In the end what have we gained?

[mjferron]

<p>I learned about photography 10 years ago using mostly digital cameras. Somehow over the last 5 years I've gone retro shooting and developing a lot of B&W film. I print anywhere from 6x9 to 10x15 with an Epson 2400.</p>

<p>I look at the superb results I get shooting Delta 100 with my FE and some top lenses or my Contax G2 and wonder why the lust for all the latest plastic cameras? I have Nikon D60 with a few AFS lenses and it's probably the last camera I grab of the 3. Sure if I was a journalist, action shooter or wedding pro I most likely would want the latest camera for speed and convienience but why would a hodge podge, look what I saw, kind of photographer need more than what I have. I can't imagine any format giving me a print at these sizes that could look better.</p>

<p>Also I appreciate well made items and how can all this modern plastic compare with using a Nikon AIS prime (add your own brand favorite here) or compete with the Contax G2? There's so much soul in this vintage (ok the G2 is not that vintage) analog equipment. One more thing. I've noticed fair percentage of the techies do not take great photos. (not saying I do but in the end isn't it all about the photo?) Maybe less obsession with what manufacturer is going to come out with the new replacement for the latest camera I just bought and more on what it takes to land a good shot might be the way to go?</p>

<p>I'd like to hear others thoughts on my rambling, not quite sure where I'm going with the statements above.</p>

<p>(please no film/digital arguments. All my images are digital in the end.) What I'm trying to aim at is the zen, feel and "keeping the faith" qualities this older analog style brings to the table.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[ I can't imagine any format giving me a print at these sizes that could look better.]]</p>

<p>So clearly, because you can't do it, it must not work for anyone else and not be applicable to anyone else.</p>

<p>[[What I'm trying to aim at is the zen, feel and "keeping the faith" qualities this older analog style brings to the table.]]</p>

<p>You have completely deluded yourself, Michael.</p>

<p>[[(please no film/digital arguments]]<br>

[[wonder why the lust for all the latest plastic cameras?]]<br>

[[One more thing. I've noticed fair percentage of the techies do not take great photos.]]</p>

<p>Yeah...ok. Nice try.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Some folks are just as you say, "Techies". They just like cool stuff. They like playing with the latest and greatest and get more from that than they do from the final product...the print.</p>

<p>Then there are those that are only about the final product and the gear used is not at all important, as long as it able to produce the desired result.</p>

<p>Some folks fall in between, the final product is most important but they like to play with cool toys to.</p>

<p>I also started learning with digital and have turned to B&W film in medium format. I love vintage cameras, but also look forward to haveing a 5D MkII one day(to replace my current 5D), but I am not in a real hurry at all. I used to get bent on folks coming on the forum with a 1DsMkXXX and asking what DOF is. Now it doesn't matter what other people spend their money on or if they even really know how to use it. If they can afford it, then let them buy it. That means the rest of us can get it at a great used price when they are bored and go to buy the next best thing.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[divepeak]

I don't know why people need these new plastic cars. My 1970's hand-welded bycycle has so much more soul, and it does everything I need. Yawn. Sorry for the interruption - I'm going back to my zen-like sleep state now...

[mjferron]

<p>Jason good point. Thanks for your thoughts.</p>

<p>Rob your defensive attitude, blindly lashing out without politely qualifying any of your counter points is exactly what I didn't want to see here. My D60 and it's lenses are plastic. Even my very cool new AFS 60 micro is plastic. Why I can't I compliment the old stuff without being called dillusional?</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>It's like audiophiles. God help you if you ever get into that. I once saw a salesman say w/ a straight face how his $600 speaker cables! were so much better, and you could really hear the difference between them and the usual trailer trash speaker cables. Suuuure. The guy who asked about them bought them too.</p>

<p>I feel mostly like you Michael. Fortunately for us there are a lot of wonderful classic cameras to use, and if you can afford it, '55 Chevys to drive. Or at least steel frame bikes. The majority of people won't see the value of this, but that's the society we live in.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Such is the nature of modern, western, society. Live with it and go with the flow, or rebel against it and swim upstream, as you wish.<br>

Just don't try to convince me that the other direction is better OK.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

 

[mjferron]

<p>$600 speaker cables? Yikes.Then again tell a casual snap shooter at work you spent $600 on a used lens. Yes I like my plastic camera. it takes nice photos and I can't get it to brass no matter how hard I try.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>"Just don't try to convince me that the other direction is better OK."</p>

<p>Who tried to convince you of anything?</p>

[photomark]

If you are into the 'soul' of that vintage, why in god's name are you printing with an inkjet? Be a man; go out and find an

enlarger, some trays, chemicals, and retire to your darkroom.

