Film user with Digital envy. Help.

[mormegil]

Dan, just for the record, I think you misread my post. I said the images appear flat (and uncontrasty), because that's the best way to keep as much image information. I definately didn't say that having a contrastier image gives more information - that's the opposite of what I said. I didn't mention the exposing to the right of the histogram, and the reasoning behind that (more bits=more info).

 

Anyways, to the original poster, good luck with your decision. It sounds like a great choice, and I'm sure you'll be happy with it.

</p><p>

One thing to mention, instead of the Canon 10-22, you might want to consider the Sigma 12-24 if you ever plan to go FF digital. It works well enough on a cropped camera, but also works on your Elan, and any FF digital you ever go to (corners aren't great, but what do you expect for such an "extreme" lens). Plus I think it's cheaper than the EF-S 10-22.</p>

<p>

Here's a couple examples (first one taken yesterday on my recently IR covnerted 300D)</p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/85/236084150_705ac9b7f7.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="0126 Steps" /></a>

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/51/132203229_9257040356.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Skyscrapers 2" /></a>

 

<p>On FF</p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/72/170645853_7a0186c523.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="2077 Sidewalk Vendor with Chicks" /></a>

[ted_marcus1]

I have an Elan II (without the eye control). I scanned film shot with it and its EOS 650 predecessor from 1999 until last year, when I bit the bullet and bought a Rebel XT. I haven't touched my Elan II since then. At "pixel-peeping" magnification, a 4000 dpi scan from a 400UC negative does have more detail than than the Rebel XT's 8 megapixel sensor using the same lens. But in practice that doesn't matter at all. The biggest print I can make is 12x18, which looks just fine either way.

 

There's very little I miss about film. I don't have to worry about airport X-rays, keeping film in an ice chest, or FedExing it to my favorite lab because the USPS caused me sleepless nights with delays in delivery. And I certainly don't miss squinting at film scans to clone away the little dust specks and scratches that infrared cleaning missed. Since my photography has been entirely digital (after scanning the film) since 1999, going completely digital became a no-brainer once the Rebel XT came out. The XTi looks to have eliminated your last excuse. Once you've switched you'll probably never look back-- and you'll wonder why you didn't do it years before!

 

You really don't need a full frame sensor (although a full frame censor might be helpful in selecting digital images). You're very unlikely to find a full-frame model under $1000 in the forseeable future. You can continue to use your existing lenses, but you'll probably want to supplement the 28-135 with one of the APS-C ultrawide zooms to get back the wide-angle coverage with the cropped sensor. I have the Tokina 12-24, which complements the 28-135 very well. Those are the only two lenses I carry when I travel. The transition to the Rebel XT from the Elan II was easy, although I do miss the Quick Control Dial on the back (but not enough to have bought a 20D at the time).

 

On the other hand, if you're happy shooting film and you enjoy black and white darkroom work, you may do best by ignoring the DSLR envy. Shooting raw files in a DSLR gives you the opportunity of selecting an infinite number of color filters when converting to monochrome instead of having to carry a set while shooting. But black and white is one area where darkroom prints may give better results than digital printing. Regardless, there's no hurry to change if what you're now doing works well. I already had a digital "hybrid workflow" for some time before I switched to a DSLR. You apparently don't, so the case is less compelling.

[lovcom_photo]

Jose, I stand corrected! lol

[whwhitejr]

Arther, Go for the 5D now don't wait another minute. Those that shoot Film at weddings don't know if they got the shot or not until it is processed. I have shot thousands of digital pictures and never lost one. I shoot weddings, portraits, sports as well as most other type of pictures. Unless you are shooting at night you shouldn't need a flash at 1600 ISO. (very little noise)I shoot two digital cameras at weddings a 5D and a 30D for backup. If you have to have the pop up flash then go for the 30D. I wish you could go through the process of a digital wedding through processing and you would see that digital is the only way to go, LOL Bill

