In the end what have we gained?

[marcus_lai]

<p >It is good to try to figure out what you need to make your good picture, but it is pointless to argue what is better. It all depends on how you see it.<br />The big questions, what is good and what is bad? What is art?<br />No answer I guess, but surely, art is not all about pretty stuff.<br /><br /></p>

<p ><em>“but in the end isn't it all about the photo?”</em><br />Is it? If they can be satisfied with lots expensive equipments in hands, then let them be, maybe one day they will open a shop that specialising in equipment sell, or maybe some of them will end up inventing new cameras.<br /><br /></p>

<p >And I think it is all about having different possibilities, living in this world I mean.<br />It is fine if you love to stay in traditional zone and create traditional feel photo.<br />But maybe that is not others want. Maybe they want something that is not quite traditional photography, or maybe what they want is not photo at all, who knows.</p>

[riley_s1]

<p>Might I just point something out? You're using a D60. No wonder it feels like plastic junk compared to your FE. It is. The D60 is a great camera but obviously it doesn't have the same hewn-out-of-solid-metal heft to it. Pick up a D3 (or, for that matter, an F5) and any of the 2.8 lenses and you'll feel the difference.<br>

But regardless, if your FE and Delta are what you need, that's great. Good for you. You're not a "journalist, action shooter or wedding pro," so go out and keep on shooting with the FE. Why is there this insatiable need for people to get into these absurd old v. new, film v. digital arguments? If it works for you, use it.</p>

[riley_s1]

<p>Oh, and one other brief point: maybe some "techies do not take great photos," but they certainly do help keep camera prices down.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Michael, your point of view has an analogy in woodworking, which might raise fewer hackles. There are those who prefer using a large plane to work a fine piece of wood pinioned with bench dogs, testing for flatness with a straightedge and checking warpage with a pair of winding sticks, and reveling in the gossamer-thin shavings that smell so good. Then there are those who pass the wood through a power planer, accoutered in goggles and ear plugs, and backing up their expensive dust collectors with dust masks. There's a corresponding dichotomy between cabinet scrapers and power sanders, and between machined wood and that material still bearing the marks and laps of hand work.<br /> Which is better? That's not a question of intrinsic value, but of assigned value.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Funnily enough I'm with Rob on this one. Instead of dismissing what he said why not ask him to elaborate if it's not clear what he said.</p>

<p>Strangely you start of in saying you get superb results with Delta 100 (indeed one of the best b&w films ever made) only to state later that you're not very good at wet printing (and yes I'm aware that you can scan the negatives). But somehow it doesn't work that way. In answering your question "what have we gained" it seems you didn't gain a lot after all. Make no mistake, I'm not blasting away at you here just trying to provide some sound advice.</p>

<p>If you wanna fool around with film make sure you are able to control the whole process. The same is true of digital. I was trained as a fine art printer but decided to go digital. That meant no more dealing with densities and entering the sordid world of colour management and that I did. It took a lot of time.</p>

<p>What you (and a lot of other people) don't seem to grasp is that to get truelly superb results you've got to invest time and a whole lot of it. That and only that will give you superb results, provided of course that one is able to produce a interesting photo in the fist place.</p>

<p>Wet or digital is of no consequence whatsoever. What a lot of people don't grasp is that it's not about working wet or digital, those are only techniques and instead of hammering away at the differences it would be more productive and sensible to look at the advantages of both.</p>

<p>But if you want superb results there are no shortcuts, it takes a lot of hard work.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Riley S. What argument? Read the fine print man. Where in my OP did I call for a digital film debate? Didn't I say all my images are digital in the end? I just wanted polite discussion. Yes I have owned and do appreciate the build quality of the top pro cameras and realize the D60 in a toy in comparison.</p>

<p>Ton. My reply to Rob was "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." His comment was rude without elaboration. I don't have much time for comments like his. So what part do you agree with? I get superb results with Delta and get superb results when I scan it. I enjoy developing film. Why is it I need to wet print?</p>

