I am loving digital photography but there are some things about film that are still superior like Dark rides and night photography IMHO. Digital is getting better and better and hopefully it won't be long until it's low light gets equal with film. With film I could shoot 400 ASA film and shoot at 1.4f and 60 and get great results. Also when I sold cameras in the 80's it was common for the cameras to include a prime lens. "Kits" were available but not as common. Good prime lenses seem to be more costly now even accounting for inflation, real dollars, etc. And.... ; I miss the hours with smelly chemicals in the dark room! ; ;D 8)
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. ; I don't think that unless you're referring to pushing 400 speed film that you can obtain the same results like you can in near dark conditions with the current high ISO cameras. ; I think the opposite is true - it's the large EV scenes (daylight, well lit) with larger dynamic ranges that film still reigns supreme on. But I do agree with you on the primes issue. ; But I know the major manufacturers have been trying to revamp their lines for digital since digital shows every lens flaw when film was more forgiving, and people didn't look for corner sharpness in every image before digital. ; And unfortunately people have moved away from primes so they don't sell as much anymore. ; Which is why Nikon d/c their 28/1.4.
We can agree to disagree. I have shots from DL in the 70's and 80's first with my Minolta XG-7 and later with my Olympus OM-1 & OM-2 (which I still own) with Ektachrome 400 I have not been able to match with digital. ; I do find digital unbelievably fantastic at twilight in a way I have not seen with film! Kodachrome 25 was my favorite film but not appropriate for dark rides. There was a time in high school and after when I shot every day I could estimate aperture and shutter speed for all levels of film without a meter. It used to drive my photography teachers nuts. Same with in the darkroom. They would run test strips and I could make the print in one exposure. Man I miss those days. I've been digital for 4 years now with a Canon 10D as my fist digital SLR and I still have not reach my level of comfort I was at with film. I never took a meter reading on dark rides of concerts. I have not been to the parks with the new 5D Mark II yet but I am excited to do so. Though I use a zoom as my primary general purpose lens I have always preferred and most likely will always prefer fixed a fix lens. My 70-200 L lens I purchased recently has been extremely sharp and I was impressed with the L lens but they are costly. I have read a few reviews of one or two Sigma lens that rate at the same level as the L, but I have not tried them yet.
Perhaps the disagreement stems from difference in cameras that the two of you have been primarily using? ; The high ISO capabilities of cameras have really exploded in the last couple of years, with the 5DmkII being near the top of the game as far as such capabilities. ; In contrast, the 10D's high ISO capabilities were relatively weak. ; I would be curious as to whether your opinion will change once you get a chance to try the 5DmkII on dark rides. I never got heavily into photography with film, so my only opinion is formed on the basis of what I've read online and in seeing comparison shots, but no film camera could achieve similar results in a dark ride to what the D700 and 5DmkII can achieve at ISO 6400 and above.
That's what I'm thinking, Figment. ; My experience was with a 1977 Pentax ME Super, followed by an early 90's Canon EOS. ; While I got decent enough results with dark photos using 400-speed film, I didn't develope myself so I'm quite sure the lab processing the photos made some attempt at recovery as well on my shots. ; Also, I typically was viewing my photos at the standard print sizes of 4x6 or so...rarely was I blowing one up larger. ; Even at that smaller size, there was still grain visible in ISO400 shots, but it wasn't destructive to details. ; However, when we judge a DSLR's performance, we are often looking at a 100% viewable photo on a 17" or larger LCD screen with 1280 or more pixel resolution. ; Which means we are essentially looking at the equivalent of a 3-foot by 5-foot print. What I've found is that with DSLRs, 'noise' issues which many complain about even on the entry-level cameras are often blown out of proportion - and if most people were to make an 8x10 print from an unretouched digital photo with a typical crop-sensor entry-level DSLR at ISO800, they wouldn't see the grain in the shot. ; Even at ISO1600, what minor grain would appear would not be destructive to detail, and at least to my eye, would be significantly better than anything one could expect with ISO1600 film. ; And that's with an entry level. ; I would think that comparing the new crop of pro model DSLRs that can outperform the noise performance of their entry-level brothers, the noise signature and detail would be far cleaner than any film equivalent at any ISO. Lens is obviously a huge factor - comparing like-for-like prime lenses would be a must to have the comparison be fair. ; Also, it would be most appropriate to compare processed RAW results from a DSLR to self-processed film - since JPEG is essentially the digital equivalent to one-hour film labs. ; RAW files, worked in post processing, would be a fair comparison to someone with their own darkroom, pushing and pulling film for the best results. I would love to see ISO1600 film pushed 2 stops compared to a 5DmkII at ISO6400 processed in RAW with a good noise reduction software and RAW converter...both printed at 16" x 24" or so...I would put my money on the DSLR to be the cleaner result. But like WDWFigment, my film experience was more as a P&Ser with my old manual SLR...I never had much skill or knowledge with cameras in those days, and never developed my own film.
