who switched totally to digital?

[vivek iyer]

Mike,

 

Thanks for your straight answers. No intention on my part to get anyone "flamed" on anything either.

 

Vivek.

[frank uhlig]

... totally to digital ...

 

Does that mean no prints or paper output? (That would be analog, right?)

 

Only viewing the results on an LCD, TV (digital), no less?

 

Or what?

 

Do you want "total digital"; that is the question. Once such a wording was used to waging war by someone infimous with the last name starting with G ...

 

Or does "total" mean less than 100 % for you, in some odd quirk of languge missed understanding/education?

 

Of course, there can be nobody totally switched to digital. The eyes are not digital, but analog. Thelens is not digital, but out of glass, i.e., analog.

 

But maybe you must not have meant what words you used. How //// of you.

[steve_mcallister]

I've hired on as assistants for workshops and photo tours with a lot of the well known nature photographers and all of em I know of are shooting 100% digital. Pretty much all of the amatures on the tours in the last couple years have been shooting digital too. This is wildlife and macro stuff, and some landscapes too. The ones who want the shifts and swings are mostly using the EOS 1DS or now the Mark II and doing them in the computer. There are a few die hards still shooting film, heck why not, so far you can still get it.

[ky2]

Actually, there is an interesting SURGE in Large Format photography, dating 2 years or so.. Present company included. Yes, I do digital, and I do film. They're very different, and I like it that way.

[kimberly_smith___anchorage]

I agree with the above. I use both. When I'm just taking snapshots of my daughter and in the brainless mode, I use the Panasonic. If I'm taking a long hike throught the woods or shooting portraits, I use film. Yes, someday I may go completely digital, when I can afford the digital SLR that I want, but until then, I'll enjoy what I have.

[greg s]

"Many believe low to mid-end digital: looks plastic" << the old putdown

 

These shots looks pretty good to me...

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=13695140

[ShunCheung]

If you get the "plastic look" from low-end DSLRs, most likely the problem is your PhotoShop skills (the lack of it). (Some people also blame it on the in-camera processing on certain brands, but I don't have personal experience with that.) Several years back, I too was skeptical about digital until I saw a 13x19 portrait print from the Canon D60, which was a low-end DSLR in early 2002. I was astonished what a then $2000, 6MP DSLR could do. Shortly after that I bought my Nikon D100, which is still the only digital camera I have ever owned to date. It took me a while to gradually get used to a DSLR, but in the last year and half, I have hardly shot any 35mm film any more.

 

There is no doubt that digital photography requires the photographer to have a lot of new skills, and the learning curve is difficult for some. As starters, PhotoShop is not exactly easy to master.

[Two23]

Quote:

 

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.

 

--Shun

 

 

I absolutely abhor sitting in front of a computer. I'm an outdoor guy, NOT a computer guy. To me, it's a necessary evil but an evil none the less. I have my film done here in town, and driving cost me nothing since I'm a salesrep and drive by the place anyway. The "see my results" immediately initially appealed to me, but then I got to thinking about it. I mostly shoot moving trains and other fleeting subjects. With a digital I can quickly review and say, "Damn, I missed the shot!" Will I be able to get the train to back up and go by again? Will I be able to get the duck to fly back up into the air and land again? Probably not. The "results review" is best for stationary subjects. And for stationary subjects I shoot 4x5. Someday I'll likey buy a refurb D2x, but until then a pro DSLR is something I just won't make any more money with than what I make now. With some clients, they are paying for the film anyway so I gain little from digital.

 

 

Kent in SD

[vivek iyer]

The fact that so many have to emphasise that digital is everything, repeatedly, shows how important and popular (or not) it is for nature photography. Most digital nature photographers quoted are still working with digicams with small sized sensors. No mention of anyone with a MF digi back or LF scan backs.

 

Film can do well on its own such without such declarations.

[joseph_wisniewski]

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

 

I'll build on what Lex said, to add that I do much more IR, and much better IR (both B&W and false color) with my digitals than I ever did with film. Matter of fact, you can turn it around: with digital, you can view and compose a B&W IR, in B&W, on a point and shoot. With a digital SLR, you can view the IR picture immediatly after you shoot it. And no HIR in the refrigerator or HIE in the freezer.

[joseph_wisniewski]

To answer the original question, yes, I've been virtually totally digital for about 3 years now. It's even replaced my 4x5. I've found that I can shoot and stitch a multirow panorama quicker than I can setup, shoot, process, and scan a decent architectural shot from the 4x5. I shoot with a D100, a D70, and a D2X (12mp). And a pile of Nikon lenses, some of which date back 4 decades.

 

To address Walter's question fully: "What can you do with film that you cannot do with digital?" I'll have to answer, I'm not quite sure. But I'll again swap it around and ask "what can you do with digital that you can't do with film".

