kludge

I don't think "digital vs film" has an impact on creativity. I think the differences between digital and film CAMERAS has a lot more, as well as digital and film WORKFLOWS.

 

I love the way my old Olympus OM-1 feels in my hands. I love shooting with a manual camera, plain 50mm lens, and match-needle metering on b/w or color print film. The camera/film combination gives me a lot of leeway and I make conscious decisions about everything. And I love the immediate feedback and shot-by-shot control I get from a DSLR, and the sense that I can just shoot and shoot without worrying about running out of film or paying an arm and a leg for processing.

 

So each one impacts my creativity differently. I'm more engaged with the individual shot on film, and more engaged in the overall flow of shots on digital. Downstream workflow isn't such an issue for me as I don't like to edit - I don't even OWN Photoshop. I take what comes out of the camera 98% of the time.

 

One thing that I do like about film CAMERAS over digital is a sense of quality and permanence. I like shooting with 30-50 year old film cameras, and I feel like they'll last forever. I'll be happy if a DSLR lasts me five years. I can't imagine anyone ever treating first or second generation DSLRs as collector's items in the future. They're throwaway junk. That galls me.

Thanks, John. I figured people would just grumble about the blown highlights and compression artifacts.

 

With the right situation and the right light, you can take a great photo with nearly any camera. I got a much better photo with that cell phone than I could have gotten with, oh, every camera I left at home. I suppose I could have just told the baby to stay sleeping and the sun to halt in the sky while I drove home to get a better camera...

Crop space is really the only advantage, I think, if you're printing at 12x18 or smaller. And if you're printing bigger than that AND expect sharpness, why are you using a DSLR rather than medium or large format film?

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6314880-lg.jpg"/>

<p>

Shot this one with my cell phone.

Of course, Weegee was the antithesis of the camera-obsessed photographer. "F8 and there" is as concise an expression of process over equipment as anything I've ever read.

Reproducability has been at the heart of copyright law for centuries now. Digital reproduction is fundamentally no different than analog reproduction, and the same laws can, do, and should apply. Of course, we're talking about the world of crass commerce here, not Art - about putting a dollar value on it, about selling creativity rather than creativity itself.

 

Leave monetary value behind, and it becomes questions of practicality, convenience, and future-proofing (an ugly issue in the digital age). Which are all very interesting questions, but deserve to be addressed separately from this sad business of turning images into money.

"I'm an artist. Those other people are not." That's what these discussions boil down to, in the end.

 

Being a photographer doesn't require even owning a camera. Just taking photos. Being a GOOD photographer (or, heaven forbid, an Artist) requires actual work. And even then, the value of your art is subjective - some will like it, others will not.

 

I don't like the output of many photographers, even many well-known professionals. Then again, I actively dislike at least nine out of ten of my own photos, and think about one in a hundred qualifies as actually *good*. I've taken a couple of dozen in my lifetime that make me feel like an Artist. Many were taken long before I took photography seriously.

 

Sure, there are a substantial number of photographers out there who obsess over equipment, mostly because they feel insecure about their own art - maybe that next lens or that new body will touch them with Grace so they can feel like Artists for a moment. And it's hard to not obsess about equipment, because honestly, quality equipment is often necessary to even GET the photos we want.

 

One of my favorite cameras these days is the awful thing in my RAZR cell phone. But I don't pretend for a moment that I can seriously use it for the bulk of my work, because my favorite subject (dancers) is too technically demanding for its limited sensitivity and resolution. So I think a lot about what lenses will let me capture those dancers. I just try to make sure that I'm not too busy worrying about whether I have enough lens to not bother trying.

I find all this prejudice toward zazen odd. It's not about enlightenment or anything else. It's just about sitting still. Sitting still, I mean REALLY still, can be very difficult. But if you can't even sit still well, how do expect to be able to do anything else well?

