Ready to Go Digital! [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

View Full Version : Ready to Go Digital!

NickTrop

01-01-2009, 07:10

I like RF photography because I like a small quite camera that's capable of shooting in ambient light - no flash, for family candids, typically. I love the beauty of black and white film, especially people shots. And gottsta have selective focus. Must have selective focus to be able to blur out the background. To me, all these things are photographic essentials if you want the occasional happy accident of an interesting or evocative picture.

I shot with old film cameras - Japanese FLRFs mostly, because the only option of giving me this in the digital world - without spending thousands for digital RFs, were DSLRs. DSLRs were until recently big, clunky affairs usually attached to zoom lenses (not a fan, prefer fixed...) that were somewhat expensive, though their prices have come down to around $600 or so with a kit zoom lens.

Soooo, over the last couple years one camera manufacturer started to come out with a pretty darned good available light shooter - Fuji. F10, 11, 20, 30, and 31 all can do ISO 800, some say usable 1600 and their last couple "F" cameras boast a 3200 ISO rating. Finally, I have some non-DSLR options that are affordable and "rangefinder-esqe" at least in size and camera noise and ability to shoot with available light. The Fuji F31 costs - figure in real price tax, shipping, whatever, $260. Not bad - course that cost me what 3 of my Japanese FLRFs cost, two of which were CLA'd.

However, I'm stuck with the zoom lens on the camera. It's a mundane 3X 36-108 zoom, F2.8 wide open (F5 zoomed to its max) which is fast for a digital but slow compared to what I'm accustomed to using equipment that's 30-40 years old - but I'll make that concession. F2.8 is blazing in the digital point and shoot world... And besides, part of the reason I like fast lenses is for bokeh, and you just won't get that no matter what with the tiny sensor. That's why I'm happy with the F10 or 20 - no manual controls but to my way of thinking it doesn't matter so much with these things since you can't do stuff like throw the background out of focus anyway... Everything's done in post. That's why you don't "make a picture" with digital, you do a "digital capture". You're just getting the image into the sensor. The rest you Photoshop.

Now, until recently - again, gradiated "bokeh" simulations along the Z-axis in PS were nearly impossible to do. Really alls you could do was mask out a simple shape - carefully, slowly, and gaussian blur out the background. Blurred foreground objects and complicated scenes with lots of foreground objects and focus in the spacial middle - fuggetabout it. You'd be PSing all day and it still wouldn't look right - unnatural.

Enter Alien Skin "Bokeh", a Photoshop plug-in. ($200). It gives you lens selections that supposedly emulate the blur of various bokeh-renowned lenses... However, while you have some tools and a "planar" bokeh tool that gradiates the blur and this oval shaped thing-y, you still have to make masks or selections in Photoshop. I figure though, if I practice a lot, I might be able to come "close enough" in less complicated scenes with it.

Also, Alien Skin makes another plug in called Exposure ($250). This will - fairly accurately imo to be honest, emulates the look of various color print, slide, black and white, and infrared film stocks. So, I'll need this if I want to manintain the RF aesthetic I so love...

So, that's it! Film photography and RFs are now officially obsolete! Supplanted by modern technology - which is always more practical and makes things better...

Here's your shopping list...

1. A Fuji "F" series camera (hurry before they stop making them!) that gives you high ISO... Current model F31 around $275 give or take.

2. Photoshop CS2 minimum (What's this, like $600 bucks if you need to buy?)

3. Alien Skin "Bokeh" - a PS plug-in $200. Note - there are some limitations and it's not good for complicated scenes and you still have to mask and/or select stuff... Also, rendering times are pretty slow.

4. Alien Skin "Exposure" for that elusive "film look". $250.

... and lots of time futzing in Photoshop if you don't mind that sort of thing...
|
Buh-bye film! Say hello to the new "improved" digital world and modern technology!

Tuolumne

01-01-2009, 07:20

Get a Lumix G1 with M lens adapter. You will be happy. Throw away your software. Use Picasa 3.0. I shot a New Year's Eve party last night - all available light photos at iso 1600. They were fine, although a bit noisy, without any noise correction. With noise correction they would probably be perfect. Don't believe what you read about this camera not making good shots at ISO 1600. With the M-lens adapter you can get all the bokeh you want - Can you say 100mm Noctilux at f1.0!

