View Full Version : I hate digital
Fastfashn
07-07-2006, 19:31
:bang: So, I figured I'd give it a try, sold all my film gear, got an Oly E500 dual lens kit.
Oh... Error. Error. Error.
The lens quality, after years of Contax, is making me nuts. I hate the buttons, the screen that gets dirty when you rub your nose on it, the stupid 'finder, the placement of the white balance button and the exposure lock...
I can't get the rez I want at over 200iso 'cause the chip is noisy.
Stupid digicams.
I also hate all these RAW conversion programs, each independently trying to figure out what the image is supposed to look like.
Give me slides!!!:bang:
You have lerned a great lesson, for yourself! The way forward for you is crystal clear. Just do it and be happy again.:D
Some of the best decisions in life can be a little painful.
Cheers,
Erl
Sounds as if a more appropriate thread title would be, "I hate the Olympus E500."
And what would you expect? It's (bleah) an SLR!
If you ever get a chance to try out an Epson R-D 1, or eventually a Leica M8, you might be happier.
Hi,
AFAIK the contax glasses are useable on the 4/3 system via adapter...
At least I use manual Nikkors on my E300 and am happy with the results.
I changed the focus screen to a microprism aided one - very comfortable.
Why bother with WB button if shoot RAW?
But if you feel your decision a mistake, you're probably right...
nemjo
I don't hate digital.
But, I can't seem to find a decent digital camera anywhere. It seems there are none to be found. The Ricoh GR Digital, Leica C-Lux 1, and other such cameras are generally reviewed as being sub-average. Or really, quite average.
We need a GR style body, but manual focus, NON retracting lens, optical viewfinder, larger chip (CMOS), and aperture, white balance, and ISO controls accessible without entering menus (dials or buttons). Dials are preferrable.
so, I guess I do kind of hate digital because it can't please me. I love the concept, but hate the products.
And you forget to mention the small viewfinder.
Do try a Pentax *istDS with some classic pentax glass. That's as good as it gets without spending the big bucks for an RD-1 or the soon-to-be M8 and Leica glass. And forget about RAW, at least until you have the basics under control.
But first, get your basic film kit back together so you are happy again making photos, and to give you a reference point.
Edited to add: by "as good as it gets" I means compact and rf-like to use, especially with a pancake lens attached!
I don't hate digitals, but I'd agree that the future of film belongs to the rangefinder system. Also rangefinders don't travel well without it...
Horses for courses.
The only E system camera worth buying at the moment is the E1 - I have 2 of them. The first I paid around £1500 for when it first came out and the second I bought a couple of weeks ago for £499 including the battery grip that used to cost > £300. They can't compete with RF for size, but they have their place and they are supremely ergonomic and very very quiet.
Nachkebia
07-08-2006, 02:45
Digital SUX, what ever you say or how ever you say it, until the time when you have to spend 5 hours in photoshop to make flat lifeless digital file look like the one shot on film, digital is awfull :) (owning D200 with top notch nikon glass)
Digital has its place. It will be interesting to see how many folk think it sucks when the digital M comes out:)
Ultimately if you want something that looks just like film, then shoot film;)
Nachkebia
07-08-2006, 03:35
Exactly, digital has its place but it is eating film space to! film is getting expensive and it is hard to find places to develope slides...
Tell me about it. I have to get all my film mail order unless I want Fuji Superia or Kodak gold and to get that its a 20 mile round trip. As for developing slides and C41 that's also mail order - the local lab, which wasn't very good anyway, just went to the wall. When it comes to B&W, there's nowhere local I can buy it. Its the way of the world :bang:
Nachkebia,
By the way - some really good images on your photo.net site.
At least you tried :)
I didn`t sell my Contax gear when I bought a used D60 and now borrow lenses and stuff from my PJ friends. I`ve had some experience with some borrowed Canon D30 and D60 as well as a Nikon D100 and a Fuji S2pro and decided to go Canon because I know more people with Canon gear and so I have access to great range of equipment from a 16-35L to a 400\2.8 as well as flashes and and and.
So I`m a happy camper in the digital realm but still shoot slide and B&W in my Contax Gs, when traveling the Gs are the first thing to pack and only when theres some space left I consider the dSLR.
The Contax G is just more fun to use than every SLR, wether digital or film, I shoot differently with a RF than with a SLR which leads to different results which I like better.
At the moment I have 150 digital files, two rolls Elitechrome 400 and one roll Ilford HP5 to process, pretty balanced use of both, isn`t it?
I can never understand the restricted thinking that comes across in these threads; we have all types of cameras and use as many of them as we can.
Most weekends see us out and about with a whole passel of vintage rangefinders and my loved Bronica 645RF. Not only do we enjoy using them but there is the added pleasure of developing the film after.
