[WordOnRoad]

Currently shooting with a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 and a Sigma SA-7N. So much more gratifying when seeing the developed photos.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by WordOnRoad

Currently shooting with a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 and a Sigma SA-7N. So much more gratifying when seeing the developed photos.

Don't confuse seeing prints from film with seeing prints. Digital prints, printed on high quality paper with a high quality printer can be stunning.

If don't own a larger format printer, consider a Canon Pixma Pro-100, or one of the printers in their pro line. It'll produce stunning 13x19" prints, either color or B&W. Right out of the box, it's excellent, but you can easily test and tweak the accuracy to totally match your monitor.

Many people only look at their images digitally; on a monitor, smart-phone, pad device or their HDTV. The tactile look and feel of a print is an extra bonus element. Even some film shooters, scan their negatives and only see their images digitally. If you send out to a lab, then you're likely getting negatives, prints and files.

By necessity (I started before Kodak built the first digital sensor) I've shot tons and tons of medium format and 35mm film, both positive and negative. My digital prints blow away anything that I ever did with film.

[WordOnRoad]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Don't confuse seeing prints from film with seeing prints. Digital prints, printed on high quality paper with a high quality printer can be stunning.

If don't own a larger format printer, consider a Canon Pixma Pro-100, or one of the printers in their pro line. It'll produce stunning 13x19" prints, either color or B&W. Right out of the box, it's excellent, but you can easily test and tweak the accuracy to totally match your monitor.

Many people only look at their images digitally; on a monitor, smart-phone, pad device or their HDTV. The tactile look and feel of a print is an extra bonus element. Even some film shooters, scan their negatives and only see their images digitally. If you send out to a lab, then you're likely getting negatives, prints and files.

By necessity (I started before Kodak built the first digital sensor) I've shot tons and tons of medium format and 35mm film, both positive and negative. My digital prints blow away anything that I ever did with film.

I think you missed what I was getting at. When shooting digital, you can see the picture and then easily decide if it's worth keeping or not. Not the same for film. It's very rewarding to have almost, if not all of your pictures appear just the way you wanted them to when developed.

[dcstep]

Oh, now I get it. Lived through that and don't think of it fondly.

[Pixel8ed]

I still blow some film through my hasselblad so once in a while. Shot them mostly with Pollaroid/Fuji till they decided to kill 100c. Have 2 and a half packs left will probably blow them on the next model and let her sell them.

[itrsteve]

Originally Posted by ahero4eternity

It's the hipster thing to do, after all.

It's not a hipster thing at all. It's a whole different way to enjoy the process of photography. Some enjoy taking pictures, reviewing through the LCD then making them look decent in photoshop. And if you seek joy in that then good on you.

But if you want to put thought behind every shot because there is a cost impact, take your previously made mistakes and hope to god it comes out as you planned and then when your final shot comes out there's a feeling of anticipation and anxiety as you reveal it for the first time. Sometimes you fall on your face, but you'll make damn sure that you analyze your mistakes and build off them.

I say this from strictly a hobby perspective and not for anybody making a living off it but I've never enjoyed shooting digital, not the least bit satisfying. My 5d mk2 collected dust for 7 years before I came to grips that it was worthless to me; however, my hasselblad, I've had for 12 years and hope to be buried with it (hell, it's even tattooed on my arm).

Different strokes for different folks, but I feel bad for anybody that calls themselves a photographer and has not got to experience film to some degree. I truly think they're missing out.

Originally Posted by Pixel8ed

I still blow some film through my hasselblad so once in a while. Shot them mostly with Pollaroid/Fuji till they decided to kill 100c. Have 2 and a half packs left will probably blow them on the next model and let her sell them.

Deeply saddened by Fuji just killing FP100c out of the blue. I have 10 packs in the fridge that are now suppose to last me a lifetime. I'm hoarding Provia 100 in the meantime, I'm sure that can't be far away.

[ahero4eternity]

Originally Posted by itrsteve

It's not a hipster thing at all. It's a whole different way to enjoy the process of photography. Some enjoy taking pictures, reviewing through the LCD then making them look decent in photoshop. And if you seek joy in that then good on you.

But if you want to put thought behind every shot because there is a cost impact, take your previously made mistakes and hope to god it comes out as you planned and then when your final shot comes out there's a feeling of anticipation and anxiety as you reveal it for the first time. Sometimes you fall on your face, but you'll make damn sure that you analyze your mistakes and build off them.

