FI Flyer

Am I the only one who grew up shooting (and processing) B&W?

Whenever I see vintage B&W films, I am always semi-consciously trying to guess the color of the filter that was used. My favorites were medium yellow and green but red made for amazing landscapes.

With color, all there were were the color correction filters with odd numbers and, of course, polarizers which had their own quirks.

Coochas

I was thinking the same when I read this thread. In our house we all shot and developed our own B&W growing up. In prep school, most of us took the art class that taught the basics of photography and processing. I remember it being very rewarding.

Then again, now I fire away with digital impunity and keep the shots that look best!

Edgy01

Having been a self-taught photographer (Dektol and D76 were my usuals for paper and film) I still maintain a full darkroom in the house with a Leitz Focomat Ic and Leitz Focomat V35 enlarger.

Tcc1999

No. I don't so much wonder about the filters as the ISO, Aperture and shutter speed (although you make a good point that filters also play a big part).

There's a reason why I think the most striking photographs (in the past and now) are in B/W and on Film. Digital, in all it's color glory, still doesn't match the ability of B/W film to capture the thousands of shades of gray between white and black. Sorry for being retro but I miss the ubiquity of Tri-X and my darkroom.

csorrows

Hey Dan,

Question for you, since you're experienced with Nikon gear...

Way back in 1992, I visited Yellowstone National Park, which prompted not only my move to Colorado to be in the mountains, but I also got a Nikon N90 (which I still own) and got "into" photography. I use that term loosely, because at best I was an advanced amateur, nothing more than that.

But I did love it. I'd go to Yellowstone, and other places, and carry my tripod and many rolls of slide film (mostly Fuji Velvia 100). And, I was quite ruthless on the culling of bad shots when I got home. I bet out of every 36 shot roll, I only kept 1 slide.

Then, I dropped out of it for years. But having moved to Northern California, where there are lots of things to shoot, I've been thinking about getting back into it, now the digital makes things so much more convenient.

I've been looking at the D700, because if I get back into it, I really want a full-frame DSLR. Was curious if you owned that one, or had any experience with it? There are tons of articles out there I've read, but was curious what your impression was, if you'd used that model before? Anybody else, please do chime in as well if you're familiar with the D700. Oh, and I should mention that I've always been a Nikon fanboy. Canon, etc, are nice, but I'm just one of those "Nikon" guys, so while opinions on other brands are welcome, I'll only be buying Nikon

Thanks!

1BlinkGone

One limitation that digital photography struggles with, just as well as with digital audio, is overall Dynamic Range. I don't think they will ever find parity between the two mediums. Whomever comes up with convenience of digital and the depth and D.R. of film will truly have hit the ball out of the park.

Right now, your best bet is to shoot film and then scan it, if you still want to work in the digital realm. I too love the convenience of digital, and it IS maturing. I hear the new Nikon D7000 is fantastic, is at a level that might even make the FX fomat moot. That's impressive.

On another note, the fact that many pro photogs who are contracted with Canon, who shoot Nikon privately, speaks volumes. Not that Canon is bad. Truthfully, they are all just machines. By and large it's the person pressing the shutter release that makes the biggest difference.

Edgy01

The D700 is a very fine camera--the sensor is essentially the same as that in the D3. It's just a more compact camera--lacks the 9 fps motor drive which few really use. The full sized DSLRs from Nikon are really big. The D700 is more like a regular camera. I recommended one to a friend (on Rennlist) and he's very happy with it. Having some 40-50 Nikkor lenses of all vintages, I have been with Nikon since 1970, and can use many of my really old Nikkors on the D3 or my D2X.

mb1

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. I suspect that 99.9% of individuals couldn't tell the difference between a photograph taken with film and developed in a dark room from one taken with a good DSLR and manipulated with Photoshop. The .1% of people who could tell the difference apparently didn't think it was important enough or so much better than digital that they were willing to speak with their pocketbooks. In addition, that same .1% would also probably quickly move on to an assessment of the composition of the photo and not dwell on how it was acquired.