However one of my favorite subjects are tropical fish and there is no way I can shoot the photos I want these days with a rangefinder; and the results I get from a digital SLR far surpass anything I ever got from a film camera. I started photographing fish over 35 years ago so I have some idea what I am doing.
There are other subjects too where the modern digital SLR is unbeatable; see how many pros use them !
So for me all aspects of photography are enjoyable and the camera is a tool to be used. As such we should use the best tool for the job and embrace all new technical developments.
Recently I have posted a couple of photos on the forum taken in cathedrals; shot with a Bronica 645RF; hand held in low light . However as good as they are they are not in the same league as the ones Jenny took with her Canon 1DS Mk2.
Nachkebia
07-08-2006, 04:44
Thank you! :rolleyes:
Nachkebia,
By the way - some really good images on your photo.net site.
I don't hate digital.
But, I can't seem to find a decent digital camera anywhere. It seems there are none to be found. The Ricoh GR Digital, Leica C-Lux 1, and other such cameras are generally reviewed as being sub-average. Or really, quite average.
We need a GR style body, but manual focus, NON retracting lens, optical viewfinder, larger chip (CMOS), and aperture, white balance, and ISO controls accessible without entering menus (dials or buttons). Dials are preferrable.
so, I guess I do kind of hate digital because it can't please me. I love the concept, but hate the products.
These are my sentiments exactly.
There are a few digitals that can actually be viable for high quality images. It's the stupid camera designs that are killing me. The viewfinders are horrible on all but the most expensive cameras. I just sold a Canon XT because I couldn't stand the viewfinder any longer. (The image quality was ok, though not quite up to films character.) I have tried a dozen different digitals and have yet to find one that I like. ( The LC1 was close though.)
They make them way too complicated to use intuitively. Too many menus and features. They are just small computers and they get in the way of photography. IMHO. That is what is great about the film rangefinders. They enhance the photographic process, not kill it.
Nachkebia
07-08-2006, 05:04
technical quality of digital images are far super to any 35mm film in any aspect, but technical quality is not he only quality...
They make them way too complicated to use intuitively. Too many menus and features. They are just small computers and they get in the way of photography. IMHO. That is what is great about the film rangefinders. They enhance the photographic process, not kill it.
That's the argument I don't understand. Why do they get in your way? Besides size and weight that is.
I have my dSLR for some time now and I just preset it to something sensible and then stick to that. Just like choosing a film with which you have to live until it's finished.
And to size and weight, very early this morning I ended up for a Mojito in a bar and a guy saw my D60 with batterie grip and Sigma 17-35 and said "This looks like tenosynovitis" :)
humanized_form
07-08-2006, 05:47
i started with digital and migrated to film. i probably won't go back to digital in a meaningful way for anything else but the Digital M.
one of the main issues for me with digital is the generally bad design of the digicams and the dslrs. most are compromised in a variety of ways. i own the pentax ist ds and that is one of the only acceptable econo dsrls with a decent viewfinder and a relatively small sized camera body. when considering the rebel, nikon d50/d70, olympus models etc, it's almost as if manufacturers expect everyone to use autofocus so the viewfinder size and quality doesn't really matter. no thanks. i recently sold my Panasonic LC-1, because after using an M7 for some months the digicam seemed incredibly slow and frustrating to use.
once i started shooting color slides and saw them on a light table it was over for me. i love that the the slide is the final image. there was no way i was going to go back to the drag of post processing and making pictures. a drum scan makes for an incredible print. a home scanner is suitable for web use. the slide itself is the archive. it's beautiful and simple and i'm fortunate that i can still get three hour processing done same day.
i think the Digital M is really the best hope at this point. i really don't want to use big computer box dslrs so i'm hoping Leica gets this done right.
spysmart
07-08-2006, 05:52
I am going to wait another couple of years for digital to mature a little bit more .. and for the Zeiss Digital RF. None of the cameras on the market, or those expected this year, seem to hit the right spot, though Pentax's 21/31/40/43/77 lens line did catch my attention. The M8 will be too expensive and unproven.
I tried the Ricoh GR-D and was underwhelmed - full manual control was nice, but the results I get from my GR1s with NPH and NPZ are far superior. The real killer with the GR-D was the 15 second write time (during which the lens will not retract). Shutterflower's GRD mkII specs sound just right to me.
I sold the GRD after 2 months and just picked up a s/h M6 0.85, a ZM50 lens, two bricks of Tri-X and some Rodinal - so affirming my committed to film.
technical quality of digital images are far super to any 35mm film in any aspect
I'd have to disagree - what about the people who shoot b&w and prefer the look of grain over noise? What about dynamic range? And a really good 35mm film still beats the lower-end DSLR's as far as resolution goes (let alone the digital compacts).