 

1) Go through the airport x-ray machine with impunity, in any country, as many times as I need to for a mission. Never worrying about whether they're going to pull me aside and hold me for four hours because I asked to have my film hand inspected.

 

2) Take a 2 hour long star trail exposure and remove the 30 seconds that was ruined by the park ranger's flashlight. If I do a really long exposure (hours) with digital, I do it by "stacking" a series of one minute exposures. Just pop out the bad frame or two. Or remove the 30% of frames with the worst atmospheric distortion.

 

3) Shoot an IR or UV picture, and know, with 100% certainty, that it is good, before I hike out of the site where I took it. On some cameras, I can even compose in IR.

 

4) Alternate from flash to tungsten during a shoot without changing film (or cameras) or carrying around a pile of 80A or 85B filters in various sizes for all my lenses.

 

5) Show a model a really good shot, during the shoot. It's a motivator...

 

6) Show a portrait client the pictures at the end of the session, where they're more likely to order more prints. ;)

 

7) Shoot under a fluorescent light of unknown type or spectral characteristics, and get a neutral color balance, without driving the lab technician crazy.

 

8) Go from ISO 100 to ISO 800 without unloading film or changing cameras.

 

9) Shoot 37 or 38 (or even 378) pictures without opening the underwater housing.

 

Not bad for a spur of the moment list. ;)

[bwcombs]

Goodbye film...

[ky2]

<p><i>1) Go through the airport x-ray machine with impunity, in any country, as many times as I need to for a mission. Never worrying about whether they're going to pull me aside and hold me for four hours because I asked to have my film hand inspected.</I></p>

 

<p>-- Well, true only if your CF cards hold their images, or their data doesnt get gobbled up by some mysterious software glitch or electro magnetic static surge. Yes-- They inspect digital media too. They scanned my CF cards and burnt CDs when I re-entered the US of A. Twice. Never happened with my film.</p>

 

<p><i>2) Take a 2 hour long star trail exposure and remove the 30 seconds that was ruined by the park ranger's flashlight. If I do a really long exposure (hours) with digital, I do it by "stacking" a series of one minute exposures. Just pop out the bad frame or two. Or remove the 30% of frames with the worst atmospheric distortion.</i></p>

 

<p>-- Correct, if you can find a DSLR that can handle the noise or battery consumption. I'll still take my film and trusty FM3a for hours-long exposures. If the ranger comes along-- well, tough luck</p>

 

<p><i>3) Shoot an IR or UV picture, and know, with 100% certainty, that it is good, before I hike out of the site where I took it. On some cameras, I can even compose in IR.</i></p>

 

<p>-- No complaints there, if you can nail the latitude, that is.</p>

 

<p><i>4) Alternate from flash to tungsten during a shoot without changing film (or cameras) or carrying around a pile of 80A or 85B filters in various sizes for all my lenses.</i></p>

 

<p>-- Count on AWB too much, and your exposures will need the extra tweaking later in Photoshop. OUCH. Whats more simple than using a Tungstan-corrected film for indoor shooting?</p>

 

<p><i>5) Show a model a really good shot, during the shoot. It's a motivator...</i></p>

 

<p>-- Not unless you download your shot to a big screen. That small LCD means more trouble for proofing. I'll take 3 back shots instead. </p>

 

<p><i>6) Show a portrait client the pictures at the end of the session, where they're more likely to order more prints. ;)</i></p>

 

<p>-- Right. If they wait for the print then. After you correct, sharpen, and post process your raw images. What? you're not shooting RAW?</p>

 

<p>7) Shoot under a fluorescent light of unknown type or spectral characteristics, and get a neutral color balance, without driving the lab technician crazy.</p>

 

<p><i>-- Bullocks. If you know your color balance, you're just as good with film. Actually, multi source lighting (Tung+Sunlight) as hard to control as before.</i></p>

 

<p>8) Go from ISO 100 to ISO 800 without unloading film or changing cameras.</p>

 

<p><i>-- True. Then shoot at ISO 800 when you could shoot at 100. Double edged sword.</i></p>

 

<p>9) Shoot 37 or 38 (or even 378) pictures without opening the underwater housing.</p>

 

<p><i>-- Actually, this is where Digital really shines. No competition.</i></p>

 

<p>As you can see, its all give and take. I like digital, and film, but neither is bliss.</p>

[gloria_hopkins]

Does anyone care about the transparency or the negative anymore?

 

Is photography these days all about what's fastsest, more efficient, more productive, flexible, upgradable, bigger, lighter, more expensive and high-tech?

 

I don't mean those in the *business* of photography (which is probably half of the contributors to this thread)! I realize that when its your livelihood, you need to have the tools that work best for you. My concern is that photography as an art will be lost forever. The art, for me, is not the print or electronic file, it is the transparency and the negative.

