonable amount of time I'd happily debate.

 

Photoshop,like Dr. Frankenstein, can take a bunch of otherwise "dead" parts and breath life into them. NO one can expect Anyone to Photoshop 200 or 300 pics, but there are always diamonds to be found that just need to be polished!

 

End note; Practice perfect technique when and where you can, but don't squander the incredible capacity new technology provides for us. There are an incalculable amount of ways to express our inner creativity, and it truly cannot be judged by the ease of the brushstroke. After all, When all the meter readings are taken, in the end, aren't we just "pressing a button"?

 

I'm sure if Louis Daguerre were around today, he too, would cautiously fear the "digital age".

 

-Demetrius

[garry_anderson3]

As a professional musician and photographer I can see some interesting parallels. Music technology became digital and so accessable to the general public around 20 years ago, and very affordable around 10 years ago. However the amount of very good music made in that time has stayed about the same, while the amount oe mediocore music around has gone though the roof. The available technology has made everybody think they are they worlds greatest music producer/musician. Some very good music has come from some peoples home studio's so the technology has helped them release their talent.

 

The same seems to be happening in the photography world now. I am amazed by the forum questions that start with "I am photographing my first profeesional wedding this weekend and I need to know what camera I need........." You all know the ones. Or the "How do I fix this photo....." when if the photographer got it right in camera, all would be well.

 

The available technolgy has help some people release their talents, but overall I think a lot of people need to first learn about photography before they buy the latest camera/software/computer and then pass themselves as "professionals"

[fotografz]

"... candid moments can slip by if you're too conservative, or you may not have the time

for perfect technique on the fly if that "once in a Wedding" candid shot presents itself."

 

While there is some truth in what you say Demetrius, I'd have to disagree in general.

Candid moments may slip by but NOT from being conservative, but more like from being

unobservant and dull of eye. The "candid type "decisive moment" image has absolutely

NOTHING to do with digital or film, manual this or automatic that. It has EVERYTHING to

do with how quick is your eye, how nimble is your mind, how focused is your vision. For

example, motor drives never replaced the single frame shooter for picking the right

moment to take the photo. Hosing off shots with no pre-thought happens because the

photographer suddenly "woke up" and was late for work.

 

Take Jeff Ascough's beautifully insightful work. 1957 technology M6's using film. He

recently started using a Canon 1DMKII for low light color work. BUT his way of seeing and

his technique for anticipating a shot hasn't changed one bit. And remember, this type of

photography was basically invented by a guy using an even less advanced piece of gear

and even slower films. If HCB had been born 50 years later, and was the man of sensitivity

he was back then, we could hand him a digital AF camera and I'd wager the results would

be the same. But not because of the AF digital camera, instead because of his highly

developed sensitivity to the world around him.

 

In a recent audit of my own work, I observed that certain pieces of gear forced me to rely

on my wits and anticipatory observation more than others did. This isn't the fault of the

gear, but instead my own sin of mental laziness ... brought on by a reliance on technology

to "save" me from myself. Believe me, that is a laziness that has come to a rapid halt

because it results in shyty work, that for the most part was just a huge waste of time and

an insult to photography in general.

 

Side note: at yesterday's wedding I took a Hasselblad 903swc to test it out in the real

world of weddings. It was hooked up to a Imacon iXpress digital back. So here was an

ancient way of shooting coupled with the latest technology. No meter, no ability to focus.

Took about 30 images with it as a test. All thirty came out using a quick hand meter

reading and Hyper Focal Distance focusing. Techniques I learned in my formative years,

and like riding a bike, you never forget.<div></div>

[stacy]

I read some of this fight before I left yesterday for a wedding- was I doing that? fixing too much stuff just because I could? Anyway- it was on my mind and I thought of it all day- metered light- moved with the light- and the digitals are so nice! 10 rolls of film to be develped too...but I could definitley make a nice album from what I have. So...thanks everyone for a thought provoking thread :)<div></div>

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Marc, for my market and the way I shoot, digital is considerably cheaper than film, period. If you add my landscape work then film doesn't get close. That is the reason that I wrestle with the crap technology and sub standard cameras that we are provided, and why I spend time in PS trying to get the 'film' look.

<p>

Last summer I was shooting in the Isle of Skye, Scotland. I was shooting landscape with a Mamiya 645 and velvia 100. With the costs of film and development I paid out over 500 pounds. 4 months later I bought a 10D for the same amount (new, the 20D had just come out!) and paid for it by selling my Mamiya gear with change for the lenses. It has lower resolution but a lot cleaner images than film.

<p>

The trick with digital is to know what you need and not spend any more. The 10D is perfectly adequate for my needs, for jobs where I need a lot of resolution such as large groups I borrow a friends H1 and shoot NPS. For general event/wedding work the prints from the 10D are great up to 15X10 and good up to 18X12 assuming good post processing in PS and very good sharpening technique (I use a basic low overall sharpen and edge sharpening in an action, takes a few seconds). I've wanted and still want a 1Ds for the higher resolution and FF but since dropping my 10D and scratching about half the resale value off it I've looked through my work and decided that it's good enough for the moment.

