Arthur Morris is totally switching to digital

[arthur_morris_birds_as_art]

Hi Gary, Here are some of the fun things about digital photography:

1-Seeing the results almost instantly.

2-Never getting a bad exposure after the first frame in a given situation.

3-Being able to try creative things that you would have been crazy to try with film. For more on this, go to our web site and check BAA Bulletins #93 & 94in the archives. (Examples: hand-holding the 100-400 zoom lens and working in pre-dawn light at 1/6th of a second.

4-Not having to travel with 200 rolls of film. Getting a razor sharp undersides flight shot of a crane in flight well after sundown with the same lens and flash at 1/80 second...)

5-Sharing images in the field.

6-Using the laptop as a teaching tool. (Wait till I get a digital projector.)

 

As I said in my original post to this thread, (along with my fierce determination to succeed) having fun and making images that please me have been the driving forces in my career.

 

Best and love,

 

Artie

[mike_danzenbaker]

Much like my hair, this thread seems to have developed split ends. But that won't stop me from commenting on a couple of them.

 

1) A few posters wondered why anyone would care about what equipment AM is using. The simple answer is that anyone who shoots (or wants to shoot) the type of stuff he shoots AND admires his results (and there is a fair number of individuals in both categories) should be interested in the type of equipment he's using. The interest may be purely academic, or the individual may actually go out and get the gear, although in the latter case the individual does need to be aware that nice equipment is only a small part of the equation.

 

2) I'm glad someone (Shun) finally made the point about an issue that has been irritating me for some time:

 

"The point I was making it that not accepting any file smaller than 60M bytes is, at least on face value, kind of silly. One can pad a lot of useless filler to a small file to make it over 60M bytes; it doesn't make it any better."

 

Well put. Even though I'm still purely a film shooter, I now do a lot more business sending out digital scans of slides (sales originating from my website) than I do sending out actual slides. Early in the process, there's usually some confused communication regarding the required file specs. The most common problem is for the customer to request a file of a certain size. Even worse is the request to "just send the maximum". I always need to come back asking for more meaningful info: required pixel dimensions (or inches and DPI) and color depth. It usually turns out that what's needed is not nearly the "size" they thought they wanted, in fact often a jpeg is sufficient.

 

3) Regarding the trigger finger, despite being a bird photographer, I don't think I'd shoot any more images with digital than I do with film, simply because I pretty much shoot all I want to now, i.e., keep going until I think I've gotten the shots I want. In fact, I think I'd shoot less! With immediate gratification, I can check to see if I've gotten "the shot", and then quit. With film, I can't be sure, so I have to keep on going until the opportunity's over. Also with film, just having one "good shot" isn't as good as having several, assuming I want to market the one good shot.

 

good shooting,

Mike

[paul_dibiase3]

The most important piece of equipment I need is time. More time to shoot would improve my images far more than a new lens, sturdier triopod or digital body. When AM finds a way to add a few hours to the day, or days to the week, let me know.

[qtluong]

<i>The reasoning runs along the lines of "I can't afford a

Canon 1Ds, therefore it's no

longer a level paying field and I just can't compete with those

who can". Given this it's

natural to feel some resentment against digital. </i>

<p>

Why would having a 1Ds would make a nature photographer more

competitive ?

<ol>

<li>

One difference between film and digital which

was important in photojournalism and studio work was

the faster availability of the image in digital form. However

in the nature field, it appears that not to have slides might

be a liability for the digital user when distributing the images,

while since there is no need for fast turnaround, the film user

can always produce a hi-res scan if needed.

<li> Digital is probably "better quality" than film, but for

most purposes 35mm film was good enough. If you have the image

that the editor wants on a sharp slide, he/she won't reject it

on the ground that it is not as good as a 1Ds image.

 

Where quality really

count, 1Ds files cannot yet approach LF.

<li> The instant feedback is "fun", but without it, an experienced

photographer should still be able to nail the picture. Many

exposure and color problems are easily corrected after

scanning film.

<li> Finally, are there images that you can make with

a 1Ds that you cannot make with a film camera ?

The only ones I can think of are those requiring a high ASA

(high speed slide film is grainy) and I am not even sure that

if you used negative film you wouldn't get acceptable quality.

</ol>

Tuan <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com">Terra Galleria Images</a>

[ShunCheung]

Except for the fact that digital is still very costly, IMO instant feedback trumps just about any other factor. Exposure control is merely one of the benefits. For example, if you are at a location for 3 days and your main target is subject A. After day 1, you have made a number of shots on subject A but you are not 100% sure it is good enough. With instant feedback, you know exactly what you have and if so, in days 2 and 3, you can move on to other subjects. With film, you are never sure until your film is developed, so in days 2 and 3, you might make additional shots of A and that cuts into your time on other opportunities.