It will be interesting to see how the Mark II preforms in low light. In film, "black is black", in digital, black seems to be noise and not wholly black. It's almost like the sensor is try to hard. Sometimes back needs to be black. I don't think digital noise can be overstated. It is a distraction with digital. I think people are expecting more out of digital and do complain about noise a lot and are justified at times. I used to complain about film grain though at times it could be use to effect a mood or feel in a photograph. It's taken a while for digital to meet the resolution of film (some say 10-16 mega pixel was was the target to match 35mm film) and now if can it can add some of the better qualities of film it is moving in the right direction. Sometimes digital is to clean, and not "gritty" enough. Something akin to listening to recordings that were made to be played on vinyl yet listened too on CD. There is something "lost in translation". I would not expect the 20 and 30 crowd to understand, but us older ones might get the comparison. I will let you know what I think after I get to DL this week. I hope I am wrong and digital has finally satisfied one of my last issues with it. The one thing I really notice today is playing field is not level. In the film days, the bodies varied. Some were manufactured to higher levels of quality or had different levels of user functions. BUT..... If you had the same film and same quality lens and took a picture with the same settings and light conditions it did not matter if you owned a Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, etc etc etc. you could obtain the same results. But with digital the entry level Nikon or Canon cannot take the same shot as the higher levels under harsher conditions. The average point your camera at the Castle in daylight might be very similar, but the more challenging night shots or low light shots are tougher to match. Its a much different playing filed today when it's about the sensor and the not the film.
I finally got over to Disneyland with my new Canon 5D MII. I must say the new sensor is pretty nice. The results in low light is good. The reduced noise at higher ISO is also better. I might still debate the differences and pros and cons of film vs. digital, but I must say digital is getting better. The back is better and less noise is present. Sometimes I think the sensor just tries to record info where it's not necessary. I want back as black, not noise with a little bit of color here and there and the new Mark II is so close I most likely will be satisfied.
I hear you with that, Greg. sometimes I have similar issues with noise, such as the haunted mansion. the nice part is that as you become more skilled with post processing, some of these issues can be minimized to where they become mostly irrelavent. I can honestly say that I don't think I know how to put film in a camera... ; I know I sure couldn't load a medium format back when I first started with weddings. ;
That's sad Tim. I can still load a camera with my eyes closed. ; A lost art I guess. I used to be able to get at least 38 shots on a 36 shot film canister. It's all in the load. I can still load film magazines too. Buy bulk was great and saved a lot of money.
I don't know that I'd really consider it sad or a lost art, but rather, an obsolete technology. ; I don't remember how to tune a VCR, but I doubt many people would think anything of that. ; I understand that people feel a personal connection to film and darkrooms because they so closely worked with them in the past, but the times have changed. ; When Kodak announces they are doing away with Kodachrome, I need that sort of sounds the death knell for the film days. ; I can understand it being sad for those who were so personally invested in film-based photography and have many great memories of it.
Oh it is a lost art and I do mean art. As the technology becomes easier to obtain and people get decent results, the "art" is lost. Even as computer technology has improved my field of Architecture, the "Art" of hand drawn drawings is becoming a thing of the past. The same can be said for film photography. Take HDR photography. A great effect. But with the ease of it also comes the over saturation of it. I see so many posted photos on Flickr with HDR by some I am almost turned of by it. I learned photography the manual way. ; Many today do not even know what a f stop or shutter speed is or how to use it though they own digital slr's. I find that sad.
i agree also. ; i never shot film so i cannot relate there, but there is something to be said for knowing what you want to do with your camera and making it do just that, instead of relying on spray and pray ...
There will always be people (the majority of people) who take the easy way out--those who point their camera at fireworks in auto mode with their flashes on and wonder why their shots don't turn out--whether technology is there to act as their crutch or not. ; Technology is not a substitute for human intellect, and I doubt that in either architecture or photography some hack with the best technology could replicate the quality of a skilled individual with the worst technology's work. ; It's not as if technology comes along and acts as a substitute for hard work or the creative mind. ; I could never think up some of the things Scott Kelby teaches in Photoshop. Where one "art" is lost, another is gained. On the other hand, I agree with the HDR comment. ; I hate Topaz adjust for this reason. ; Even worse, since so many "Disney Photography" fans are minivan moms with P&S cameras, people seem to be unduly impressed by HDR or Topaz shots that really aren't that impressive.
The artistic "flare" is gone in a lot photography and architectural art. Just look at Flickr and the comments. Badly composed shots get praises because in full auto or with a p&S they got a good exposure and ppl go crazy. ;
Is that really a change in photography, or is that merely because changes in communication technology? ; A lot of people without experience in photography don't understand composition or technical concepts. ; Always have, always will. ; In the past they may have kept their comments to themselves, but now they can more easily communicate their opinions online. ; I don't see how the communication of uninformed or uneducated individuals somehow cheapens photography as an art. ; I've seen crumby pictures my parents took 'back in the day' with film based SLRs, so I hardly believe that "bad pictures" are an advent of the digital era. ; Rather, now people have the means of disseminating said bad images. ; Since film is no longer dominant or even prominent, the images are de facto taken with digital cameras. ; There's a correlation, but that by no reason means that there's causation. Moreover, with Disney photography, as I stated in the above post, you get a mix of people who actually know about photography, and those who are just Disney fans. ; Those comments from the latter group are, no surprise, uninformed. ; ; Additionally, there seems to be a lot of "comment trading" on Flickr, and I don't think people are too willing to offer unsolicited constructive criticism, so when in doubt, they err on the side of comments like "nice shot" (this is by no means a shot at the Flickr community, in which I am an active member, as I think that Flickr is a great tool for improving one's photography). ; I'm sure those same people used to tell their friends "nice shot" when they showed them blurry film based SLR photos of fireworks with brightly lit foregrounds.
I think the biggest change is that people can take more photos without consequences. ; Like I mentioned previously on another topic a while back, I think at the most I once shot 20+ rolls of film in one day at the parks. ; With digital it's a lot easier to shoot and delete later, while with film, you had to stop and think in order to not mess up - which was more important with slides.