<p>

I know that for you digital has been very expensive Marc, but if you would have stuck to a 1D mkII for the candid work and a 'blad or contax with the kodak back for the portraits, said to yourself that the quality was good enough for wedding work (which it is) and <i>stopped there for the next 5 years</i> then it would have been a sound investment with a good return relative to shooting film, assuming a good and fast digital workflow and a fairly busy photographer. You may need more due to your clients wishes, but Joe wedding shooter certainly doesn't and for him, if he makes his camera an investment, not a tool to be upgraded at the drop of a hat, then it should be cheaper. Provided they are willing to learn of course...

<p>

Re the capturing moments idea. Assume you are on a budget and have limited frames to shoot. When you see a moment happening you are there ready and have composed and have the best possible angle, focused and set your exposure. You take the picture. You cannot wait for a better expression, the moment is only lasting a second, if you wait you've missed it. OK so far you have done your job as the photographer. However for all your worry this moment goes on for 5 seconds, a better picture presents itself, you cannot afford to shoot again as these moments are cropping up on average once every 5-10 minutes during a wedding, remember you are on a budget film wise and you need to save a roll for the dancing or cake cutting and speeches or whatever.<p>

In situations like that you cannot 'choose the moment' as you will probably miss the moment. Real life does not work that way! <p>

This kind of situation happens to me about 3-4 times per event and more at a wedding. In that digital means that I can present a set of proofs that I know to be the best record I could have made of their wedding without having to budget for 2 rolls of extra film. This may seem like a joke to the big boys but I'm competing with 3 other photographers in the area at the same price range, they each have 20+ years of experience which I don't, and I already have double their bookings for the upcoming season.

[chris m., central florida]

Marc, I think you are wrong when you say it has nothing to do with customer perceptions of what is good or not good. I think today's breed of new professional photographers are helping with some of the dumbing down process. It's a vicious circle that seems to be spinning into a downward spiral. The market is flooded with photographers who don't understand what good photography truly is but they know they can shoot digital and fix crappy images later. They are not as encouraged to do what it takes to learn the craft of photography, and unfortunately the digital photography industry is more geared to products that help us fix images. The product placed into our customers hands is setting the standards for what's acceptable on a very large scale.

 

I often ask new professionals who think their work is awesome if they've ever visited the studio of a master portrait or wedding photographer (traditonal or PJ, film or digital, it doesn't matter). The answer is invariably "NO". I have, and it's a very humbling experience to see true technical expertise in the craft combined with an eye for artistic and cutting edge photography.

 

Marc, I absoltuely hated combining the business aspect into my comments on photography as a craft and art. But the professionals are the ones who are setting the standards in the market place and influencing current trends. Our market is flooded with inexperienced professionals who are shooting a lot of substandard work and attempting to fix it. My client prospects are getting very wary and asking a lot of questions they never used to ask because the photography industry as a whole is seeing a lot of poor work being produced for relatively high prices. I'm even seeing this on the commercial side becasue there are a ton of digital photographers with very limited skill sets trying to sell themselves to the commercial market. It really makes me respect the people who put htemselves through school and learned commercial photography by assisting for a few years.

 

I really think that if you want to reverse the trend and make the public perception of photography as a craft vs. fixing crappy images later, there needs to be some sort of licensing requirement before you can hang out your shingle as a professional photographer. Is that going to happen? Nope. Regulating our industry would be a nightmare.

[fotografz]

God, I hate the endless money debate in defense of digital verses film, as well as it has

little to nothing to do with this thread. But...

 

Ben, digital would have been even LESS expensive if I had never bought it at all. I could

have paid for film and processing and an assistant to run it to the lab for the rest of my

life. If a 10D is good enough for you, and you think it's as good as a MF neg, then what

can I say?

 

If people feel this is just all business and no art, then money and budget commands their

photographic life, forever boxing them into the competitive level they're in with no end in

sight. Sometimes it takes an investment in both time and money to break out and make

even more money.

 

I also do not buy that if you don't take the picture it might flitter away and you'll end up

with nothing of that specific event. To reduce photography down to frame count due to

money is a piss poor excuse for mediocrity IMHO. I'll spend as much as necessary, and do

just about ANYTHING with-in reason, if I felt it would advance my art or photography. Still

feel that way.

 

So, while I bitch up a storm about the cost of digital, it's actually of small consequence to

me now. I did break out of the competitive circle with this "no holds barred", take no

prisnors" philosophy ... and paid for every piece of my considerable arsenal with the

increased proceeds from advancing my art. Digital weddings are just a by-product of

commercial work and went along for the free ride. Were all these digital improvements

even necessary? Sure, if I wanted to play with the big boys, instead of snatching business

away from my immediate competitors stuck in the same "work for wages" competitive

circle.