I say this from strictly a hobby perspective and not for anybody making a living off it but I've never enjoyed shooting digital, not the least bit satisfying. My 5d mk2 collected dust for 7 years before I came to grips that it was worthless to me; however, my hasselblad, I've had for 12 years and hope to be buried with it (hell, it's even tattooed on my arm).

Different strokes for different folks, but I feel bad for anybody that calls themselves a photographer and has not got to experience film to some degree. I truly think they're missing out.

Deeply saddened by Fuji just killing FP100c out of the blue. I have 10 packs in the fridge that are now suppose to last me a lifetime. I'm hoarding Provia 100 in the meantime, I'm sure that can't be far away.

it was a tongue in cheek comment as i shoot tons of film myself.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by itrsteve

...

Different strokes for different folks, but I feel bad for anybody that calls themselves a photographer and has not got to experience film to some degree. I truly think they're missing out.

...

I hear what you're saying, but I'd tell a purely digital photographer to forget about film and focus on your craft using the technology that gives you the result that you want. Of course, most of the film photographers that I know today, scan and digitally process to arrive at their final product. I'm sure they're out there, but I don't know anyone these days that physically dodges and burns when making their prints. I'm glad that I did it, BUT it's not really additive to my digital imaging life.

Believe me, I know the process of making images with film. My very first exposure to photography was to make my own penhole camera, take pictures of my classmates, process the negative and contact-print the image. I soon purchased a medium format TLR that I used until it fell apart, then moved to 35mm. I didn't go 100% digital until 2007.

I expose differently for digital than I did for film. I run into people all the time that expose digital as if they're shooting Kodachrome. When they do that, they lose dynamic range and limit the final image.

Still, I understand enjoying the process and the bit of mystery involved in the delayed gratification. When I would bracket with film I was always thinking about using 3 exposures out of 12 on a roll of medium format film. I'd think, "Maybe I'll take one and cross my fingers that I got it right." With digital, I'm constantly taking test shots and thinking, "That test shot cost me almost nothing and now I know that I've got room to raise my exposure a little more without blowing out important details."

BTW, I've never been without a turntable and LPs going back to my youth. (Over 2000 and still counting). I've also got a really super-duper DAC and make my own DSD recordings that finally start delivering on the long over-hyped promise of digital audio. I finally move between analog and digital audio without feeling like the digital lost something. Digital photography actually fulfilled its promise and potential much more quickly than digital audio, which got stuck for decades with format limitations foisted on us by industry powers (read Sony).

[itrsteve]

So knowing what you know now about the process behind film and all of the emotion/learning that it brings, you don't find that there's a giant gaping hole when shooting digital? I've never found anything the least gratifying about digital imaging whatsoever.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by itrsteve

So knowing what you know now about the process behind film and all of the emotion/learning that it brings, you don't find that there's a giant gaping hole when shooting digital? I've never found anything the least gratifying about digital imaging whatsoever.

I shoot wildlife, travel and landscape. I find that in order to do those well that I need to do lots of planning and work in order to be at the right place and the right time. Wildlife requires a lot of skill from me to get close enough, aim properly while composing at the same time as my subject might be flying by at 30-mph. With travel, it's a challenge to get unusual perspectives and weave a story good enough to put into a vanity book for each major trip. For landscape, being the right place and doing my best to control my luck with weather and light is a big ole challenge.

My digital processing is pretty simple. I shoot in Raw and try to maximize the information collected in the Raw file. I do very little post processing, mainly adjusting EV level, adding contrast and micro contrast as needed, generally lowering highlights and raising shadows and, finally, cropping. I hardly ever get into Photoshop.

I DO try to process the same day that I take the shots. It's partly to avoid building up a backlog, which I see way too many digital photographers do. Also, I find that same-day processing helps me with color interpretation. Here in Colorado, the sunrises and sunset can be spectacular with really widely varying pinks, reds, purples and blues. The reality looks unreal to many that have not witnessed it first hand themselves, so I put a lot of effort into color accuracy on my landscapes, particularly when the sky goes crazy-colors.

Also, I'm usually mentoring one noob or next-step photographers and I find it satisfying to see them capture shots that they hadn't dreamed of just a few weeks prior.