Not trying to start something anti-digital, I am using film now but I would use digital as well if I could afford it because for some of the work I do (not all, but about half) digital would be a better medium than film. I just don't think it's right to generalise.
amateriat
07-08-2006, 06:07
Well, even a dedicated film shooter like me can't see dissing digital that much. Having gotten very nice results from such sub-megabuck "prosumer" (ugh...still hate that word) cameras as Olympus' C8080, I would say that you're setting your sights rather low with your choice of digicam. I also think you were likely a bit rash in junking your film kit for the digital New World (you can have both, unless finances are quite strapped, in which case you should hang on to what you've got). And people here who have gotten hold of Epson's RD-1/1s can't stop talking about how great those cameras are. They aren't hallucinating, even if I choose not to get one. :-)
- Barrett
:bang: So, I figured I'd give it a try, sold all my film gear, got an Oly E500 dual lens kit.
Oh... Error. Error. Error.
Looks like you learned the hard way. The Oly E500 is an average or below average performer in the digital world. Had you gone with Canon or Nikon you would have felt differently..
Chuck A: My 20D + alien bees kick ass. It is capable of extremely high quality images.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ywen/175981217/in/set-72157594157125670/
I too don't like the viewfinders in affordable dSLRs besides that one in the Pentax *istD which was too small for me. To be true, I don't like the grips on all new fangled SLRs. In this regard I like my Contax RTS best.
That is probably the reason why I didn't feel tempted by any of the D60s successors, they didn't improve on what I feel is important, the viewfinder. Higher ISO with less noise, more frames per second, more AF sensors etc.pp are not important to me. Ok, I'd like to have higher ISO with less noise, yesterday I didn't take many usefull concert shots since I brought the wrong lens and nothing to bounce the flash from into a badly lit club with a black ceiling :(
And to add insult to injury, I wasn't there for the first time so I should have known.
I don't bet on digital rangefinders anyway, the R-D1 viewfinder is probably much better than the D60 peephole but it doesn't accomodate my wideangle needs. The Leica M8 will be far out of my financial reach and so I stick to film as long as I can get that somewhere, which will be a couple of decades, hopefully.
On the other hand, I feel no need for drum scanned slides, first of all my computer would be hard pressed to handle that amount of data, a 150MB 48bit tiff would just crash the maschine. And the prize for drum scans is absolutly prohibitive for an amateur like me.
At that prize point I just give the slide I want to have printed realy big, say more than 11x17, to a specialzed lab and don't care how they print it as long as the result is to my liking.
When my D60 breaks some day, I intended to allow it one shutter repair but don't think so anymore, I might just get the 5D, which is some 2000 Euro cheaper than a Leica digital M will be, or whatever Canon has in this class then and use it with the 50/1.4 and 35/2 I already own.
You can have my Contax Gs when you get my cold dead fingers from them :)
Nachkebia
07-08-2006, 06:16
Il say like this, as long as forums like this exist, as long as people like as see the beauty of film (not only technical) film will exist and we will support it!
I don't hate digital.....
But, I can't seem to find a decent digital camera anywhere....
We need a GR style body, but manual focus, NON retracting lens, optical viewfinder, larger chip (CMOS), and aperture, white balance, and ISO controls accessible without entering menus (dials or buttons). Dials are preferrable.
.
You sound like the marketing department for the Epson RD1.
Rex
MCTuomey
07-08-2006, 07:03
At the risk of stating the obvious ... (it's what my poor mind does best)
Fwiw, it seems to me that, except for the steadfast few who wet print, we're all digital at some point in our "light capture to finished print" process, aren't we? So isn't this "debate" just over preferences as to when and how we digitize our images? Just individual decisions about when the image gets digitized - on one end, within the camera or, on the other, after a film negative or positive is developed?
As someone pointed out above, this thread isn't about film v digital, it's about digital tools vs film tools. So, pick your pleasure - and then digitize as you prefer. Unless you were smart enough not to discard your darkroom gear ...
Humanized form, my sentiments exactly on slides. They're the only way to get the best out of a film camera these days. My current wallpaper is a Velvia/Mamiya C330 shot of our flowerbox-yowza!
I have a Pentax DS and use it mainly with the 77mm Limited and the 50/1.4 AF and I must say, it's a superb cominbation. the viewfinder is fantastic, the camera controls are easy to use, and the 2 lenses - well, let's just say they are not for sale :)
I have a Pentax DS and use it mainly with the 77mm Limited and the 50/1.4 AF and I must say, it's a superb cominbation. the viewfinder is fantastic, the camera controls are easy to use, and the 2 lenses - well, let's just say they are not for sale :)
.