/T

Larry Mclendon

01-01-2009, 07:27

Why would you want to make digital photos look like film photos? Nothing wrong with digital that I can see. It isn't film, but neither does Tri-X look the same as Tech Pan.

pesphoto

01-01-2009, 07:36

If you decide to sell your Yashica cameras let me know.......

Steve Bellayr

01-01-2009, 07:36

The Fuji 31 has no viewfinder. In daylight when the sun is behind you it will wash out the screen. If shooting quickly is important that may be a factor.

Chris101

01-01-2009, 07:42

... Everything's done in post. That's why you don't "make a picture" with digital, you do a "digital capture". You're just getting the image into the sensor. The rest you Photoshop.

Now, until recently - again, gradiated "bokeh" simulations along the Z-axis in PS were nearly impossible to do. Really alls you could do was mask out a simple shape - carefully, slowly, and gaussian blur out the background. Blurred foreground objects and complicated scenes with lots of foreground objects and focus in the spacial middle - fuggetabout it. You'd be PSing all day and it still wouldn't look right - unnatural.

Enter Alien Skin "Bokeh", a Photoshop plug-in. ($200). It gives you lens selections that supposedly emulate the blur of various bokeh-renowned lenses... However, while you have some tools and a "planar" bokeh tool that gradiates the blur and this oval shaped thing-y, you still have to make masks or selections in Photoshop. I figure though, if I practice a lot, I might be able to come "close enough" in less complicated scenes with it.

Also, Alien Skin makes another plug in called Exposure ($250). This will - fairly accurately imo to be honest, emulates the look of various color print, slide, black and white, and infrared film stocks. So, I'll need this if I want to manintain the RF aesthetic I so love... ...Why not just take up photo-realistic painting?

Larry Mclendon

01-01-2009, 07:43

I think NickTrop is posting with tongue firmly in cheek.

Gary Sandhu

01-01-2009, 07:44

Good plan on paper. Try it. Just don't sell your film and film gear. Guarantee you'll be back in a week. Your scheme for modifying the output is reasonable, but you'll miss out on the film gears responsiveness (focus, ease of use, viewfinder, lack of shutter lag) and miss out on a lot of pics you otherwise would've gotten: can't photoshop what you ain't got. Happy new year.

Nh3

01-01-2009, 08:04

I almost believed the post but the last few sentences give it away.

bmattock

01-01-2009, 08:04

I think NickTrop is posting with tongue firmly in cheek.

Yes, I'm sure he was. I know sarcasm doesn't translate well online, but since I deal in it, I tend to recognize it when I see it.

Nice one, Nick.

Gumby

01-01-2009, 08:09

Hey Nick, it's JANUARY 1... New Years Day, not APRIL 1, April Fools Day! :D

If you just happen to be serious... good luck to you!

FrankS

01-01-2009, 08:21

Nick is being serious .... ly sarcastic!

NickTrop

01-01-2009, 09:09

Oh - forgot to mention. Can't put filters on these Fuji things. Have to do that in post - so you'll need Nik Color Efex Pro 3.0 - another plug-in that simulates filter - red, yellow, polarizers, a bunch of others... set you back about $200.

Happy Photoshopping!

antiquark

01-01-2009, 09:10

Couple of links:
http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/exposure_examples.aspx

http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/examples.aspx

Nick is right: film is dead!*

*if you have endless spare time to twiddle with photoshop :)

bmattock

01-01-2009, 09:21

Nh3

01-01-2009, 09:26

Another ignored fact is that post processing is extremely strenuous to the eyes. One has to look really hard to discern the differences after each action and also look constantly for long periods at fine detail on the computer screen.

tom.w.bn

01-01-2009, 09:32

I decided to take this thread serious so here is my remark: all those plug ins should also be compatible to Photoshop Elements. So if you don't need a specific feature of photoshop you could save a lot of money. No, does not save you any time.

giellaleafapmu

01-01-2009, 12:00

I have not clear the reason why if you like film look you want to shot digital and if you want to shot prime lenses you are considering a small camera instead of a DSLR or a digital rangefinder.

The digital camera with the most "film-like" look that I know is the Fuji S5 and it can use all the AI series Nikon lenses (and of course all modern F-mount lenses as well), did you consider that?