 

For those interested in learning more about zazen, I recommend "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind", by Shunryu Suzuki. It's not about enlightenment or other goals. It's basically just a how-to manual for sitting still. One of the most useful books I've ever read.

I'm going on a whitewater rafting trip this summer on the Yellowstone River.

Rather than some waterproof disposable, I'm going to bring an old Praktica SLR.

That gives me a fine 50mm lens, tough all-mechanical body and Fuji Reala, but

if it's damaged or lost, I'm just out a cheap camera that I don't use anyway.

Still, I'd like to keep it dry when not in use. Any suggestions? I was

thinking of keeping it inside two layers of Ziploc bags, but I'm open to more

creative suggestions.

 

Tips on shooting from a whitewater raft would be appreciated, too!

I think you'll be STUNNED by how good the lens is. I think it's one of the two best lenses I own (the other is a Jupiter-9 85mm), and the camera is my overall favorite shooter. Action is smooth and construction is sturdy, and the shutter is damn near silent. And assuming the electronics are still good, just put it on a tripod and it's the best night-photography camera you'll ever use. And the aperture priority makes it fast and practical in all sorts of situations.

 

And oh, that lens! Fully usable at all apertures, even f/1.7. Bokeh is gorgeous. Contrast is moderate, the sweet spot between the softness of "vintage" lenses and the hard hyperrealism of modern lenses. It just looks... real. Go find some dappled sunlight and run a roll of Fuji Reala through it, and your jaw will hit the floor.

 

I really need to get another one for backup, in case the one I have suffers some terrible fate. But I wouldn't buy one unless I knew it was in regular use as a real shooter. Too many have been dug out of the basement with twenty year old mercury batteries still eating out the insides.

Check your scanner software... if it has unsharp mask turned on automatically, turn it off! Here's a comparison example I shot a while back, scans from the same negative with and without unsharp mask. Click through to the large images to see the grain structure. Scanner is my cheap Canon flatbed with film scanning attachment, and film is J&C Classic Pan 400 developed in HC110.

<p>

Sharpened version:<br>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/30/56209013_12968fc59b_m.jpg" width="240" height="160" alt="INTERNATIONAL (sharpened)" /></a>

<p>

Unsharpened version:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dstagner/56209167/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/30/56209167_4e1d00e324_m.jpg" width="240" height="160" alt="INTERNATIONAL (not sharpened)" /></a>

<p>

Since conducting this experiment, I ALWAYS scan without the unsharp mask now, and sharpen later in software if needed. I really don't like what the unsharp mask does to grain structure.

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone!

 

I should add that my shutter speed is definitely limited to 1/60 in practice, otherwise motion blur sets in. Besides, I use my Praktica for the fast stuff, and it shakes like crazy due to the powerful shutter. My favorite camera for this stuff (and everything else) is a leaf-shuttered Yashica Electro 35, but its AE metering only goes to 1000 ISO. I might try a Zorki next (smooth shutter and fully manual), but film loading is such a pain with it. And I don't have a hand meter I trust in such low light conditions.

 

Someone elsewhere suggested stand development with HC110 or Rodinal, and I might try that as well. But I'll definitely be trying other films! I love HP5 up to 800, but I think 1600 is just working it too hard.

I often shoot pictures of dance shows, no flash under some pretty

marginal lighting conditions. Due to motion, I'm limited to about

1/60 shutter speed. Last weekend, I shot some HP5 at 1600, developed

in HC110, and it was okay, but the contrast was a little high. What

I'd like is a lower, more natural contrast and good sharpness - I can

live with grain if it's sharp and contrast is under control. Any

suggestions for a 1600+ speed film/developer combo that keeps the

contrast down and sharpness up?

Another vote for Dilution H! I'm using HP5 rather than Neopan 400, but I doubt the issues are all that different. 11 min at 20c, minimal agitation. The idea is to use it as a sort of mild compensating developer, bringing out shadow detail and controlling highlights. And the longer development times are more forgiving, and the dilution makes it even cheaper. :}