Nice to hear, I have been considering the Pentax *ist or the new K100D. I have been using a Oly 4040 for a few years when I want to photograph in color or just for convienence sake. I fully intend on being capable in both digital and film.
tetrisattack
07-08-2006, 08:10
I don't have much to add to this thread, except that modern cameras make me feel like I'm hunting bunnies with a machine gun.
I'll go back to my sheet film now. ;)
MCTuomey
07-08-2006, 08:10
Re: the issue of digi expense -
Speaking from the less fortunate side of funds availability, I think digital cameras present as many frugal ways to equip oneself as film gear. The screaming rate of obsolescence of digi bodies all but ensures it. All due respect to other brands intended, one example - a Canon 10D in great condition with a 50/1.4 AF can be had for about US$500 and US$300, respectively. Quiet, unobtrusive, very high image potential, and not much more money than the current crop of digi P&S's.
i like digital, took about 300 shots yesterday, mostly with a lumix.
I have a Pentax DS and use it mainly with the 77mm Limited and the 50/1.4 AF and I must say, it's a superb cominbation. the viewfinder is fantastic, the camera controls are easy to use, and the 2 lenses - well, let's just say they are not for sale :)
I just looked up the lenses, not cheap :bang:
neilsphoto
07-08-2006, 08:37
I have a foot in both camps as well. Been a film shooter since the 60's. Photography was my FT job for 22yrs, no longer is. While my wife was out of FT work for 2.5 yrs after her job disolved when the company was sold I dumped alot of stuff for cash. I sold off all my medium and large format stuff.
I was very happy shooting with my M's and TX and scanning and printing. No complaints from me or anyone who wanted a print. Every now and then I'd use a Nikon. Leica lens' look better, not starting a war here.
Why then did I decide quite out of the blue that I should have a digital body for all the Nikon lenses? I got a D70S. I had lenses and was very comfortable with post processing already so it was just time to try digital capture. Later added a D2HS. Excellent low light high ISO shooter. Focuses better than my 50yr old eyes in any light. BIG viewfinder. No complaints but large and heavy.
I shot no film for 8 months instead doing everything digital to see if I could get what I wanted, and when I did shoot film, XP2 in the M, M5400 scanner, Epson 2200 w/UT7 for output I was thrilled and disappointed.
Thilled by the results. Thrilled to be back to the little Zing the Leica glass has that Nikon doesn't, thrilled the the PP is sooooo easy.
Dissapointed because I saw that for sure digital is missing something. I do a good job, I have good equipment, good SW and good PP habits. Prints are great, good tones etc............ Just something not there.
There is no reason I don't just shoot film. I have no deadlines etc.. I can do what I want. The freakin' digital is convienent. Can I be doing this for convience? Well I may be.
I shot one roll of XP2 of the 4th. With no chemicals mixed for as often as I am shooting film XP2 is easy and scans really well.
That roll looks great. I'l scan 6? frames at most. So I have 6 frames on the HD instead of god knows how many if I shot digital. I never seem to delete really anything.
My point if any? I don't hate digital. If I was still in the biz it would be all I'd use. But film and the look of good scanned film and ink jet printing assuming most of us no longer wet print is very special. Others do see the difference and they comment on it when they see my prints. Got to be something to it doesn't there.
You sound like the marketing department for the Epson RD1.
Rex
Indeed he described the RD-1 pretty well ;)
The new Leica C-Lux 1 is the camera I carry in my shirt or jacket pocket, something I cannot do with my OLY8080 or my film cameras. There are times when it comes in very handy. For serious shooting though I shoot film.
Fell on hard times and had to sell my 3 month old R3a, 90 apo lanthar & 35mm color skopar. No regrets coz them's the breaks. Fast forward 6 months, hard times recede and I`ve reasoned myself into getting a 30D with sigma 18-50 f2.8. You know how it is... "Think of the money I'll save on d&p. I can delete failed shots as I go along..." and all of the blah, blah, blah. The moment of purchase comes but something stops me. I convince myself it's best to wait & see what Photokina brings.
For my daughter's 1st Holy Communion I make do with a battered old Fujica slr & 55mm f1.6 loaded with XP2 and my GR1 loaded with superia 200. I look at the results, laugh at my stupidity :o and start thinking 35mm film scanner.
Simply put, I don't want chunky, engineered plastic, autofocus & dim viewfinders. I've got nothing against digital per se, indeed the next camera I buy will probably be some superzoom digi-compact for the whole family. Looking for one today I got distracted by a Leica MP which felt perfect. MP plus 50mm f1.4 'kit' only £3,000 and no need to wait for Photokina.
Nachkebia
07-08-2006, 13:50
Great pictures Iggy!