Also for the software, Pohotoshop if fine but now also Gimp has become much better than the first versions and it runs free on all the popular plattforms! The money you save can be used to have a second small camera if your idea is to bring something with you at all time and a DSRL is too big!

GLF

giellaleafapmu

01-01-2009, 12:03

Troll, troll, troll, your boat, gently down the stream...

;)

Woops! Was it a troll? Too late I guess...

GLF

Joe Brugger

01-01-2009, 12:49

....

Here's your shopping list...

1. A Fuji "F" series camera (hurry before they stop making them!) that gives you high ISO... Current model F31 around $275 give or take.

2. Photoshop CS2 minimum (What's this, like $600 bucks if you need to buy?)

3. Alien Skin "Bokeh" - a PS plug-in $200. Note - there are some limitations and it's not good for complicated scenes and you still have to mask and/or select stuff... Also, rendering times are pretty slow.

4. Alien Skin "Exposure" for that elusive "film look". $250.

... and lots of time futzing in Photoshop if you don't mind that sort of thing...
|
Buh-bye film! Say hello to the new "improved" digital world and modern technology!

$1125, and say $60 an hour to PS . . . I'm persuaded. I have seen the pixels . . . :)

Chris101

01-01-2009, 12:56

Well, serious or not Nick has a point. Oh, and be sure to do your chopping at 100 or better yet, 300% enlargement. It's easier to get the pixel level detail that way.

JTK

01-09-2009, 05:23

Get Lightroom before Photoshop (you may ultimately want both, but Lightroom is more photographer-intuitive).

Photoshop's fine, I use it, but it's no help for 90%, now that I have Lightroom.

Lightroom works incredibly efficiently, especially in B&W...makes excellent B&W conversions from color files (scan or DSLR) with one click...then you can control contrast, density etc with sliders. Intuitive.

Don't waste time and money faking film-look...if you've been working to avoid grain (I never have) you'll love digital (I do, when I want 1600iso without grain). If you love Rodinal (I do> Neopan 400@1000/1+200 stand) shoot film (I do).

Do both. And print your own (Epson 3800 costs about the same as a good prime lens and it comes with a tremendous amount of ink).

kuzano

01-09-2009, 07:33

7.1 Mp
4x zoom
2.0 - 3.0 aperture (2.0 at wide)
400 ISO (actual sensitivity 640)
RAW

Those are the features of interest to me. The later G series camera's either upped the largest aperture, or dropped RAW as in the G7. Prices fare similar to the f30/31, etc.

Here is a link to the conclusion page at Steves-Digicams on the G6

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/g6_pg8.html

The actual vs. indicated sensitivity is better explained at the DPreview site on this page:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong6/page14.asp

peter_n

01-09-2009, 17:30

The digital camera with the most "film-like" look that I know is the Fuji S5 and it can use all the AI series Nikon lenses (and of course all modern F-mount lenses as well), did you consider that?Actually this is pretty accurate. If you set it up right you can get 6MB jpegs OOC that are nigh-on perfect, no need for any PS work. Just get a good Nikkor like the 17-55/2.8 and you don't need anything else...

Willy Johnson

01-09-2009, 17:47

This sort of sentiment is nonsense.

You all have "endless" time to post and twiddle on forums, to play with old cameras, to wait for film developing.

Just because you can't figure out Photoshop or stink at using computers is no reason for sour grapes.

Couple of links:
http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/exposure_examples.aspx

http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/examples.aspx

Nick is right: film is dead!*

*if you have endless spare time to twiddle with photoshop :)

Gumby

01-09-2009, 17:54

Just because you can't figure out Photoshop or stink at using computers is no reason for sour grapes.

Yes, dear. :rolleyes:

mh2000

01-09-2009, 18:50

>>Good plan on paper. Try it...

Yes, do... I tried it and have mainly gone back to film... both have their place of course, but for b&w especially, even I've gotten some great digital images, film is almost always better... for various reasons.

Personally, I would just get over it and buy a really nice DSLR... much much better output than any P&S. (Been there, done that... and P&S's lose half their value in a matter of months so when you finally figure out the limitations it is too late to get your money out).

mh2000

01-09-2009, 18:53

I find for real quality work it becomes a wash timewise, film vs. digital... for fast and lots and lots, digital is of course faster...