 

To your question, 'what have we gained?' the answer is: time. No more waiting for a lab or our own processing, no more

scanning, no more archival sleeves. I agree that most medium and low end digital cameras barely compete with traditional

film cameras in capable hands, but the workflow is so vastly improved for people who don't want to spend their time in the dark—it's faster,

easier, and more flexible. And, although it's subjective, I think high end digital equipment produces significantly better

results than 35mm film.

[markus maurer]

<p>Michael, since I can not develop and enlarge film myself, using film and have it processed at the labs has gotten too expensive and the workflow too slow as well for me since I need the images in digital form finally and I take lots of them and would hate the scanning . But I still and always will enjoy and often prefer old manual and full metall prime lenses like my SMC Takumars and more gems in M42 mount and I'm glad that I can use them with my digital Pentax bodies. The last lens I got was an Auto-Takumar 35mm F3.5 and I will do a sales prospect for a client with the Takumar 50mm F4 macro and the SMC 28mm F 3.5 on the Pentax K10D soon. So I can still have both worlds.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Mark actually I do have an enlarger but I'm just not very good with wet printing. Can't find anyone to teach me either. I do have a major respect for folks who can turn out superb silver prints. They have value for me. I can make a paper plane out of one of my inkjets and it won't bother me because in 5 minutes I can make another one that looks just like it. Totally agree with you on the work flow thing. Not many folks want to mess with or know how to mess chemicals and home developing. Personally I enjoy it but not for volume. Maybe one film a week. That's where digital excels. You won't catch me shooting three rolls of film trying to land the perfect macro.</p>

<p>With quality film like Delta100 or other fine grain B&W film and proper scanning there is no difference in detail or visable grain on a 8x10 shooting with the D60 or the 35mm film. And with film and proper development I never blow the highlights.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Markus I enjoy finding old Nikkors that sell now for 10 cents on the dollar. Few want them now unless it's one of the rare exotics.</p>

[yeffe]

<p>I've got some Leica M stuff I just love. I also have a backlog of undeveloped b/w film and unscanned negatives. If I know I've got to see it before next Summer, I'll use my D60. The rest will probably end up for my heirs to chuck or curate as they wish.<br>

Bottom line is that when the experience of photography is paramount I'll use a film camera. If the picture is paramount, I'll use whatever fits my purpose, probably my DSLR.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I didn't know Leica made speaker cables. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p> An ultra spicey sexy hot topic, so photographically spicey that it demands considering the previsualisations of Ansel Adams and his sexy use of wooden soulful darkroom skills vs plastic camera and lcd chimping photoshop skills. Ansel Adams, aaah, the topic just wouldn't have the same casual though distinctly philosophical gravitas without his name. Just horsing around...but which reminds me that we DO need them, horses, lots of horses...</p>

[machts gut]

<p>I understand your point perfectly well. Coming from traditional 35mm photography, with some experience in MF, I thought i should try a Digicam. Started with a p&s and then bought a DSLR. I now sometimes take the p&s, but more as a notebook, but I hardly ever use the DSLR. I simply enjoy shooting with my old OMs much more and also prefer darkroom work to scanning and postprocessing at the computer. I'm not much interessted in aspects of quality. The size of my prints is up to 30cm x 40cm and 35mm suits my needs well.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Honestly I have to do a lot of convincing to use any of the small film cameras I have, including Nikon, Leica, Rollei, Hasselblad, though I am planning a 35mm film series for next year. For film I usually shoot 8x10 or 5X7. That is for prints. For things done with a computer and not printed I use a digital Nikon. I have 2 enlargers, no printer. The digital is tempting because it is so easily handheld, and keeps me out of the darkroom. The 8x10 because of the results.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Heya, here's my thoughts:<br /> First, the 3 cameras put on the table - FE, G2, D60<br /> (I used to shoot a G1 incidently - sold it to afford an internship - the 45mm planar has the most amazing characteristics of a prime lens I've ever used. Ever. Makes my 55/2.8 Micro nikkor crappy in non-macro ranges)<br>

- which of the 3 will you be able to mount a super telephoto lens, and the ability to burst off an action sequence? Different tool for different jobs. If I was shooting landscapes, I would be shooting MF or even 4x5. Slides on a light table/projected is an awesome experience, that many of the newer generation have sadly never experienced.<br>