 

But the competitive demands of digital commercial photography have little to do with the

issue at hand. Neither does money. It doesn't cost one penny more to step to the right a

foot and eliminate the stop sign post growing out of a brides head. Not one penny.

[diver down]

Marc,

While I agree with you on this point, your argument of the ability of this medium to create laziness in you, has no merit. This would be something akin to the people who are in the process of suing Mcdonalds beause their fast food has made them fat. Is the greasy good tasting ability of your camera controlling you, or are you controlling it?

 

As to how quick your eye and how nimble your mind is, you are correct. But on the same note, these are skills that you are not inherently born with, they are aquired, through much toil and error. Your own judicial self honesty, and acute self observation are what keeps your eye quick, and your mind nimble.

 

Your problem, my problem, and others problems, don't lie in the new technological capacities... it lies squarely in ourselves!

[lb-]

stacy that's a beautiful photograph!

 

marc said..........

 

" To me " the client loved it" is great, but not the driving force of advancement in one's

craft and art."

 

it's all right here for me.

 

Client, craft and art. client implies you're in business. the realities of business have

nothing to do with craft and art in my experience. I'd say on a good day with a really "hip"

client, for every

$100 I get maybe $10 of it is for my craft and art. They other $90 is because I show up on

time, I have proper invoices, I'm always reachable, I fix problems quickly, etc.

 

Good business and good craft/art are totally different animals They mix all

the time, but it can get all kinds of messy if you can't keep them straight in your head.

 

I get very unhappy when I let the business mind affect the craft.

 

" well, the client doesn't even care or won't know the difference" is a dangerous

temptation of a thought when conditions get tough (as they often are at events etc) but for

me it's critical that when I start to actually shoot I put the business aside. Maybe I"m

getting paid a bundle or maybe it's a bad deal and I'll hardly make a dime, but that

decision must be made before I ever get near my cameras and once it's made that I should

do the job I will do it to the very best of my ability regardless of what the client is paying

me or where their level of expectation is at craft wise. it's the only way to work for me.

 

and so that to me is much more of the issue than whether or not the camera is digital or

not or how much time it takes to post process etc. All valid business issues and great to

discuss but to blame the equipment for a "dumbing down" is something of an abdication

of personal responsibility in my opinion.

 

or at least that's the view from up on my own personal high horse : )

 

cheers

 

lucas

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

<i>"I also do not buy that if you don't take the picture it might flitter away and you'll end up with nothing of that specific event. To reduce photography down to frame count due to money is a piss poor excuse for mediocrity IMHO. I'll spend as much as necessary, and do just about ANYTHING with-in reason, if I felt it would advance my art or photography. Still feel that way."</i><p>

That's nice, when was the last time that wedding photography was needed to put bread on your table? I don't see my wedding photography as some glowing ideal in the sky, I can't afford to...<p>

I work with a wedding package deal. We are paid the same amount however much we shoot, as the client gets a standard price. It works very well as all the people around here use the system so we are garuanteed an even spread of weddings through the year. We don't make much on the deal and I give more proofs than most, the rest are shooting film. As it's the cheap option for the clients the other photographers shoot 5-7 rolls for a 10 hour wedding, it's not economical to do otherwise. <p>Any professional photographer who is shooting for the sake of his 'art' and not counting the frames (unless he's making a serious markup) is going to be a very poor professional photographer. Oh and I guess that photographers grow on trees complete with 20 years experience, prices to match, unlimited proofs, etc. <b>The lower end of the market is still a valid marketplace but it has very different rules and just as much work.</b><p>

I came on to this argument due to the fact that it had been disturbing me that I was shooting 500 frames at a wedding instead of the 360 I used to with film. <br>Was this part of the dumbing down that you mention?<br> I split it into two catagories. The formals/portraits as every wedding photographer knows need two frames minimum per formal, murphy dictates that the crucial shots will have at least one set of closed eyes. <br>When I shooting film I could not afford to shoot two frames of each formal/portrait so I limited it to the important shots, remember I'm doing Orthodox Jewish weddings, there is a hell of a lot of family! With digital I can afford to take two of every formal. So far so good. The second reason for the extra shots is the aforementioned candid 'moments' which do benefit from no frame limit, ditto speakers, etc. I therefore rationalise to myself that I am doing no more than a photographer with no budget constraints would be doing with film and am therefore not abusing the use of digital photography, nor dumbing it down.<br> I had been thinking about this for a while, I'm trying to cut down my workflow time drastically, and came to the conclusion that I'm providing a better product, not relying on digital to save my tuches.<p>

Marc, I didn't say that the 10D is better than MF, I said that for landscape work at prints up to 18X12 the lack of grain makes up for the loss of resolution. I also do not believe that I would have saved money by staying with film and never going digital, I have long paid off my digital outlay while still making a living, from now on every roll of film I do not have to buy is pure profit, I'm also paying myself to develop instead of the lab. I've just finished a studio sitting. I shot about 100 frames of the family. There was no expediture whatsoever for that sitting apart from my time (it was in their house). When the print orders come through I'll laugh all the way to the bank.