WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Photography Equipment > Cameras


Cameras Discussion on Cameras of all types

New Tool or New Toy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 24-06-10, 14:31
Alex1994's Avatar
Alex1994 Alex1994 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 806
Default New Tool or New Toy?

When it comes to photography, I am a film man. Film, and the cameras you load it into, taught me photography and continue teaching it to me. Like so many photographers, professional and amateur, I learned all about aperture, depth of field, exposure, shutter speed, focus, ISO, zone system on a 35mm film SLR with negative film. I continue to use such SLRs, along with compacts and rangefinders on various endeavours, always changing what rig I use depending on the assignment. To me, a rangefinder, an OM-1 or a Minox 35 are very different tools, each with characteristics that let them do some jobs better than others.

Photographers need a minimum of versatility; it is impractical to own and transport a dozen cameras, keeping each one loaded with the right sort of film etc. Keeping track of it all is a nightmare. Furthermore, each and every of my antique cameras is slow off its feet, requiring the user to input data like focus and aperture - shooting old style requires time and consideration, and every time a subject escaped me due to fiddling with the lightmeter or focussing manually, I felt frustrated.

I felt it was time for a change.

What I needed was single tool that would fulfill all my photography needs: something portable, fast, sharp, automatic, electronic and versatile. What I needed was a digital SLR.

Some eBaying later, I was the proud owned of a Canon EOS 30D body for the not-so-princely sum of £245 delivered to my door. To this I attached a Tamron 24-135mm zoom in 35mm equivalent: with the 1.6x crop factor this becomes a 35-210 or so. I also have a 50mm prime lens.

Shooting with a dSLR is very different to anything I have done before with cameras. It's certainly very fast - when you get it to do what you want. The plethora of buttons and wheels that are not assigned to do specific tasks it certainly very confusing at first, though I'm sure I'll get used to it.

2 days later I have already taken some 120 photos. Already I had discovered the machine-gun mentality of the digital shooter. It encourages the photographer into a mindset of plenty - shoot everything, bin what you don't like. I guess with film one does this as well, but digital pushes it to the extreme: 2 pictures out of my 120 were what I'd consider 'good'. The rest were good for the trashcan.

Shooting with a digital SLR gave me an inherent feeling that each frame was worthless - an ephemeral collection of ones and zeroes that cost nothing to make and nothing to get rid of, hence the giant volume of pictures I took. Did I take even the fraction of care that I would when shooting film? Did I hell - if I had, I would have ended up with more decent shots. The fact is that a dSLR makes it so easy to put it into auto mode and snap away blindly, thinking that because you have a big expensive camera the picture will automatically look good.

I decided to go togging in Reading today, with about 2 hours to burn in the town centre. I could have taken my digital SLR, coming off as an obnoxious yuppie machine-gunning away at the general populace. Instead I took my newly-restored Yashica Electro, loaded with a roll of FP4+ - quiet, subtle, manual and classy. I have yet to see the results - in fact I think the dSLR would have performed better in certain situations, giving sharper detail and more accurate focus, but then I'd have about 500 photos to sift through, mostly badly composed because I would have lazily used the zoom instead of my legs to get the subject exactly where I wanted it in the frame.

My conclusion, therefore, is that to me digital lends itself well to throwaway snapshots of things we don't care so much about and are happy to bin if we need to. This is certainly an area I need equipment for, so I won't chuck away my dSLR. Indeed, I'll use it well for the snapshots where perhaps a little more control and quality is needed than my IXUS compact. But for learning and practising photography, it's Ilford FP4, HP5 and Kodak Ektar all the way.

--Alex
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24-06-10, 17:09
nirofo's Avatar
nirofo nirofo is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Scotland
Posts: 798
Default

You obviously know little about DSLR photography yet, it's only by perseverance and applying the same methodical approach you used with film that you will see results that are every bit as good as film if not better. I now consistantly turn out more and in most cases better pictures than I ever did with film. The cameras are so advanced now, my Nikon D300 and D200 give me results I could only dream about with film cameras, don't get me wrong, I still prefer the quality of Velvia 50 for landscapes, but for wildlife the D300 is in a different league. I'm easily able to use it at 800 ASA with no apparent loss of detail or sharpness, I sometimes have difficulty in telling the differnce between shots taken at 200 ASA and 800 ASA. The metering and autofocus is superb, it's so accurate and fast, if there's anything better then I don't know how you can tell. None of my film cameras, including Nikon FM2n, F90X, F100 etc were even close, they were very good but have been left behind trailing in the dust, I still have several of them but they very rarely see the light of day now. I used to wait for sometimes up to 3 weeks for Mr Kodac or Mr Fuji to get his finger out and send me my developed colour slides, usually by that time if you needed to reshoot a natural history subject it was too late. Not so with digital, I can assess what the image will look like on the camera viewing screen, take the shot, assess it again on the viewing screen and if necessary make any adjustments to composition, focussing, aperture ect. I can insert the compact flash card into the card reader on my computer, download the days images, assess them on my large computer screen and render the best RAW files into TIFFS for working on in Photoshop at my leisure. Compare that to film, after waiting an eternity for my slides to drop through the letter box, I assess the slides, pick out the best ones on the light box using an 8X loupe, I set up my slide scanner, scan in the best slides to the computer, (takes ages). Now we are at the point where film becomes digital!

nirofo.