[keith_lubow]

yes, digital is great, and replaces 35mm for many things and in many ways. However, don't think that film is dead or yucky in any way. It has its uses, especially in large format, and while some would argue, medium format. Personally, I recently got my first digital camera, and I love it and all, but I still go and shoot with 36 exp. rolls because it is a great bit of fun, and really does give you much more control...or a different kind of control, anyhow. The amount of manipulation and personalization you can do with film selection, exposure, and development variables kills digital. However, to me digital's strong points are: #1: high ASA quality, #2: white balance and ASA can be changed shot to shot, #3: speed - stuff is on the news wires in minutes, #4: speed and ease of changing "film" and number of shots before having to change, #5: compatability with the rest of the known world. The ability to see your images right away is really not that helpful unless you are only in it for the money.

 

Keith

[michael_w.]

FWIW, I miss the viewfinder on my 1-N the most, and I never realized how good I had it until I bought a 20D. It's still worlds better than any compact P&S, but if the 5D finder is anything like the 1-series bodies (which I suspect it is), then that alone makes it a worthwhile investment, IMHO. I find myself actually using my film camera more after having "gone digital;" scanning slides and negative strips with a Nikon LS-50 (Coolscan V) produces truly superb results.

 

Shooting with a big, bright viewfinder is such a joy it's no wonder so many shell out serious cash for medium-format cameras.

[rob_murray]

My girlfriend was in a similar situation as you. Me I dumped film and my SLRs 2 years ago and now shoot with just a Canon A610. She kept seeing me view my pics instantly (here its 2 week turnaround for slides by mail or a long drive to get it faster) and was amazed at the things I could do with just this little camera. She ordered a Rebel XT recently while the Rebate was still on. 2 days after getting it I noticed her quietly putting her film from the camera bag to the freezer...Its a no brainer. At least get a good point and shoot digital to start with, they pay for themselves very fast with no film costs. I would not wait for your dream camera when the digital Rebel XT bodies are so cheap now. You can always upgrade if it ever comes out. Meanwhile your camera would have paid for itself very quickly.

[lovcom_photo]

Keith wrote "....The amount of manipulation and personalization you can do with film selection, exposure, and development variables kills digital....".

 

Keith, this could not be further from the truth....digital provides much much more control over film when one considers the fantastic modifications one can do in PhotoShop, and often without damage to the image. With film, unless you have your own processor, enlarger, other supporting equipment, and the time and cost to do your own tweeking, all of which is very labor intensive, customizing film shots is lots of $$, time, and work.

 

The custom tweeking I do for digital wedding shots would cost a fortune in $$ and in time....the price would scare off my clients, and would greatly reduce the chance they would agree to pay for image mods.

 

With digital, you are the photographer, the "film" processor, the fixer, and the printer, and all this without chemicals, or involving other people that may not necessarily share your style, your image look, and the desired results that you want.

 

With digital the ways and means one can tweek, and custom process, not to mention the huge savings in cost of doing same cannot be denied.

 

I've taking many of the same landscapes with a film EOS camera and a 5D, using the same L glass, and in every single case, the 5D version of the same landscape looked very obviously better, sharper, more detail, better color, and yes after doing the photoshop post-process step, but regardless, digital these days, especially full-frame digital beats the pants off of any 35mm film, with perhaps the exception of black & white work.

[lovcom_photo]

....with digital, the process from camera capture to finished mastered print involves just one lens....with film, there's the lens of the camera, the lens of the enlarger....too many things that can be out of calibration, not focused right, etc, etc....to many hands, with too many adgendas or opinions how how a photo is to be developed, mastered, etc.

 

Sure film provides many many choies for film, and their characteristics, but digital can often be tweeked to emilate a particular film, grain and all.