>>Nick is right: film is dead!*

*if you have endless spare time to twiddle with photoshop :)

Ronald M

01-10-2009, 01:17

All cheap digi cams have small sensors which take short focal length lenses. Blurred backgrounds are a non issue. You can`t do them.

Photoshop is your friend. Use the lasso tool to make a rough selection.
Go into quick mask mode and expand the the mask to cover the subject. Now blur the background.

Another way is to make a layer mask. Layer-layer mask-reveal all. Paint your subject with black to protect it. Blur the layer. Filter-blur- gaussian blur.

If you want to get really fancy paint with grey to get a partial effect

peterm1

01-10-2009, 01:50

For absolute ages I put off going digital as I thought that the price to quality ratio was not yet there and because I enjoyed shooting my film based cameras. But eventually about 3 years ago I succumbed and got my first proper digital SLR a Nikon D70s (since upgraded to the D200.) At first I justified it to myself by thinking that all the extra shooting I would do and the immediate feedback would make me a more competent photographer. And its true. I think it actually has. Practice has made, if not perfect, then at least, better.

But the thing I was never prepared for was how digital workflow has changed the quality of my work and my enjoyment in photography. Previously I never had a photo lab in the film world. Towards the end of my film days I bought a reasonable flat bed scanner for digitising some of my better prints but until I started shooting lots of photos digitally I never realised just how MUCH difference post processing made and never putthat much emphasis into it. For me this has been the big lesson and big reward from going digital and at least 50% of the quality in my final images comes from the work I do after I shoot. Sometimes it would have to be closer to 70%. As this is a rangefinder forum I feel constrained to add that the gear freak in me will never let me sell my Leica film kit and of course I would love to buy an M8 - perhaps one day i will. But I cannot deny that far more important than what equipment I am using is what software I have to post process. (As sad as that may sound to traditionalists.)

bmattock

01-10-2009, 05:25

Chris101

01-10-2009, 09:50

Of course film is dead. If it were alive, could you, with a clear conscience stick it into toxic developer?

btgc

01-10-2009, 10:30

Can't put filters on these Fuji things.

back when Oly Mju were my only camera, in local shop I tried proprietary filter system (made by Cokin) - square filters are kept in front of lens by holder which is screwed into tripod mount.

Not useful for daily use, but if one needs orange or kind of FL% filters couple times of year...maybe.

When vintage camara from ebay costs less than holder and few filters, guess my choice.

Al Patterson

01-10-2009, 11:20

Pherdinand

01-10-2009, 12:05

it is so firmly in cheek, that tongue, it is almost superglued in there!

RayPA

01-10-2009, 13:45

I am amazed that this thread is still being responded to as if Nick had posted in seriousness instead of in jest. Is everyone here humor-impaired? You really don't know when your leg is being pulled? Gadzooks.

Nick, old son, you've done well. You've managed to make nearly everyone respond to you taking the piss as if you had uttered a Papal Bull. Truly a mighty craic.

Of course everyone is not humor-impaired. We_get/got_the_sarcasm, but obviously the oh-so-clever mr. trop has put much consideration into this gentle rant (I actually read the entire thing. most multi-paragraph posts on forums are unreadable, because they are either boring, poorly conceived or both). This was very well done. I enjoyed it, because it's a rationalization and realization that many of us know and have discovered. it's a well-beaten path. A struggle most of us here know quite well.

In that sense it's really no different content-wise from a hundred other threads here on RFF that bitch and moan about film <-> digital. All those have pages and pages of replies/discussions, and really aren't most forums just 'thrash and rehash'?. Kudos to Nick for a refreshing 'take' on a very tired topic. There are many ways to get a discussion going intentional or not.

For those who responded in "seriousness," I enjoyed your replies, and not for once did I consider you fools.

EDIT: oh, yeah. I almost forgot: :)
.

Gabriel M.A.

01-10-2009, 14:24

EDIT: oh, yeah. I almost forgot: :)
.

That's why I stick to pie.

Yeah, pie. I like pie. Yeah, pie. Pie's good.

:)

Gabriel M.A.

01-10-2009, 14:26

Troll, troll, troll, your boat, gently down the stream...