 

If you lose your electronic file and have made no print, your image is gone forever and you have no art. That should rock your world if you consider yourself an artist.

 

A digital camera seems like an expensive safety net, if you ask me. Where's the art in choosing your settings carefully? In knowing and anticipating behaviors so you can make sure you get it right when you have just one shot left on the roll? Are there nervous butterflies when estimating exposure values because you may get it wrong? Not anymore! And where's the feeling of satisfaction when the lightbox confirms that you got it right? It's gone because you already know you got it right. Just snap, snap, snap until you get it right. Right? Digital takes all the fun (not to mention challenge) out of image making.

 

What happens if someone sets off some electric bomb and fries all your electronic devices? I'll be sitting here with my little box of slides and my canvases smiling fat and happy :)

 

I don't mean to be argumentative folks ... I'm just sort of "reflecting" here. I own a tiny digital camera too, and for some things you just can't beat it.

 

Have a great day folks! I'm going shopping for a laptop!

 

Gloria

[gloria_hopkins]

Ok, a question for digital wildlife photographers.

 

Do you still take the time to study and understand your subjects so you can anticipate their behaviors? That's one thing that was drilled into my head as I learned on my film camera. And this is another fear of mine - folks tripping all over the woods not knowing what they're shooting. If you don't research and study your subjects and their habitats, you could be doing more harm than good.

[ShunCheung]

Sorry Gloria, I don't buy your argument for a second. So why do you use any light meters, matrix or evaluative metering, at all? Why don't you learn how to judge exposure with your eyes and enjoy the satisfaction that you can manually determine exposure better than the best light meter can?

 

For years medium and large format photographers have been using Polaroids to shoot test shots to preview the exposure, reflection, highlight/shadows, composition, etc. before they make the final film shot. Polaroid, light meter, AF, digital ... are merely tools to make things easier for us humans so that we can concentrate on our creativity, something electronics cannot do, yet.

 

Digital is not a replacement of good technique, understanding of animal behavior, knowledge of light, seasons .... Pretty much all the knowledge required in film photography are still required in digital photography, but digital makes things somewhat easier. In particular, it is easier to experiment around. Just take the spider image I had posted earlier. With digital, I could easily experiment around with fill flash. I had a bunch of different shots with no flash, 1/64 power, 1/128 power, etc., very much like a large-format photographer would have tested with Polaroid, except that I didn't need to wait a minute or so for each Polaroid to develop and I sure didn't generate a bunch of waste paper from the Polaroids.

 

If you shoot digital and just snap, snap, snap ..., the problem is your own lack of discipline and lack the will to learn. One could have done that with film also. Don't blame digital for your own fault.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Sorry Gloria, I don't buy your argument for a second. </i><P>

 

Neither do I. Shun is 100% correct. There is <B>nothing</b> different between film and

digital photography except the medium upon which the image is recorded. It's either

photochemically stored or photoelectrically stored. ALL of the same skills and technical

competence and the appreciation of your subject required of film photography is equally

necessary in digital imaging. This is particularly true of nature photography where an

understanding of light, animal behavior, etc. is usually THE crucial factor in the success of

an image.<P>

 

You worry about loss of an electronic image, as if this isn't a distinct possibility with a film

image. THink of opening the back of the camera without rewinding. Or some processing

accident (I've experienced more than one of those). Or of your film cooking in an

overheated car, or being nuked by a maladjusted X-ray machine (or a perfectly well-

adjusted one if you put your film in checked baggage). Or being eaten up by mold, or

lost in a flood, or simply fading over the years.<P>

 

And you think digital takes the fun and challenge out of making images? Really? I think

you just exchange one set of necessary skills (darkroom chemistry, etc.) for another

(Photoshop). You can ruin a good image either way -- or make it spectacular if you know

what you're doing. To each their own. Personally, I never found much enjoyment in the

fuss and bother of darkroom work, the inherent waste of materials, not to mention the

noxious chemicals that are not good for you or the environment, during manufacture or

disposal.<P>

 

I don't mean to sound too snarky here, but the assumption that making good digital

images is somehow less... worthy, or challenging, or rewarding than making good film

images is just flat-out wrong in my opinion. Both media have their places and their

adherents.

[ky2]

Mark, Shun,

What I think Gloria is claiming, is that the digital imaging does not promote the better photographer in you. I see this again and again; people shooting 10x as much simply because it doesn't cost anything, or skimping on correct exposures, filtering, and the like, simply because you can "correct this in photoshop later".

 

You have to be very much in self control not to fall into the dark side of digital. Yes, chimping is no crime, but firing 16 frames in 2 seconds (and scaring your subject, in the case of wildlife photography), is not exactly professional, or even ethical.

 

Nevertheless, digital is a great medium; it shouldnt change the way you take pictures-- everything but the emulsion remains the same. It's up to you though not to fall into the hyperclaims that are so often heard around here.