Last edited by nirofo; 24-06-10 at 17:17.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24-06-10, 17:24
yelvertoft's Avatar
yelvertoft yelvertoft is offline  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Essex, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 8,486
Default

Alex, there's absolutely nothing to stop you taking the time and effort you do with your film camera, whilst holding hte dSLR in your hands. The difference isn't with the tool, it's with the user.

As you've learned, taking sloppy shots and not thinking will give poor results. This applies regardless of the sensor/film technology in use.

As for being lazy and using the zoom instead of moving your feet, just try this:
Take a picture of a willing person or other object with the zoom at a medium setting.
Adjust the zoom to its max telephoto and move to recompose so the person/object is the same size in the frame.
Adjust the zoom to its widest angle and move to recompose the person/obbject so it is the same size in the frame.
Examine all three images. There is a world of difference between them, yet the main subject is the same size in each of the images.
What you need ot learn is that framing with the zoom and framing by moving your feet are two completely different techniques. Learn to use them both properly and you'll be a better photographer for it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25-06-10, 11:21
surfg1mp's Avatar
surfg1mp surfg1mp is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Abingdon, Oxford, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 1,782
Default

Excellent thread.....really enjoyed reading this.

I have no experience of using film whatsoever so can't comment on that. I do however use a dslr.

I cant remember the last time I used the auto feature. I will sometimes use the Pray mode if time is an issue.

Theres no reason like duncan said that you cant use the dslr like the film version. I always try to consider what im doing now before i press the shutter release button. Gone are the times when i would as you say machine gun off shots at almost anthing. My throw away rate is still pretty high but its starting to level out as I have started to think about what im doing.

Thats interesting what you say about the zoom duncan. And totally true, two different things.

These two images were taken at max zoom and min zoom, subject same size in frame.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DSC_0021 [800x600].jpg (95.0 KB, 24 views)
File Type: jpg DSC_0022 [800x600].jpg (95.1 KB, 24 views)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25-06-10, 11:56
yelvertoft's Avatar
yelvertoft yelvertoft is offline  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Essex, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 8,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfg1mp View Post
subject same size in frame.
...... ish

Nice demonstration of what I was trying to explain Lee. Good to see people learning.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25-06-10, 12:24
Alex1994's Avatar
Alex1994 Alex1994 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 806
Default

Thank you for your interesting responses.

I totally agree that I could and should apply the same meticulous attention to detail that I apply while looking through the viewfinder of my OM-1 to digital image capture. It will take quite some self-discipline but I like a challenge ;-)

If anything my foray into digital has, while revealing what excellent colour images it produces, intensified my interest for black & white film. While entering a sort of mono phase, I now have a new interest in the unique look and texture of mono films. Film and digital are clearly very different media that complement each other; I'm off to buy a developing tank and some D-76 ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26-06-10, 10:02
Gidders's Avatar
Gidders Gidders is offline  
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 2,795
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex1994 View Post
.....I learned all about aperture, depth of field, exposure, shutter speed, focus, ISO, zone system on a 35mm film SLR with negative film. ....
So Did I Alex, and I agree that those cameras taught you/me/us in a way that the modern dSLR does not... However I believe that was NOT because they were film cameras ... but because they were manual cameras. My first 35mm SLR was manual focus and manual exposure control - no auto or semi auto mode. The only help you got was split screen focusing & match needle metering. Film & processing were both expensive (to me anyway) so this all forced you to think about what you were doing - choose your shutter speed & aperture, think about you composition etc in a way that that a dSLR doesn't. That said my keep rate was still only 3~5/roll ... but again I agree still better that I achieve now.

However your post has made me think .... how about this for an idea ... go out with the camera set on manual exposure and take just one 256 memory card and see what you came back with.

BTW if your interest is B&W I can strongly recommend Silver Efex Pro which can simulate all your B&W film styles, paper types and toning techniques from your digital files . Not cheep but they offer a 15 day trial
__________________
Clive
http://www.alteredimages.uk.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26-06-10, 11:47
surfg1mp's Avatar
surfg1mp surfg1mp is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Abingdon, Oxford, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 1,782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gidders View Post
So Did I Alex, and I agree that those cameras taught you/me/us in a way that the modern dSLR does not... However I believe that was NOT because they were film cameras ... but because they were manual cameras. My first 35mm SLR was manual focus and manual exposure control - no auto or semi auto mode. The only help you got was split screen focusing & match needle metering. Film & processing were both expensive (to me anyway) so this all forced you to think about what you were doing - choose your shutter speed & aperture, think about you composition etc in a way that that a dSLR doesn't. That said my keep rate was still only 3~5/roll ... but again I agree still better that I achieve now.

However your post has made me think .... how about this for an idea ... go out with the camera set on manual exposure and take just one 256 memory card and see what you came back with.