<p>And finally you say "What you (and a lot of other people) don't seem to grasp is that to get truelly superb results you've got to invest time and a whole lot of it. That and only that will give you superb results". How did you come to the conclusion that you somehow spend more time looking for superb results than I do?</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Charles Heckal I would very much appreciate the hand tooled, handcrafted woodworking of a true old world craftsman than I would the more modern Norm Abrams style of power shop woodworking. (No offense Norm) Doesn't mean the modern methods don't produce as good or even better results at times but I'll ask folks which oil painting would they prefer. The one by the skilled artist or the one sprayed in mass production by the machine? Maybe the machine print is even better than the painter's but really would you value it the same? Guess I need to toss that Epson in the trash and power that enlarger up. :)</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Why is it I need to wet print?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>quality, plain and simple. The densities in a negative are translated in a wet print far better than any scanner can reproduce i.e. with more control so from a negative I prefer a wetprint any day of the week.</p>

<p>As far as Rob's comment is concerned maybe it was formulated a bit poorly but essentially what he said is true. That's why I said you've got to invest time if you want to produce really superb results.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How did you come to the conclusion that you somehow spend more time looking for superb results than I do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>by your own words. I think I´ve been clear about that. It isn´t about me however but how much time you are willing to invest.</p>

[riley_s1]

<p>No, that's not what I meant - I mean this _type_ of discussion in general - that is, trying to talk about something subjective (i.e. which camera is better for a particular person) in an objective, general way. It seems pointless to me. Your camera works for you, mine works for me. What more discussion does there need to be?<br /> "Yes I have owned and do appreciate the build quality of the top pro cameras and realize the D60 in a toy in comparison." Okay. I'm unsure what the issue is then. If you want a D60 with better build quality, I'd recommend buying a D300.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Riley point taken and you are right. No point bringing up discussions like this. Actually what I do like about the D60 is the size and weight. That D300 is a rock in comparison but I wouldn't turn one down if someone gave me one.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>And to think all this time my soul has been gathering dust in the corner, 4 bodies, 7 lenses, flashes, etc. etc. all sitting in the dark not having film cranked through them.<br>

I used to load my own film canisters and pack them up with 40+ exposures and feel good about it... now I feel cheated if I can't get 100+ exposures on a card. Definitely better for me... a big gain, except my negatives don't get good revews anymore.</p>

[orias]

<p>"I've noticed fair percentage of the techies do not take great photos"<br>

You would have been better off to have left that out in your original post. The inabilty to take great photos is not limited to only techies.</p>

[kludge]

<p>I use Nikon AIS primes on a D40 body. Go figure.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Today you can get roughly comparable image quality at ISO 3200 than one used to get with ISO 100 slide film. You can replicate a photo without loss in quality an indefinite number of times. You can control the image capture process better. You can review the captured image (think: a free polaroid) and correct your mistakes, if any. I think these are pretty significant advances. The drawback is that the digital equipment is bigger and heavier, and costs more. I can live with the drawbacks but still shoot some film.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>David some super shots in your portfolio. Love those waves.</p>

<p>Ilkka I understand the high ISO gain we get from digital. I would phrase my OP a bit different if I could. Didn't say things quite right.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that hobbyist mostly gravitate towards camera gear that they like. We tend to purchase gear because of they way it looks, functions and what we can afford. Basically if it's a hobby then just do what you want and enjoy it. </p>

[vcallaway]

<p>The best tool a photographer has is the gray matter between the ears.<br>

I enjoy both film and digital. There is a therapudic value to working in a darkroom. At least for me. I don't shoot as much film as I used to but my old RB67 will leave my hands when they bury me.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The best tool a photographer has is the gray matter between the ears.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> That's a reasonable point, but this discussion is not about photographers, it's about equipment fetishists. When I meet <em>photographers</em> , they talk about their projects, their themes, style issues (which may reflect equipment issues) but they definitely don't talk about "zen" in the context of a manufactured products. It's about the photography. </p>