[keith_lubow]

Dan...obviously we are looking for different things as photographers. I understand exactly what you're saying, but I don't think that what I said is far from the truth at all. To me it is just as much about the joy of the processes as it is about the final image...if not more so. The discipline and tactile nature of it is why I like it so much. I would never complain about all of the work involved in processing and editing photos from film because it is a joy to me. I don't view it as a hassle. Besides, I DEFINITELY do not think that digital post-processing is any easier, any less work, or any less time consuming or expensive. When they make a digital sensor with a film-like S curve instead of a linear one, and with the ability to simulate zone controls, maybe I will think otherwise. The closest I can do in camera is raise and lower contrast a few ticks to get some control. It's OK, but...well, digital. It's on or off, 1 or 0, black or white. It's finite. Sure, digital makes sense for professionals who just want to crank the product out as quickly and easily as possible...that's why I got a digital camera myself, and I don't really have much bad to say about them. But I would rather do my work at the scene and in the darkroom than in front of a computer screen. As far as tinkering is Photoshop vs. tinkering in the darkroom...sure, if you do a tally of all the features and manipulations available in Photoshop and those available in the darkroom, PS will be in the lead. However, I think 90% of what PS can do is useless to me, and the remaining 10% is stuff I may actually perform on my photos. I don't hate PS or digital. They are tools is the bag and have their uses. However, to me nothing beats a type C or Ilfochrome print and the entire process behind it.

 

keith

[lb-]

<i>I shoot weddings too, and my overhead and costs are MUCH GREATER if I shot film. MUCH GREATER.</I><p>

 

that has nothing to do with the medium, but rather poor business skills. no offense. <p>

 

My cleints pay for consumables, whether by line item in a budget or as built into an overall bid. I haven't paid for a roll of film or processing in years. <p>

 

<i>Lots of romanticisation and idealization of film. Vomit!</i><p>

 

 

dan, if you never took your film work past dropping a few rolls at the minilab thats fine, but try to respect the fact that some people make different choices than you, and it's not because they're all idiots and fools.

[lovcom_photo]

Keith, if you like processing film, and other related darkroom ventures, all the power to you, and I think that is great. I can appreciate the joy you say you get, and I believe you.

 

I can apply an unsharp mask in seconds...it took Ansel and perhaps many others a lot more time. How long did it take Ansel to make a custom mask? Apply the mask? Dodge? Burn? What about saturation, contrast, applying filters...seconds in PS, minutes or longer with film, and the cost is much more too.

 

As for in-camera adjustments, I don't even try...I shoot only raw, asking my 5D to do no processing, no work, just capture the light. IMHO shooting JPG and relying on PictureStyles is BS. For shooting RAW, one is more concerned about getting a "proper" histogram reading, which when optimized can be a great foundation for post processing work....are you surprised if I told you that most of my RAWs look faded, washed out, flat, lacking sharpness, lacking contrast, lacking saturation, and perhaps having a horried color cast because of mixed lighting or other white balance issues? This is totally okay, and the way it is supposed to be.

 

I ask the camera only to capture the light per my exposure inputs, via glances at the historgram...that is it....I finish the picture later in the digital darkroom.

 

You say you'd rather do the work at the scene and in the dark room....that's great, and more power to you, but that is no different then shooting digital RAW images and mastering them later in the digital darkroom.

 

So what digital you say? You say it's on or off? No way...it's 68.7 BILLION colors man....36 bit color...far from binary on or off, to be sure. Sure the information is binary, but it is 2 to the 12th power (4096) per channel and of course 4096 cubed is 68.7 billion. Should it matter that a great looking print is well, digital?

 

You want quick and fast, shoot digital. But if you want quality (in the 35mm/crop DSLR world), the MOST control, then you better shoot digital again.

 

When I shoot a wedding I use digital, but not just because it is cheaper...I use digital because my 5D produces BETTER image quality then ANY 35mm camera could, using ANY film.

 

What is more fun? The answer is very subjective....you say it is lots of fun to work in the traditional darkroom and I believe you. I don't think it is fun at all. Been there done that...no right or wrong answer here.

 

I took my EOS 3 film body along with my 5D to Sedona several months ago...I shot both, often the same exact scenes. Guess which camera produced the cleanest, highest quality shots? Guess which 13" x 19" enlargements looked the best, the least grainy, the most wow factor< the sharpest? Do I have to say? lol

 

As for black and white work, so far I've not seen any digital work that matches B&W film.

 

For you film is a labor of love, and I respect that and appreciate that...but don't be surprised if there are others out there that think the same way about digital Photo-Shopping...I'm one of those.