Oh, finally, the AF and metering systems on my Canon EOS camera/lens systems are not fully functional on any bodies more than a year or so old. I remember trying to shoot birds-in-flight with my old Pentax preset telephoto lens at ASA 200. No thank you. I'll take my digital images at ISO 800, f/8, 1/3200-sec. and 10-fps, with an AF system that nails 8 out of 10 shots. Last Saturday I was shooting at ISO 12800 before dawn. In film days, I'd be praying for the sun to come up 30-minutes early.

Anyway, there's a lot to keep me happy. Oh yeah, when someone buys an image and hangs it on their wall, or puts it in their fund raising calendar or uses it in some magazine in Europe that I'll never see, that's satisfying. It's all additive and hard enough without putting up obstacles that are easily avoided.

Love the discussion my friend.

When you tried digital, did you go "all the way?" By that I mean, shooting in Raw and using something like Lightroom to process in a way pleasing to you. You must have been unhappy with your results. Separating process from finished product, was there a common element missing in the finished product?

Hand held, before sunrise, at 1/60-sec. and 254mm, thanks to ISO 12800 and modern image stabilization:

ISO 12800!!! by David Stephens, on Flickr

[RENT-A-GOAT]

I started out with my Oly Om1-n before my move up to Canon when the world went digital and it comes out every now and then for some 35mm fun but now its hipster and trendy I might keep it in the bag lol still is a great bit of kit and I do love using it.

[itrsteve]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I shoot wildlife, travel and landscape. I find that in order to do those well that I need to do lots of planning and work in order to be at the right place and the right time. Wildlife requires a lot of skill from me to get close enough, aim properly while composing at the same time as my subject might be flying by at 30-mph. With travel, it's a challenge to get unusual perspectives and weave a story good enough to put into a vanity book for each major trip. For landscape, being the right place and doing my best to control my luck with weather and light is a big ole challenge.

My digital processing is pretty simple. I shoot in Raw and try to maximize the information collected in the Raw file. I do very little post processing, mainly adjusting EV level, adding contrast and micro contrast as needed, generally lowering highlights and raising shadows and, finally, cropping. I hardly ever get into Photoshop.

I DO try to process the same day that I take the shots. It's partly to avoid building up a backlog, which I see way too many digital photographers do. Also, I find that same-day processing helps me with color interpretation. Here in Colorado, the sunrises and sunset can be spectacular with really widely varying pinks, reds, purples and blues. The reality looks unreal to many that have not witnessed it first hand themselves, so I put a lot of effort into color accuracy on my landscapes, particularly when the sky goes crazy-colors.

Also, I'm usually mentoring one noob or next-step photographers and I find it satisfying to see them capture shots that they hadn't dreamed of just a few weeks prior.

Oh, finally, the AF and metering systems on my Canon EOS camera/lens systems are not fully functional on any bodies more than a year or so old. I remember trying to shoot birds-in-flight with my old Pentax preset telephoto lens at ASA 200. No thank you. I'll take my digital images at ISO 800, f/8, 1/3200-sec. and 10-fps, with an AF system that nails 8 out of 10 shots. Last Saturday I was shooting at ISO 12800 before dawn. In film days, I'd be praying for the sun to come up 30-minutes early.

Anyway, there's a lot to keep me happy. Oh yeah, when someone buys an image and hangs it on their wall, or puts it in their fund raising calendar or uses it in some magazine in Europe that I'll never see, that's satisfying. It's all additive and hard enough without putting up obstacles that are easily avoided.

Love the discussion my friend.

When you tried digital, did you go "all the way?" By that I mean, shooting in Raw and using something like Lightroom to process in a way pleasing to you. You must have been unhappy with your results. Separating process from finished product, was there a common element missing in the finished product?

Hand held, before sunrise, at 1/60-sec. and 254mm, thanks to ISO 12800 and modern image stabilization:

Totally understandable, to be honest it sounds as if we take different things away from it. With that being said, I think if I shot wildlife it would be in digital anyway. Too many variables with a subject which you can't control.

[kapi123]

Originally Posted by GRANTLDN

Just picked up a canon EOS 5 35mm film camera











Fujifilm X Trail 400 speed

Nice pics bro!

[alvin9]

thanks for a great blog.