 

p.s.

I'll bet a higher stake on a closed film canister, than on my flash cards.. the mechanics are simply more trusted and better explored. When was the last time you took a 5 year old CF card, shot 30 images on it, and pulled the images out 2 years later? ;)

[vivek iyer]

I do not think so, Yaron.

 

"A digital camera seems like an expensive safety net, if you ask me. Where's the art in choosing your settings carefully? In knowing and anticipating behaviors so you can make sure you get it right when you have just one shot left on the roll? Are there nervous butterflies when estimating exposure values because you may get it wrong? Not anymore! And where's the feeling of satisfaction when the lightbox confirms that you got it right? It's gone because you already know you got it right. Just snap, snap, snap until you get it right. Right?"

 

I completely disagree with this.

 

What prevents anyone from choosing their target carefully?

 

If someone wants to remain ignorant about their subject, it is their choice!

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the best tool that you can. If digital is going to do it, by all means use it. What is the difference!

 

Even after all the anticipated/calculated snapping, your film could still be messed up by the automated machine that develops it. Especially if there is a power outage or electrical malfuntion during the processing!!

 

Photography, from the beginning has always been technolgy dependent. If someone forgets it, they are only fooling themselves.

 

Just because voice recording isn't done on wax plate orginals anymore does not mean that the quality of music from a compact disc is any less.

 

If I can get my desired shots in a shorter time, I will use the extra minutes to enjoy my surroundings, relax and sip a cup of coffee :-)

[mark_chappell]

<I> What I think Gloria is claiming, is that the digital imaging does not promote the better

photographer in you. </i><P>

 

I got that claim perfectly clearly, and I totally disagree with it. I don't think using digital

methods makes you a better photographer -- although it certainly prompted me to

photographic experimentation that I'd never have attempted with film. But there is

certainly

nothing inherent in digital that makes you a worse one -- is the claim that proud owners

of DSLRs suddenly forget about exposure, or the role of light on image quality, or good

composition, or the ethics of nature photography? Poor technique will give you garbage

for images, whether you're using film or digital. Those same bozos who fire away with

little attention to technique or composition or ethics with digital cameras would have been

firing away similarly with motor-driven film cameras five or ten years ago. I've seen this

over and over. It's not a new digital phenomenon.

[gloria_hopkins]

Thanks for the good discussion guys. I'm not set in stone in any of my beliefs about digital, nor do I understand it enough to make any real or educated declarations or "claims" about it (except the part about taking the challenge out of photography, I believe that's true).

 

I was thinking aloud...asking rhetorical questions...fishing for your thoughts ... they are highly educational for me. Clearly I pissed some of you off (or insulted you) and for that I am deeply, deeply sorry. That was NOT, and never is, my intent.

 

Shun: I don't use light meters with my 4x5. Grey cards either. Never used 'em with any camera ...

[gloria_hopkins]

Shun: sorry I did use the evaluative meter in my Canon! I meant I used no external light meters. And I won't for the 4x5. This is one of the reasons I bought the 4x5 - I want to do everything manually.

[ShunCheung]

As I said earlier, if you choose not to learn, that is your own fault or at least your own choice. Don't blame it on digital. Auto exposure, auto focus, program mode, etc. can all have the same effect: they help people who are only interested in taking snap shots to get fairly decent results. However, none of them prevents you from learning.

 

If you are strictly an amateur, you can shoot film, black and white ... essentially whatever you want; you only have yourself to please. If you are doing this at least semi-professionally, I would try to be at least good at digital techniques. I wouldn't be at all surprised that a few years down the road, digital would be the only medium accepted by publishers, editors, etc. If by then you still have no experience with digital, it could be a very major disadvantage. Of course, there is still the option to scan in all of your slides and negatives ....

[gloria_hopkins]

Shun I apologized to you. It was a heartfelt apology. I will not apologize a second time.

 

You are being needlessly argumentative. Clearly I have touched a nerve with you. Again, I apologize.

 

Do not ever accuse me of not taking the time to learn something. Don't EVER do that Shun. I will scan my negatives and my transparencies and do you know what? They will be magnificent. And they will be from my knowledge and understanding. And if film is obsolete then screw it, I have my painting. I will not ever compromise.

 

I am through with this.

[mark_chappell]

<I>When was the last time you took a 5 year old CF card, shot 30 images on it, and pulled

the images out 2 years later? ;)</i><P>

 

I don't have any 5-year old CF cards but I did recent discover one that had been misplaced

for slightly more than two years. The images on it were fine. And when was the last time

you ran a roll of film through a wash-and-dry cycle by mistake, and then pulled 100%

flawless images -- well, flawless in terms of no data loss -- out of it? I confess to having

done that (twice) with CF cards (clearly, single-trial learning didn't work....).