[lovcom_photo]

Lucas, I know a 30 year wedding veteran that produces great film wedding work....for years he shot down anything digital....last Friday he confided to me that the real reason he boohoos digital is because he is very intimidated by digital darkroom processes, and in computers in general. Classic human failings that we all have to varying degrees. He's over here now getting instruction on using PhotoShop from me....I think he is no fool, nor an idiot...I think he represents many old time pros that are very skilled in film and have awesome portfolios, that also happen to feel intimidated by the new technology. What we don't understand we shoot down....human nature.

 

As for my business acumen, I guess I'm stupid like perhaps 90% of all wedding photogs that have gone mostly digital...I guess I should be happy I'm in good company. ;-) If a pro wants total control of the output in film he will have to charge much more $$ or perhaps have a thinner profit margin...but if one wants the same or more control over output (mastering of the images), the cost of that control in the digital realm is much less....otherwise dropping rolls off to the lab, giving up control certainly can be inexpensive...but the great thing about digital is that the pro can have more say through out the processing steps.

[lb-]

You were much more pleasant 6 months ago when you first logged onto the weddding forum asking for advice about your FIRST ever wedding.

 

you were polite, asked good questions and seemed genuinely interested in learning.

 

what happened between then and now to make you into such a pedantic. agressive, "pro" is anyones guess. I suppose anything is possible here in the land of make believe.

 

good luck to you dan. you'll need it.

[boris c hann]

"You were much more pleasant 6 months ago when you first logged onto the weddding

forum asking for advice...."

 

He may not be pleasant, he's certainly not very well informed, but his hyperactive postings

at least have the virtue (albeit unintended) of being very, very amusing. They bring a cruel

smirk to my face whenever I read them. Rant on Dan, rant on....

[savas_kyprianides]

Let me break up the emerging argument with another viewpoint, that of a learning amateur.

The digital work allows rapid learning of some photography basics. It is not just instant

results that help recall of shooting conditions as photography is constructively criticised. Part

of what propels this is the automatic documentation of shooting parameters in the EXIF data.

Learning in film employs paper and pencil, then maintaining track of results. Not that that is

a bad thing at all. In my mind, it is typwriter versus word processor.

[keith_lubow]

Dan - I shoot jpeg high for journalism...stuff where I won't be doing the editing myself and speed is of the essence. For my own fun photos I shoot raw. In either case, I have several presets that I use depending on the contrast of the scene (if I have time), and they do help. Shooting raw doesn't solve all issues. I find the in-camera adjustments to help somewhat. In contrasty cases where I am being troubled by the highlights, I have presets where I have brought down contrast so I can bring out some shadow detail and not blow out as much. Otherwise, I would have to keep the highlights down with exposure and bring shadows back up in PS. In my opinion, that doesn't look as good. I often shoot with the -2 or -1 contrast presets that I made. It's the closest I can get to being able to "change films" - to simulate a film curve by drawing pushing both highlights and shodows toward the mids. I also have others that are the same, but with a boost in saturation. My goal is to make processing on the computer as much like doing it in the darkroom as possible, because it's easier to draw parallels. I want to approach a raw file in PS in a similar fashion as I would approach a neg. It's not just as simple as "expose for the highlights and process for the shadows" like you would with slide film (and opposite for neg. film). It is about contrast control. Shooting raw does not equal shooting zone, as much as people love to claim that it does. Levels, curves and such are not the same as being able to control every detail of the negative based on your own tests. When they make a camera where you can shape your own non-linear film curve, I will be all over it. No, PS doesn't suck, it's just not the same. It's a totally different process. Nor does zone give you perfect negatives that need no manipulation.

 

keith

[lovcom_photo]

Lucas and Boris...two boys full of envy, strife and bitterness.

 

Oh well...

[lb-]

gotta love ya dan. <p>

 

in <A href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HxbW">this thread</A> you call boris a "moron" and make a vaguely racist comment but here you take what I suppose is your version of the high road? <p>

 

fwiw, "envy, strife and bitterness" are among my better qualities so no hard feelings. <p>

 

hey I'll be in LA tomorrow afternoon, how's about you and I get a drink. we can talk about cameras.