I just looked up the lenses, not cheap :bang: I bought the Pentax 50/1.4 AF for $209 - $50 rebate from B&H. The 77mm I got from henrys on ebay for under $500. Now if only the 31 mm Limited could be had at a decent price :)
Andrew McK
07-08-2006, 14:18
I came to this whole thing via digital so can I say I don't like it.
Digital has alot of plus points. I find myself needing to take shots for websites on and off and it makes no sense whatsoever to use film. The timescale involved requires the pics to be up five minutes ago, not to spend however long developing them, scanning the negs etc.
But saying that. one of my personal pet hates in black and white digital. It's horrible. I hate it. It's so lifeless. Give me film everytime. I've become quite good at spotting the difference. I can't say that every pic I can tell apart but there's a high percentage that I come across online that I can see are faked b&w.
I also find it strange that people sell their film cameras to 'upgrade' to digital.
Recently I've seen people selling things like a Minolta Dynax 7 or Nikon f100 to buy a d70 or Eos350 which I find utter madness.
As I went through this thread again I found it interesting to make a probe.
I put a 55/3.5 Nikkor on E300 and looked for my wife in the garden.
O.K., I like to develop my negs sometimes. It's a different process...
BTW, can anybody develop a single frame?
And it's hard to say that good glasses don't work on digital bodies.
nemjo
ps. is it possible that I made my new avatar???
You sound like the marketing department for the Epson RD1.
Rex
I don't understand what these companies are thinking. Every camera I research has numerous lethal issues. Noise, fringing, slow lenses, no manual control, cheap build, shutter lag, blah blah blah. There honestly are no pocket sized digital cameras on the market that appeal to me. Or they appeal but are worthless on close inspection. Very irritating.
actually. I might sway on the retractable lens bit. Check this out :
http://www.samsungcamerausa.com/nseries/productdetails.asp?No=2
yummy.
I'm a naughty boy. I spent the day at a local Celtic festival (Skagit), and think I really do need a digital camera. There are things I won't waste film on, but which I wouldn't mind shooting - and having little vids is nice too.
I'm not a hypocrite, I'll never sell my RF645.
That's the argument I don't understand. Why do they get in your way? Besides size and weight that is.
I have my dSLR for some time now and I just preset it to something sensible and then stick to that. Just like choosing a film with which you have to live until it's finished.
And to size and weight, very early this morning I ended up for a Mojito in a bar and a guy saw my D60 with batterie grip and Sigma 17-35 and said "This looks like tenosynovitis" :)
I suppose it is a personal thing. I much prefer to see my shutter speed on a dial and aperture on the lens. It is what I am used to I guess. I photographed that way for 24 years.
It's not that I don't use the digitals. I have some and have tried many. I have even gotten some really nice shots from them. But to me the interface with the camera is important and I feel much more comfortable with the film rangefinders. I am not opposed to digital as a medium. An R-D1 or the new M8 would really intrigue me. I will just have to save up.
Aurelius
07-09-2006, 09:08
:bang: So, I figured I'd give it a try, sold all my film gear, got an Oly E500 dual lens kit.
There is some other nice lenses to try though. I am very impressed by the 50/2.0 Macro. Sharp, compact and the price is not so bad either.
When I need some Oly E-sys inspiration I turn to this site:
http://www.olympus-esystem.jp/pro_e/
including Mr Meyerowitz ...
I think digital photograhpy is a different art form. Can they even be compared?
:bang: So, I figured I'd give it a try, sold all my film gear, got an Oly E500 dual lens kit.
Oh... Error. Error. Error.
The lens quality, after years of Contax, is making me nuts.
I read good stuff about the kit lenses, though for best performance, you should give the f2.0 and f2.8 lenses a try, they're fabulous (I hear). And anyway, like somebody already mentioned, lots of other manufacturers' lenses can be used with convertor rings.
I hate the buttons, the screen that gets dirty when you rub your nose on it, the stupid 'finder, the placement of the white balance button and the exposure lock...
So true, all these fiddly digicam thingies are the main reason I don't want yet. They can do a lot, but they don't have the good old big buttons like the cameras I like.
I can't get the rez I want at over 200iso 'cause the chip is noisy.
Since I can see the grain of Kodak Portra 160VC on a meagre 3MP scan, I'd be very very very very surprised if any 8MP camera gives you less image quality when printed by a decent lab. My theory is that you're either disappointed by the feel of the camera and no longer objective about the image quality, or you have studied the pixels of your photos on a screen and confuse the result there with a good print. Darn, I've seen plenty of el cheapo digicams with less resolution and smaller sensors than the E500 generate far less noisy results than film. When I compare pushing ISO on a digital camera to underexposing film, the digital side holds itself together much better. A retired photographer I know swears by the 3200ISO mode of his 6MP Pentax *istD (using a zoom lens).