<p>Oh well...</p>

[andylynn]

<p>What we've gained is speed and convenience (particularly in large volume and in instant feedback), savings depending on how much volume one shoots, and certain technical advantages e.g. in high ISO color photos. But a good photographer is going to take good photos with any camera and a lousy photographer is going to take lousy photos with any camera.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[blindly lashing out without politely qualifying any of your counter points]]</p>

<p>Pot. Kettle. Black. </p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Sorry for the poor reception that your OP has received, Michael. I consider your contrarian viewpoints to be valid, and well worth discussing. Unfortunately, photo.net isn't exactly bursting with open-mindedness. Perhaps if you'd posted on the Canon FD or Classic Manual Cameras forums, you would have gotten more respectful responses; but then, I suppose, you'd just have been "preaching to the converted" (or, rather, to the <em>unconverted</em>!).</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Yes Rob that cleared up your counterpoints LOL.</p>

<p>Mark all I tried to say is how cool the old stuff feels in hand and on 100 ISO film how nice and 8x10 can still look. Guess you can get attacked on the street for saing things like that. Thanks for the suppport.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I like old camera's, car's, watches and what have you. There is no reason in the world that a person should not enjoy these items if they wish to. I think ISO 100 is a great speed to use. I use ISO 100 with my D200 for almost all of my pictures. It gives the lowest noise, the highest dynamic range and I find the shutter speeds usually favorable. When I shoot my film camera I also use ASA 100. I have Ektar in the camera currently. However it's a hobby for me. It's about enjoying the hobby, going to beautiful places and enjoying the day. A nice print is certainly a goal no matter how you might go about it. </p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>To some people taking pictures is not all about what you want to have in your gear but the experience of using the gear itself, that's why some people love their rangefinders to death.</p>

[kludge]

<p>Although the photographer, not the camera, is ultimately responsible for the photograph, you can't take a photo without a camera. So the camera's interface, limitations, strengths and weaknesses all come into play and directly impact HOW we take photographs, and thus the photos we take. So cameras matter. Being a gearhead isn't just a fetish, it can be (and ought to be) about caring about your tools and how they affect your craft.<br>

Because of functionality issues, the digital/film divide is interesting mostly in the case of the SLR. It's not there for large format because no one really makes large format digital (at least, not that mere mortals can afford). It's not there for rangefinders, or cell phone cameras, or a number of other specialties. But SLRs compare well.<br>

What I've noticed is the sense of fine craftsmanship and mechanical robustness in a good 35mm SLR, something I haven't felt in any DSLR. My Olympus SLRs feel like they'll last forever. But even if a DSLR will last forever, it'll be technically obsolete in five years. Who really wants to shoot with a Nikon D1 today? This comes into play on things like the feel of the shutter button.<br>

More bothersome to me when it comes to DSLRs is their determination to do everything for you - autofocus and auto exposure. I know how to operate a camera manually (I once spent nearly a year shooting nothing but a Zorki with no meter - a great learning experience), and not much irks me more in photography than having MY judgment about what the subject is or what the lighting conditions are overruled by some soulless chip. Now in theory, I CAN manually operate the DSLR, but then the metering blows. What are the odds that someone is going to make us a simple match needle meter for our finders? And I can't fall back on the forgiving nature of film to miss the exposure a bit... digital exposure is unforgiving.<br>

So yes, those are solid, non-Luddite arguments in favor of film SLRs over DSLRs. We should be in full control of our tools, when the modern camera wants us to live in a Wall-E world where we're protected from the dangers of making our own decisions.<br>

But on the flip side, the DSLR makes many other things feasible. I get instant feedback on the exposure now. I can take hundreds or thousands of shots a session, at basically no cost. As a dance photographer, the ability to take hundreds of shots without cost, or stopping for film changes, is a HUGE win. So point in DSLR's favor.<br>

I still wish someone would make me a decent, affordable digital rangefinder, though...</p>