[eric_glass]

I say use the war with Sony and Canon to your advantage. You can pick up the now older XT pretty cheap as a body only or go for the XTi body and use your lens. Then use the leftover cash to buy a used medium format. That is what I did and it makes me happy. I got a freakin' Hasselblad for a cheap.

 

I have to say I dragged my feet about digital for awhile too. Now that I have both (medium format and digi SLR) I have tons of creative freedom. I use my Canon until my fingers bleed and get all the crazy shots I can; then I whip out the Hassie and snap 12 to top the shoot off.

 

Just have fun.

[kelly_flanigan1]

So what is the waiting and wishing the game plan if a low cost FF sensor is always "just a year or two away"?<BR><BR>What is the game plan if it happens in a decade, or two, or never? <BR><BR>What if FF sensors INCREASE in pricing, and removeable lens dslrs in general drop in sales volume?<BR><BR>The bulk of amateur slr film users have leapfroged dslr's and moved to high end P&S digitals.

[._._z]

Canon almost certainly will have new FF DSLR bodies out by PMA next year. In addition to a replacement of the 1DS//, which came out two years ago, plausible rumors claim a low-end FF 7D body with an introductory streeet price of $2200 at PMA, which means it'll be under $2,000 by this time next year.

 

Under $1,000? I don't think we'll see that for 2-3 years unless someone makes a manufacturing breakthrough in 2007.

[keith_lubow]

This is what I want, rather than all this new and useless crap. I want another plan to keep one pro body unchanged for 10 years. Basically just a box. It could serve as a Hasselblad-like base for whatever we want to bolt onto it, including future upgrades. The same body would be used for medium format, 35mm, and digital. Backs for 35mm standard, panoramic, or half frame, lenses specially for medium format film, and different digital sensors, prisms, winders, motor drives, screens, etc. We could pick our sensor size and resolution. For instance, 35 format FF high and low resolution sensors, 1.5X high and low resolution sensors, or 2X crop high and low resolution sensors. Medium format sensors available as well. There should be two shutters available. The focal plane standard, and an optional X/M synch leaf shutter installed between the lens mount and the FP one. There should be a bellows back accessory so they could break into the 4X5 market. (No, the TS lenses don't cut it.) One camera to do everything.

 

And I want an aperture ring on the lenses.

 

Canon also needs some good handle-mount flashes that can communicate with the camera.

 

I wish they would sit down and design a really versatile and customizable system like this.

 

Keith

[mormegil]

@Keith

 

Having a box (like a Hassy) that does MF to 1.6x crop seems like an impractical idea. That means the mount for the lenses would have to be big enough for MF, and have a reflex mirror big enough too. That makes the distance from lens mount to film/sensor very large.

 

That results in a bulky MF size like camera. The great distance would also lead to difficulties in lens design.

[keith_lubow]

Jose - what I am saying is that you would choose your application for the "box." You'd buy the relatively cheap box and choose the parts to make it whatever you want. No more difficult than building the atomic bomb, and we did that over 60 years ago. It's just a matter of what people want at the time. It would be large enough for medium format, and for 35, you'd pop in all the right parts, which you buy separately (or buy a preset kit). Shutter and mirror, roller adapters, lens mount, etc. The 1D as it is is about as large as a Graflex 6X9 Graphic and not light. What I am talking about would not be hard to design and would not be much larger than a 1D. The problem is that is is SO practical that people would not be used to it. It would also require original and practical thought, and I would not expect that from Canon or any camera manufacturer any time soon. The design of the camera is not impossible, or even relatively difficult. In fact, it would be much more simple than all the stuff they've got going now. How is a camera impractical if it can be a 1V, a 1D, a Hasselblad, film or digital, a view camera, and a Graflex all on the same platform? Hell, they could even make a video back for it! Still photography in the press will largely be dead soon anyhow, and Canon knows it. If by impractical you mean you have to be smarter and stronger to use it...then so be it.

 

Keith