...Giggly giggly giggly giggly
firmly tongue in cheek
Giggly giggly giggly giggly...

RayPA

01-10-2009, 14:42

That's why I stick to pie.

Yeah, pie. I like pie. Yeah, pie. Pie's good.

:)

I like pie too. But I fear I can no longer tell where someone's online tongue is placed. And since this thread is dying: truthfully and without sarcasm, I like the nudes you posted on Flickr. Very tasteful (again with the tongue!). :)

.

totifoto

01-10-2009, 17:05

After I read this thread I goggled Aliens skin, never heard of it before. I downloaded a trial version and I have to say I love it. :D

I love shooting film, developing it and do the print in my darkroom but I have been shooting digital most of my photography years. I started shooting in 2001 when the digital revolution kicked in. I started shooting film again about 2 years ago and ever since I have been trying to get the "film look" in my digital shots but never been happy with them. This little program does the trick though.

This was shot on my Canon 5D with a 35mm f2 lens, shot at ISO 1600 and f2.

Original, with minor levels adjustment.

http://images.hugi.is/blog/147778.jpg

And here it is after using the Tri-x 400 filter in the Aliens skin program.

http://images.hugi.is/blog/147779.jpg

I have to say I think it is very film like.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/2080-1457-0864-3279-8539

NickTrop

01-10-2009, 19:06

Welp - sniped me a Fuji F30 pretty cheap last week on the big auction site. On its way. We'll see how she does...

Jamie Pillers

01-10-2009, 19:24

Nh3

01-10-2009, 19:38

With digital there is no pride in workmanship.

There is no craft, no need for careful and methodical approach and no sense of personal achievement.

So, for me to bust my behind and walk for hours in all sorts of weather, take all the risks and finally have no sense of pride in what i do and no sense of workmanship - to me that is absolutely unacceptable. I cannot fool myself, if that is a flaw so be it.

NickTrop

01-10-2009, 20:22

VERY nice.... and VERY convincing! As soon as the right ergonomics are built into a digital camera, I'm leaving film. I recently calculated that I spent roughly $1500 on film processing last year alone. I can buy some serious software for that kind of money!

I'm not a digital luddite... I taught classes in Photoshop and digital photography. My other digital is a Panasonic FZ 12X super zoom. I would rather shoot digital, hand held f2.8 throught the zoom range with this little camera than have a giant super expensive zoom lens attached to a tripod. That makes no sense...

I shot film because I wanted fast lenses, high speed capabilities, and selective focus and the ability to shoot good black and white. I also prefer prints to digital web stuff.

I view my cameras as tools. Each of my collection has a purpose. Panasonic - hand held zoom capabilities. Film SLR - that's my interchangeable lens system, which I think is better on the whole than rangefinder systems. Lynx 14 - that's my low light shooter. Iskra - MF in your pocket camera...

Now a digital line FINALLY gives me high ISO capabilities for natural light shooting. I was aware of the camera but I'm frugal and waited a bit to let someone else eat the depreciation like I do with most other things. I can - literally, put this camera in my pocket and always have it with me. I can't do that comfortably even with my Konica Auto S3 because the lens doesn't collapse. A trade off is in-camera selective focus... I can get that now with a software tool, possibly. I won't stick with old technologies just for nostalgia or the sake of sticking with them. Film has some clear advantages, digital has some clear advantages. One is cost. I just bought 10 rolls of Neopan 1600 - $35 shipped, a decent deal. It will cost me over $100 to have these rolls processed (I've been using a lab more and more recently, just pressed for time to develop my own). This is about 2X what I paid for the used Fuji F30 for the cost of the film and processing. The film "look" can now be emulated. I gave up shooting Kodak HIE recently because it was a pain in the arse... PS'd infrared ain't too shabby. It's ultimately just an effect. So is the look of certain emulsions - just adjustments in some curves - that's it really.

Film has better dynamic range, and I wouldn't expect digital to come anywhere near the beauty of medium format. But for casual shooting? My latest tool will augment my shooting, and allow me to take more pics and experiment more. Its ISO capabilities along with some software has narrowed but not closed the gap, but closed it enough to warrant a purchase of a new tool. In other words, that 10 rolls of Neopan will last a lot longer. I have no intention of selling any of my other film tools.