This "comparison" is done without any darkroom work, of course, because that would be comparing apples and oranges. I drop my film off at the lab which develops & scans for me. I don't consider photoshop to be a disadvantage of digital, because I hardly process my photos. Rotate, crop, contrast and perspective are the edits I do in descending order of frequency (probably around 20%, 10%, 2%, <1%).
I also hate all these RAW conversion programs, each independently trying to figure out what the image is supposed to look like.
True, the software cycle is also a pain in the proverbial. I guess computers are the main example of how engineering for quality turned into producing for money in the last half a century. But, again, this has nothing to do with image quality IMHO. My extremely unscientific comparison above included digital P&S cameras.
EDIT: 2 small tweaks after reading the whole thread. Plus, I'd like to add that I don't currently have a digital camera. I'm waiting for a model like the Fuji F11 that allows me to use aperture priority mode in a simple way. But not having a digital camera doesn't stop me from shooting all I want: film is cheap, the opportunity is expensive.
Peter.
Ronald M
07-10-2006, 09:29
You are of course right, but is it not nice to just let the computer suck up the pics with no scanning?
Disadgantage is not having a neg and having to find a way to archive the pics.
Learn the buttons, it will get easier.
I just got a Power Shot 610 and it does a damn good job and only 5MP. Nice for a carry all the time and the ability to do one two color shots and get them in the computer. Got scads of options, but just pick a few and use the camera and learn the others later.
Don`t forget, the digi file can be sent any number of places to have a print made. I use File Transfer Explorer and Ritz has a proprietary program.
I don't think it needs to be an all or nothing situation. I have my pana fx01 that fits in my pocket. It's small, easy, fun, and takes reasonable shots (except in really low light). It has a few cool night modes, macro mode, etc. It does it's thing (which definitely doesn't include b&w). I have my film gear which provides a lot more emotionality, in both the taking and the viewing. I love the gear, I love the grain, the life of film. But both have their uses. Right tool for the right job I guess.
I suppose it is a personal thing. I much prefer to see my shutter speed on a dial and aperture on the lens. It is what I am used to I guess. I photographed that way for 24 years.
Ok, I had to get used to the EOS way of operating a camera, too :)
Believe it or not, I miss a film transport lever! From time to time I dig out the Contax RTS and use it without winder just to advance film with my thumb.
Ted Witcher
07-10-2006, 10:05
Has anyone ever done or posted a direct film/digital a/b test? Take the same picture with a film camera and a digital camera, assume a digital workflow, and compare the dig capture to a well-scanned film capture. I can imagine that black-and-white might show a difference, but I wonder if all those subtle differences between color film (slide, even) and digital get eclipsed by the time you scan it and print from the scan -- or, heaven forbid, post on the web.
Ted I did something close to that. I shot the same scenes in comparable light with a Contax G2 and a Canon D60.
I can say that I like Fuji Sensia exposed through a Zeiss lens and scanned with a Canon FS2710 scanner better than a Canon CMOS exposed through a Canon EF 24-85.
But put a Canon 50/1.4 on the D60 and shoot raw I'm hard pressed to see the difference.
It's more in the lenses than in the medium.
James Brannan
07-10-2006, 10:31
Has anyone ever done or posted a direct film/digital a/b test? Take the same picture with a film camera and a digital camera, assume a digital workflow, and compare the dig capture to a well-scanned film capture. I can imagine that black-and-white might show a difference, but I wonder if all those subtle differences between color film (slide, even) and digital get eclipsed by the time you scan it and print from the scan -- or, heaven forbid, post on the web.
1. You can find countless comparisons various places across the internet. It's so hard to equalize that most of them are pretty meaningless IMO. How many different ways can you develop and print your negative? How many different ways can you process and print your RAW file?
2. The RD-1 uses the D70 sensor does it not? Is it just the interface that folks love so much? Frankly I'd love a digital RF but think the price of the Epson is nothing short of insane. How much should a Cosina body with a D70 sensor really cost?
3. Anyone that can't get the same look from digital (assuming a capable body) that they got with film is simply encountering a processing issue. Nothing more.
We often shoot the same photo with film and digital but many of the film cameras we use are from our collection of vintage cameras. Some of the shots on film are close to what the digital gives and there is a subtle something about the film shots which I find hard to describe. Whatever this "something" is I find it very appealing.
Here are a couple of shots taken recently in Wells Cathedral; one digital on a Canon 1DS Mk2 with a 24-105 L lens and set at 800ASA, the other with a Bronica 645RF with some old 160ASA Agfa film and a 65mm lens.