To glorify the benefits of a darkroom and not marvel at the incredible sophistication of some of the advanced PS products is shortsighted, at best, IMHO. The vast majority of features performed in a dark room have been reproduced in one way or another digitally. The digitalist could argue that "old timers" are lazy and haven't put in the time and effort to learn how to digitally manipulate a photo. That "old timers" just don't understand how rewarding it can be to become proficient and masterful at a digital form of art. Who's to say which skill is any better, more artistic or purer than the other. (sounds like the water-cooled vs. air-cooled argument)

In the end, it really just boils down to the skill of the photographer, not the equipment. The following excerpt is taken from an interview with Steve McCurry, a famous National Geographic photographer, whose most famous work is the "Afgan Girl".


CNNGo: Digital technology -- Bane or boon for you?

Steve McCurry: Oh, digital has definitely changed the way I work and photograph. I shoot almost completely digital now. The good thing about digital is that you can review your shot on the spot, upload it and email to anyone across the world in a few seconds -- in fact, I just sent someone some images a few minutes ago. Digital is also great for low light situations, and it’s something you can’t match with film. However, it’s still the skill and eye for composition that still remains the same. It’s not about your camera but how you use it and deal with your surrounding. Digital has also been great for printing as well. It used to be a long, tedious process to get your film developed and printed, but now it can be done at home with a lot more control.



Read more: Steve McCurry | CNNGo.com http://www.cnngo.com/singapore/none/...#ixzz1A1FvMtYw

1BlinkGone

Yep. Digital is quite formidable today. Few print media sources (ie magazines) refuse digital photos anymore. I think Arizona Highways is one that still demands film.

Edgy01

The reasons I like digital over film is (1) white balance is simple--no need for 85A or 85B filters, etc.; (2) you can adjust the sensitivity of the media quickly to suit the subject's lighting conditions; (3) you can send the file anywhere there's a computer in near real time.

I used to pride myself on being able to shoot a night football game, rush home, develop the negatives (dry them in the microwave oven!) and then print a contact sheet all before going to bed--and then drag them in the next day for the photoeditor to make his choices.

I'm pretty good with PhotoShop but probably only know about 15% of its potential!

csorrows

Nope, Arizona Highways now accepts digital submissions. Of course, their standards are very high (as they are with film):

http://www.arizonahighways.com/stati...?contentID=775

I think they were one of the last film holdouts. But even they had to adjust to the winds of change, which are shifting enormously every year toward digital.

I liken the comparison of digital vs film as being similar to people comparing cheap cameras and glass to expensive cameras and glass...a great photographer could take a stunning shot with the former, while a hack couldn't take a good one with the latter.

Whether a camera is film or digital is just another facet of the equipment. To me, it doesn't have so much to do with the quality of photographs somebody can turn out, because that's up to their skill in composition and technique, not how the camera captures an image. Rather, digital is an enabling technology. Meaning, it enables somebody to perhaps learn faster, review their results faster, learn from their mistakes faster, and take chances.

For example, when I used to take my N90 to Yellowstone, I'd carry plenty of rolls of film. But even then, I still had to be careful of how many shots I took. I remember plenty of times when I wanted to bracket a shot to ensure I got "the right one" but I simply couldn't afford to take 3 or more shots per scene. If I get a digital SLR, I can afford to be more creative and take more shots and see what worked best. All those times I thought, "I wonder how this would turn out if I did this?" but didn't because of the limitations of film, number of shots on a roll, changing rolls, missed opportunities, etc, I could perform with digital and see what happens.

There's a part of me that thinks that's almost "cheating." That photography somehow is more meaningful when you only have that one chance to take a special shot and that if you blow it, then tough. But then I think...if I have the ability to be adventurous, and experiment more, I get to take more chances and learn from them, thereby increasing the chances of taking a good shot and becoming a better photographer. And not because the camera was digital, but because digital simply enabled me to be more adventurous and creative.

Oh well, I've rambled enough. I'm looking forward to getting back into this hobby again. I've been away far too long.

alexb76

So, how do the prints look/compare to Digital SLR prints?

FI Flyer

On more thing that I miss: The film cans.

They were incredibly useful for all sorts of non-photographic purposes. I suspect that someone will start making and selling them sans film. And I suspect that I might buy a few.

simsgw

I'll bet some of them are amazed to learn that it works at all. Like simplifying computing by teaching kids Babbage's difference engine or a Turing machine. Sometimes the simplicity to us is just inexplicable to a younker. "What? No chips at all!?"

Gary

jakes dad

If you are not familiar with Ken Rockwell then look up his website ... Amazing fountain of information regarding photography,,,,,