BTW if your interest is B&W I can strongly recommend Silver Efex Pro which can simulate all your B&W film styles, paper types and toning techniques from your digital files . Not cheep but they offer a 15 day trial
Thats a really interesting idea and one i may try if only i had a 256 card or you could still even get hold of one of those...lol.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26-06-10, 12:08
Alex1994's Avatar
Alex1994 Alex1994 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gidders View Post
So Did I Alex, and I agree that those cameras taught you/me/us in a way that the modern dSLR does not... However I believe that was NOT because they were film cameras ... but because they were manual cameras. My first 35mm SLR was manual focus and manual exposure control - no auto or semi auto mode. The only help you got was split screen focusing & match needle metering. Film & processing were both expensive (to me anyway) so this all forced you to think about what you were doing - choose your shutter speed & aperture, think about you composition etc in a way that that a dSLR doesn't. That said my keep rate was still only 3~5/roll ... but again I agree still better that I achieve now.

However your post has made me think .... how about this for an idea ... go out with the camera set on manual exposure and take just one 256 memory card and see what you came back with.

BTW if your interest is B&W I can strongly recommend Silver Efex Pro which can simulate all your B&W film styles, paper types and toning techniques from your digital files . Not cheep but they offer a 15 day trial
As you say the fact the camera is manual is the primary driving factor behind the extra care taken. However the fact it is film and the number of photos is limited (and that they cost money) also encourages me to think carefully about each frame. The difference is a bit like the difference between having a 4-hour long dinner at a fancy restaurant and dropping in for a burger at McDonalds.

Much as I believe Silver Efex Pro is a good piece of software I think the real deal is simply more convincing. Not to mention that 200 dollars buys me A LOT of film and chemicals... B&W developing is really cheap these days and a decent scanner can be had for 80 quid - all the convenience of digital with the experience and look of film!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 26-06-10, 15:40
nirofo's Avatar
nirofo nirofo is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Scotland
Posts: 798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gidders View Post
So Did I Alex, and I agree that those cameras taught you/me/us in a way that the modern dSLR does not... However I believe that was NOT because they were film cameras ... but because they were manual cameras. My first 35mm SLR was manual focus and manual exposure control - no auto or semi auto mode. The only help you got was split screen focusing & match needle metering. Film & processing were both expensive (to me anyway) so this all forced you to think about what you were doing - choose your shutter speed & aperture, think about you composition etc in a way that that a dSLR doesn't. That said my keep rate was still only 3~5/roll ... but again I agree still better that I achieve now.

However your post has made me think .... how about this for an idea ... go out with the camera set on manual exposure and take just one 256 memory card and see what you came back with.

BTW if your interest is B&W I can strongly recommend Silver Efex Pro which can simulate all your B&W film styles, paper types and toning techniques from your digital files . Not cheep but they offer a 15 day trial
Hi Gidders

It sounds to me like you are suffering from the same problem that alex has, you are treating your DSLR as a point and shoot camera and not respecting the potential quality you have in your hands. Nearly all modern DSLR cameras are more than capable of producing images that can easily exceed the quality you can get from film, but, there is a proviso, that is you will only obtain the quality results if you forget about point and shoot and treat your DSLR with the respect it deserves. Use a tripod whenever possible, check the focus is actually where you want it to be, many modern focussing systems are so fast that the camera can refocus where it thinks the focus point should be without you even realising it has done so, leaving your photo out of focus on the point intended. Don't leave the camera on program, use aperture and shutter priority, check the metering and adjust the aperture/speed to that which gives the result you want, not the cameras version, although in many cases it will be the same. Modern zooms are marvels, but you don't have to use the one that came with the camera, there are thousands of older manual lenses that can be had very cheaply on places like ebay, many can work very well on a DSLR, sometimes an adapter may be necessary. Obviously you may have to focus and set the aperture by hand, but the results can be stunning, I use several manual lenses on my Nikon DSLR's, a Tamron 90mm Macro, it's superb for flowers and insects, a very old Nikon 200mm Macro, once again it's superb, great for butterflies etc. I don't find the lack of autofocus a problem with these lenses, the type of close up photography I do doesn't call for it. Same can be said for landscapes, I have an old Tokina 17mm manual lens in excellent condition which I picked up on ebay for less than £30, it's approx a 25.5mm lens on my Nikons, excellent for landscapes and superb definition and contrast. A comparable Nikon 24mm costs about £300. Modern DSLR's are now so good just about anybody can go out and obtain photos that are to most people acceptable, not good enough for a photography enthusiast or serious amateur, easy to fall into the trap, not easy to get out of! Next time you go out take your tripod, force yourself to look for an image that requires some effort from you to obtain a good result, don't just aim the camera, don't just zoom into approx the right frame size, don't let the camera decide where it wants to focus, remember hyperfocal distance? Don't let the camera decide what apperture and shutter speed to use choose your own to give the depth of field you require, set the camera manually to the lowest possible ASA setting available for the subject in hand. If you've got one use a cable release, if you haven't got one go out and buy one immediately, they can be had on ebay from about £5. Treat your DSLR as if it were an old manual film camera where you had to do everthing yourself.

nirofo.

Last edited by nirofo; 26-06-10 at 15:46.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:56.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.