Both cameras were hand held in low light using very low shutter speeds so the results are not as good as one could get in better light.
However the third shot is a crop from the Canon shot..........can't do anything like that with the film cameras.
Results have been "saved for web" to reduce file size and hence quality.
comparing the two is like comparing E6 and C41. Or even worse than that.
I hate digital because it isn't quality driven. It has nothing to do with artists. It is sales, marketing, cost driven. So, as much as I'd love to find a wide dynamic range B&W fixed lens Digital RF, I know I'm not going to see one for probably a decade. That depresses me. So, I stick with film out of necessity and love.
The hard fact behind digital systems faulty design is that optical companies found they can milk customers several times, in any case many more times than technology would allow. In doing this they also expect to turn camera market into a sellers market, where we the customers will buy whatever they put up for sale.
Postprocessing is important with digital, that's why I still use the D60 despite its size and weight and wasn't tempted by the digital P&S cameras.
Thanks to digital I can postprocess scanned film and digital pictures which I couldn't do with film alone due to several reasons.
I nearly never shot slides until after I had a digital and one of my PJ friends told me about the exposure tricks with a digital which are close to exposing slides, now I shoot mostly slide film for colour in all my film cameras :-)
So IMHO digital has a steep learning curve but it's worth it and benefits my film shooting too.
Here is a digital shot from a fourtnight ago on which I still work. First what I started with and the second were I'm now.
I could have done that with film and a rangefinder, but I had a digital SLR at hand :)
James Brannan
07-10-2006, 11:01
comparing the two is like comparing E6 and C41. Or even worse than that.
I hate digital because it isn't quality driven. It has nothing to do with artists. It is sales, marketing, cost driven. So, as much as I'd love to find a wide dynamic range B&W fixed lens Digital RF, I know I'm not going to see one for probably a decade. That depresses me. So, I stick with film out of necessity and love.
I agree with you about the usefullness of comparing them generally but disagree with the remainder (mostly).
The market isn't driven by artists, agree. It shouldn't be though. The unwashed masses far outnumber the artists and are what keep the major manafacturers in business. Digital is quality driven though. The increases in resolution, the increasing focus on color accuracy, the growing focus on dynamic range, the generation by generation improvements in noise, all of these things are quality issues. For a long time the average consumer was too stupid to think about anything other than megapixels. Now the other (more important IMO) issues are being worked on. Is the average P&S there yet? Not from what I've used/seen. That doesn't mean it never will be though.
Nachkebia
07-10-2006, 11:32
Lifeless.....
James Brannan
07-10-2006, 12:01
:bang: So, I figured I'd give it a try, sold all my film gear, got an Oly E500 dual lens kit.
Oh... Error. Error. Error.
The lens quality, after years of Contax, is making me nuts. I hate the buttons, the screen that gets dirty when you rub your nose on it, the stupid 'finder, the placement of the white balance button and the exposure lock...
I can't get the rez I want at over 200iso 'cause the chip is noisy.
Stupid digicams.
I also hate all these RAW conversion programs, each independently trying to figure out what the image is supposed to look like.
Give me slides!!!:bang:
I wanted to address your post directly.
1. I think you made a big mistake in selling your film gear before finding out first hand if you were going to like the output of the Oly E500 first.
2. You bought the two cheapest lenses (if I'm not mistaken) in the Oly lineup and expected what?
3. You are experiencing noise issues at 400ISO? How bad? You are shooting RAW and dealing with the noise in post how? Maybe some research in the Oly SLR forum at DPReview might be in order.
4. You didn't know what the output would be before you bought the body? I never buy an SLR when it first comes out. In a few short weeks of release I have no problems getting full resolution examples so I can decide better how I feel about the look of a particular sensor.
5. I'd suggest a little more research next time.
6. If others are getting output that you can't then you've either got a bad body (it happens) or need to work on your technique. It's that simple.
Peter Klein
07-10-2006, 12:13
Part of the "lifelessness" of digital is (at least in the case of Canon EOS) its lack of noise. This may seem counter-intuitive. But studies have shown that the brain detects a very faint audio signal better if there is a little noise on the channel than if the channel is totally quiet.
Similarly, I have observed that one of the reasons why film looks "better" and more "life-like" than digital is that film has grain, and the grain is what the image is made of. Up to a point, the grain gives the eye an impression of more sharpness, and more detail just beyond what you can actually see.
You can simulate a film look by adding some noise, and by converting to B&W using different proportions of RGB. From what I've read, about 10% blue, 60% green and 40% red works well. I use similar figures sometimes. It isn't exactly Tri-X, but it's a decent improvement over a straight conversion.
