Should I go digital for wildlife?

[robert_potts1]

Digital looks like a pit of snakes at this point doesn't it at this point? However, this is kind of a no-brainer if you are after small birds or difficult insects. Digital will allow you to bag shots you would miss otherwise. There are a bunch of reasons why digital photography is for the birds (not sure who I am quoting). It sounds like you will be able to switch bodies back and forth, so why not? If you have the money, it should be fun. If you are more interested in large mammals at moderate distances, you may have some head-scratching to do.

[greg s]

"Digital looks like a pit of snakes at this point doesn't it at this point?"

 

Er, no. It's an easy and natural progression. 3 to 4 yrs ago it was a tougher decision. Today it's quite simple. I've managed to photograph a few snakes with my DSLR, but never as many as I wish (tough critters to locate). If you happen to find a pitfull of them, let me know. :) -Greg-

[greg s]

taken in Costa Rica with a DSLR

[lex_jenkins]

Before I launch into a lengthy (and probably tedious) digression, I'll say that if a photographer expects to compete on a professional level as a wildlife photographer there's almost no alternative: Digital is practically a must.

 

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

 

Angelo, that article on luminous-landscape.com is often cited as an example of the superiority of digital to medium format. I read it when it was first published and have re-read it a couple of times since then

 

With all due respect to Michael Reichmann - and I do respect the work he and others have done on that website - comparing high resolution digital files with scanned negatives or slides is specious from the beginning. Negatives were designed to be printed onto light sensitive paper. Slides were designed to be projected.

 

Scanning film is far too heavily dependent on the characteristics of the hardware, software and choices made by the person doing the post processing for the results to ever be entirely comparable to digital captures or to be representative of the choices that might be made by other photographers. For one thing, scans exaggerate grain that is not visible in prints on light sensitive paper.

 

I'm fortunate to live in Fort Worth, Texas, where the Amon Carter Museum holds the bulk of the Eliot Porter photographic estate. Porter was an early proponent of dye transfer color printing, long regarded as one of the more vivid and archival forms. Last year's showing of some of Porter's work included a demonstration of the various choices he made in deciding on a finished version of the same negative.

 

This is only one illustration of the fallacy of trying to make 1:1 comparisons between digital captures and film. There are many, many ways to screw up film scans and the resultant prints on a grand scale - I've seen many such examples and committed many such atrocities myself. Many one hour minilabs can produce better prints from color negatives than most photographers can who dabble in home scanning and printing.

 

Comparing online examples of digital captures that have been tweaked using post processing that is primarily designed for digital output with scanned film that is subjected to an essentially incompatible workflow is the ultimate in fallacy.

 

The only fair comparison is to compare prints made from digital captures using the appropriate digital workflow with prints from negatives on light sensitive paper made using the appropriate traditional workflow. I've seen this at local arts shows and the real world results tell the tale: medium format film is still superior for large prints viewed up close.

 

Naturally there are two problems with this.

 

One, it's becoming more and more difficult to have top notch prints made the traditional way. My favorite local lab stopped developing film or offering prints on light sensitive paper last year. They've gone strictly digital. The results are distinctly inferior but they've been forced to go with the economic trend, which currently includes the fact that consumers and clients are all too willing to accept inferior results in exchange for quick turnaround.

 

Two, digital will eventually catch up with film and traditional prints in every respect. It hasn't happened yet, but it will happen. However, some folks will choose to continue using the traditional processes for aesthetic, not practical, reasons.

 

There's no doubt that the digital capture and workflow process is superior for convenience and quick turnaround. For many, many photographers, that convenience becomes so paramount that they refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have accepted certain compromises in exchange for these conveniences.

 

I've never denied that I've accepted certain compromises when using digital cameras to accomplish certain tasks. Likewise, I accepted a compromise (and, rather stupidly, forced my client to accept a compromise) last year when I insisted on using film for a job that required a quick turnaround. Due to a lab delay the client had to wait two days instead of one for the photos. If I'd been using digital I could have given them burned CDs the next morning after the nighttime shoot. That's the main reason I bought my D2H - quicker turnaround.

[vivek iyer]

Greg, This green one, does it have a "tooth" (or a pointy needle like thing) on its upper lip or snout?

 

The ones I have seen in India (luckily not too close as they are very difficult to notice!) have them and they use it strike the eyes and ward off any unwelcome intruders. They are very graceful on vines.