- image quality: I'm not going into film vs digital here, just older digital versus newer digital: D200 vs D300 - the D300 at iso 1600 is simply usable for amateurs like me to get very good quality 8x12 prints. While it is about noise control, the usable ISO1600 allows me to shoot in much more varied lighting situations that would be difficult with an earlier generation camera -The D200 can do it - but I try not to use it above ISO800 as I shoot wildlife and there is significant detail loss at iso1600.<br>

Even if I don't mind B&W, Delta 3200 rated at 1600 is NOT something I'd use to capture fine detail in wildlife. Even in 4x6in prints I can see the grain. 120 Delta 400 for human portraits is sweet :) Caveat: I do not process nor print my own B&W film...<br>

I think for me it's the right tool for the right job. Major props must be given to the older generation who have used and captured superb images on film.<br>

Alvin</p><div></div>

[alvinyap]

<p>I would like to add the above sequence was shot with a D300 + 70-200VR. I think I used the wrong border with the rvp tags, not my usual border if you check the gallery.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Michael: You have simply discovered and exposed a great myth about photography. Despite all the camera equipment chat that goes on in these forums, and helped along by camera makers, the simple truth is that good picture making has very little to do with cameras, lenses or recording media. People make pictures and their skill level varies across the spectrum. It doesn't have anything to do with the camera or media. As someone who shoots both film and digital I can understand the Zen approach that you speak of. Using film can be a slowed down process that helps contemplation. That alone however does not exclude using that same approach with digital cameras. Not every digital camera user shoots machine gun style and photoshops every image to death.<br>

I think you'll find that when you focus on picture making, and not equipment using, you will defuse a lot of the mindless film vs digital chatter. Make beautiful, meaningful images filled with soul and impact and no one will ask or care how they were made.<br>

Hybrid workers like us often get no love. Don't expect any. We don't neatly fall into any "camp". Enjoy both your fine film and digital cameras for the excellent tools they are and make wonderful digital prints. The catch phrase is not "digital vs film" its "digital <em>and</em> film". Both are useful tools to the sensitive, creative photographer.</p>

 

[bms]

<blockquote>

<p>Mark actually I do have an enlarger but I'm just not very good with wet printing. Can't find anyone to teach me either. I do have a major respect for folks who can turn out superb silver prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My advice: practice, practice, practice. You may never get superb gallery worthy prints, but I think to get decent results it doesn't take decades to learn, and it can be a lot of fun. Keep as many things the same when you experiment. That being said, while I get better every time I find the time to wet print, and I am certainly no wizard there, it just takes a quite a lot of time. Time I rarely have, so I grab my also superb plastic things and get out there to shoot. Whatever works, as you said, it is about the picture.</p>

[bms]

<p>Alvin, LOL, I thought you had some kind of fast motor drive for your 4x5 ;)</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=862488"><em>Michael Ferron</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Sep 07, 2009; 11:51 p.m.</em><br>

<em>I've noticed fair percentage of the techies do not take great photos. (not saying I do but in the end isn't it all about the photo?)</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1998172"><em>Louis Meluso</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Sep 08, 2009; 05:15 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Michael: You have simply discovered and exposed a great myth about photography. Despite all the camera equipment chat that goes on in these forums, and helped along by camera makers, the simple truth is that good picture making has very little to do with cameras, lenses or recording media.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

Right ?<br>

As I've said many times, "A person with a Brownie and CRAFT trumps a hack with a Hasselblad, every time."<br />I treat my photography as art. I use the "brush" that gets the job done. How it's made and who made it is of no particular importance. How it works is the province of the engineers. <br />How to use it to get the results I want is my job.<br />And yes, it <em>IS</em> all about the photo, hence the name of the site, "Photo dot net".<br />Voodoo drums..... I gotta go.....<br />Bill P.</p>

[anthea50]

<p><strong>In the end what have we gained?</strong><br>

How about the ability to CHOOSE whether to use film or digital to capture 'the image' ?<br>

Live and let live - those who choose either medium make the choice for their own reasons. That's what we've gained.....the ability to choose.....surely?</p>

<p>Louis: <em>Hybrid workers like us often get no love. Don't expect any. We don't neatly fall into any "camp". Enjoy both your fine film and digital cameras for the excellent tools they are and make wonderful digital prints. The catch phrase is not "digital vs film" its "digital and film". Both are useful tools to the sensitive, creative photographer.</em></p>

<p>Well said Louis, as was all of your post on this topic. </p>

<p>Just my 2c worth, cheers, Anthea :0</p>