Since my DSLR is an Olympus E-1, I usually have no need to add noise. :rolleyes: It's visible at ISO 400 and up, and I'm usually trying to remove some of it with Neat Image, but not all of it. I find that if I remove all of the "digital-looking" color noise, but only 25% of the more film-like luminance noise, things look pretty good in real-life 5x7 and 8x10 prints (as opposed to pixel peeping at 200%).
I just shot a friend's wedding in B&W film, and a family gathering to celebrate my mother's 85th birthday with the E-1. Guess which pictures I like better? Film, film, film! On the other hand, with the birthday party I could edit and post over 200 pictures in a couple of days so that all my various aunts and uncles and cousins could see their relatives. No way would I scan that many myself. Sometimes convenience and cost matter. In each case everyone's happy.
Unfortunately, people sometimes believe that what is good is what they're told is good. A big selling point is that digital is "better" because it has no grain. So younger people with no film history start looking for grain, thinking it's bad and this "proves" digital is superior. Those of us with a film-look aesthetic are usually over 30 (...er, maybe 40...er, maybe 50), or diehards who have seen the light, or both. The average customer just wants it fast, cheap, and good enough. Yes, they spend more on the digicam than they'll ever spend on film, but they think the pictures are "free." Marketing: Fantasy and fiction in the service of commerce.
--Peter
Nachkebia
07-10-2006, 12:17
nope you can not simulate, because noise on film is random noise on digital is patern.... fuji was planing to develope silver like crystal sensor...
:bang: So, I figured I'd give it a try, sold all my film gear, got an Oly E500 dual lens kit.
Oh... Error. Error. Error.
The lens quality, after years of Contax, is making me nuts. I hate the buttons, the screen that gets dirty when you rub your nose on it, the stupid 'finder, the placement of the white balance button and the exposure lock...
I can't get the rez I want at over 200iso 'cause the chip is noisy.
Stupid digicams.
I also hate all these RAW conversion programs, each independently trying to figure out what the image is supposed to look like.
Give me slides!!!:bang:
As with anything, there is a learning curve. You really didn't expect to walk away from film and get instant results with digital did you? Digital CAN produce results that rival film. You just need to know what you are doing. I would suggest finding and taking a class in Photoshop and throw away all those independent raw converters. I would learn the converter in PS2 before moving on. Get a good noise reduction plugin like Noise Ninja. You'll be surprised. Take your time. If you understand film and traditional darkroom practices before, you'll figure the digital side out soon enough. Be patient. The results will be worth it.
nope you can not simulate, because noise on film is random noise on digital is patern.... fuji was planing to develope silver like crystal sensor...
That's the easy part!
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html?page=5
Peter Klein
07-10-2006, 12:30
Vladimer: You're right, you can't duplicate film's look because film vs digital capture really is apples vs. oranges. Random grain that is part of the image structure itself, as opposed to more regular noise that is superimpose on it. But you can make digital look quite a bit more film-like if you work at it.
Still, I feel similarly to you. When I shot my Mom's 85th birthday, I was looking for the quickest and easiest and least expensive way to make a good record of the event for family members. I also was dealing with weird mixed lighting, so it made sense to shoot digital, RAW, and make "acceptable" pictures via some batch postprocessing.
For my friend's wedding, I was looking for something more artistic. So I shot B&W film, had the lab scan them to ~6 megapixel JPGs, scanned slightly dark to keep highlight detail. I then did quite a bit more work on the better files myself. The results are beautiful, much more pleasing to my eyes than DSLR capture. I paid for this beauty by sitting at the computer for hours, and by paying about $200 for film and high-quality processing and scanning.
--Peter
Nachkebia
07-10-2006, 12:47
Socke : that is such a rubish, sorry :) there is no way on earth you can simulate film in post, I mean there is but it will not look real, you may fool your fool clients, but not somebody who knows :)
Nachkebia
07-10-2006, 12:53
And another thing is middle tones, they are so plain, highlights also have problem but they are fixable curving a bit (digital has 100% white) which on film hardly exists! with mid tones there is a big problem...
Socke : that is such a rubish, sorry :) there is no way on earth you can simulate film in post, I mean there is but it will not look real, you may fool your fool clients, but not somebody who knows :)
That's quite possible, luckily I have no clients for photos, not even fools.
...I hate digital because it isn't quality driven. It has nothing to do with artists. It is sales, marketing, cost driven. ...
But that is true of all consumer items. If digital was old and film was the new emerging technology, the same would true for film. That's just marketing and economics. That is environmental, and in the end has little to do with the image on the print, other than the fact that it is effecting the way you feel about the process by which you get there.
Edited to add: And of course how you feel about the process is a perfectly valid concern - after all that is part of why we use rangefinder cameras. :)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.