[greg s]

Hi Vivek, I believe this particular "new world" reptile is a rear-fanged snake, meaning that it is mildly venomous and has its fangs in the back of its mouth... for subduing lizards. It is not dangerous for people, perhaps unless someone picked one up and was bit. This guy was hanging around in front of a gift shop, and I was really happy for the rare opportunity to see it (invisible in the forest).

 

The snakes we have to keep a very careful watch for in Costa Rica are pit vipers like the fer-de-lance. Would love to see India's reptiles... some from a distance. :) -Greg-

[vivek iyer]

Thanks, Greg! I have had many a close encounter with a few different snakes (none dangerous). Among the ones I know, only the Cobra has a distinct smell that indicates its territory (maybe others also have them but I am not aware). Soon, the monsoon season will start in the south west India and it is not that uncommon to find bundles (upwards of a few hundred) of snakes. Vivek.

[gary_anthes]

Lex, thanks for one of the more balanced, thoughtful and non-hysterical discussions I've seen of this subject on this forum.

 

BTW, what the heck is a "perpendicularity consultant"?

[lex_jenkins]

Gary, I appreciate your comment. I was wondering this morning whether I had actually written something sensible or had merely indulged myself in yet another rant.

 

I must admit that having gradually accepted digital captures as a legitimate means to an end, my opinions have changed somewhat. I'm still not ready to give up film and I hope I'll never have to. In fact, I'm hoping to put together another b&w darkroom as soon as I get resettled. I'm just more comfortable standing at an enlarger than sitting at a computer.

 

But after spending three or four years with a P&S digicam and about three months with a D2H, I can't deny the convenience or speed, which can be essential to certain kinds of photography.

[nature-photography]

Alex,

Although it is certainly a big leap from considering a D70 to a D2X, and throwing in big glass on top of it, you might want to bite the bullet. It could possibly fulfill your landscape needs as well. I am not sure what you shoot landscapes with now, but D2X files certainly blow the socks off of 35 mm Velvia scans.

 

I haven't been this excited about a camera body since I first got my F5. It is certainly a lot of money to spend on a camera body, but when I think of all the rolls of film that I have thrown away, particularly in shooting wildlife - it is slightly less painful.

 

Don't overlook the hidden costs of digital though. Backups, storage, field storage, flash cards, software, AC adapters, etc, etc, all add up to the bottom line. It just doesn't stop with the camera and a lens or two.

 

Mark

[manjo]

Alex,

 

Digital has its place IMHO. If you were a pro, making a living thro photography or if you were a 'soccor mom' type who wants to make casual snap shots of special occations.

 

If this is a hobby/art interest of yours, or if you value your work and would like to keep it archived for a lifetime, digital might not be a good idea. The main problem I have with digital is archivability. Digital media will not last more than 5 - 10yrs. May be in 10yrs from now someone will invent a new file format that is super duper and I will be stuck with image files with little support for them. Oh, then there are other things, number of shutter click, white balance, software, etc.

 

And, I think a digital camera in photography is like taking a machine gun to duck hunting.

[greg s]

Whatever you do, when you read photo advice on the web... take a look at the work of the advisor. The old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" holds up as well as ever. Cheers, -Greg-

[vivek iyer]

Greg was referring to me :-)

 

Anyways, Alex, here is a test shot (a crop) from D70 + a 2X TC + 200mm f/3.5 ED Nikkor. Manually focused and metered. No tweaking was done. Bird was in a local zoo.<div></div>

[nature-photography]

Manoj - It is pure speculation on what the future will hold for long term archivability of digitally captured images. One storage media never completely vanishes when a new one shows up to replace it. There is always a transition where you could migrate your photo archives over if you were concerned about longevity.

[robert_potts1]

Greg, I recommend that you watch Raiders of the Lost Ark for typical snake pit. Actually about all we have around here are garter snakes. They come out to sun en masse during the bright part of the day in spring after I have put the camera away.

 

Lex, there are still quite a few markets that accept color transparencies only. As for photo agencies, some of them accept images only from 11mp canon and above. The requirement minimum is likely to go up, not down. More snakes for the digital photographer to watch out for.

[joseph_brymer]

You can get a used Nikon D1X at a very affordable price now. I just purchased on from KEH camera in Atlanta for $2000.00. This will give you 6mp and quick AF and a well sealed body. I currently also own a D2H but wouldn?t rely on it's 4mp size for blow up's