 

My main problem is that there is no one DSLR that is sufficient for my needs. They are either too expensive, don't have sufficient AF and/or frame rate for wildlife action work, or don't sufficient resolution for landscape. But 2003 is just around the corner and things will soon change.

[jonathan_bundick]

Shun,

 

Are you refering to the instant feedback of digital helping in terms of exposure or composition in your previous post?

[jonathan_bundick]

Mike,

 

"......although the individual does need to be aware that nice equipment is only a small part of the equation.

 

This is why I think the equipment anyone else uses is really of no interest to me. It won't effect the images I produce.

[bobatkins]

<em>Why would having a 1Ds would make a nature photographer more competitive</em>

<p>

I didn't say it would. I said that was the reasoning some people may be using, resulting in an anti-digital "sour grapes" bias.

<p>

There is a fairly widespread belief that if you aren't shooting with the latest body and the biggest telephoto lens (IS version of course), then you are not as competitive as you could be. Without the best most expensive gear, you are at a disadvantge.

<p>

I didn't say this was true, but I think it's a belief that many people have. Obviously there is something of a grain of truth in the belief. If Art is out there with a 1Ds and a 600/4L IS and you are out there with a T70 and a 300/4, you're probably not going to get the shots he will (even assuming you are as good a photographer as he is!). Whether a 1Ds will put you at an advantage relative to a 1v (or other film body user) entirely depends on what you are shooting, why you are shooting and what you are doing with your images, as well as your definition of "advantage" and "disadventage".

[alex_p._schorsch]

I think that deep down inside, Arthur Morris can't resist that 1.3 crop factor on the EOS 1D, that's why he doesn't "want" a 1Ds! All joking aside, I am a fan of digital but nostalgically miss film. But practically and financially speaking, digital has too many things in its favor to ignore. My own story is that I'm finishing an image bank on the Iguassu National Park (360 species of birds included [in the park, not in my archives])and I was satisfied with my landscape and macro work but my wildlife and bird shots weren't up to scratch because of my small 400mm lens. I bought a D60 and now can complement my archive with great close-ups of birds and animals. It was the best solution for me and evidently digital is becoming the best solution for many people for many different reasons, including Arthur Morris. FWIW - cheers.

[chas]

As one who recently shot digital alongside Artie, I find all this

speculation amazing. I might have even helped him make the decision.

We both had allot of fun experimenting with new techniques, and

photographing "outside the box". The man is creative and looking to

broaden his horizons. No more, no less. As one who has been shooting

and teaching STL photographic workshops with a D1X for the past 14

months, I say it makes perfect sense. There is no better teaching

method, and to the contrary I have sold quite a number of digital

images. See you in the field, I'll be the one with smiling. Artie go

get'em, can't wait to see the new stuff.

 

Best,

 

Chas

[philgeusebroek]

My biggest question is, now that digital image quality and cost economics (for Pros) have surpassed scanned 35mm film, where will the image stock companies draw the line?

 

If I buy a D60 but most stock agencies want D1s resolution, that leaves me behind. If I buy a D1s and there is a 20mp camera out, then my images may have to compete with even higher resolution. Don't bother telling me about ressing up. Stock agencies may simply specify that all submissions remain at native resolution, same as they specify no sharpening.

 

Where will it end? When do I buy in? I had a D60 on hold but the store sold it on me. Now I hear that there is a better body planned in March anyway. I am going to jump soon, but will I have a chance against all those D1s shooters?

 

And yes, the day when slides WON'T be accepted is coming. Technology has little sentiment. My $700 Pentium 4 is several orders of magnitude faster than the Silicon Graphics workstations that my company paid $35,000 for each in 1996. At home I have a $130 40GB hard drive, why would I go back to the 4GB 10000 RPM SCSI drive that is gathering dust on my shelf?

 

Have you bought a DVD player yet? Do you still play audio cassettes or 8-tracks in your home? Records?

 

Someone stated awhile back that the third world has gone to wireless mobile phones because it was easier than installing land lines. Perhaps having digital photo printing kiosks will supplant any installation of traditional photo labs in much the same way. There is no loss in convenience compared to film. If anything it will be more convenient.

 

In the end, the unwashed masses will drive the market.

 

Can't we all just get along? Fear, anger and resentment are emotions to alert one to danger. The root causes of these emotions should be understood before one allows them to motivate one's response. One should understand himself before he makes someone else understand him.

[jim_bridges1]

To hell with it! I'm going back to black and white!

[ShunCheung]

Jonathan, having instant feedback is a huge advantage in just about every area, especially concerning whether you have captured the right shot, right moment in action photography where a lot of things are not completely under the photographer's control. Exposure is merely a small advantage as I don't have problem with that very often anyway.