I don't know how new or groundbreaking photoblogs are for readers, but as a working professional photographer I find mine to be a valuable venue to try out experiments, or show personal work (in my case, really personal work), or just air pieces that I've done that clients might be too timid to publish. I think, just as "normal" blogs, they're probably an intermediate evolution in the publishing paradigm, a transition from editor-mediated publishing to a direct creator-consumer relationship. At the very least they represent a handy way to share my artist's sketchbook with readers who want something a little more "raw" and direct.
You can check mine out at
dailysiege.com. Sorry, standard warnings: free reg. req., try bugmenot.com, and most definitely not safe for work, or for kiddies.
I can walk into a gallery and 99% of the time I can spot which are digital and which aren't...
It's funny, I hear this all the time. Actually, it was just such a situation that finally made me switch from film to digital for the preponderance of my work. I had a gallery exhibition of large prints made primarily from my drum-scanned 6x7 transparencies. These prints were 4x6 feet. I mixed in a few images, of exactly the same subject matter and lighting, but that had been shot originally with a Nikon D1x (not a huge capture by any standards)
As an experiment, I asked everyone if they could spot the digital captures. No one could with any consistency (they basically were just guessing.) Even my service bureau couldn't pick them out, and they had printed both!
It was then that I realized that digital had passed the "good enough" test. Not perfect, but "good enough". I'm sure it's just a question of time till it passes your "good enough" test too.
Of course they said the same thing about painting when photography made it's debut.
Actually, I think a better comparison would be the transition from Victorian era plate processes to modern cut film techniques. We're not dealing with a new art form here, merely the next generation of the same art form. Dedicated artists, archivists, and craftspeople will still use the old materials, be it for artistic effect, or nostalgia. Just as you can still find artists using cyanotypes, and, in your case, platinum. But the vast majority of artists will transition to the new materials, and the art will evolve (as it is).
I think we're on total agreement on the philosophical aspects here. That every job has a tool, and that those tools should only be judged based on real-world qualitative criteria, not lab and manufacturer specs. My real world experience has shown that compared to analog capture, digital quality behaves as if it were one format better than it is. In other words: APS digital=35mm film, 35mm digital=medium format film, and medium format digital=4x5 film.
As prices continue to come down, even for small volume and boutique operations, even large-format art photographers like yourself will make the switch, for qualitative reasons. I can see in your work (which is beautiful by the way) that it would be great to be able to capture digital, retouch, and output back to 11x14 neg for platinum printing, removing the loss of quality and waste of time associated with the film/scan/film dance you need to do now.
Off topic, have you done any experimenting with digital infrared?
Yes, if you want to make an 8x10 foot print, to be viewed from one foot away, then large format (at least 8x10 inch), low-ISO film is the way to go, I'll grant you that.
But, really, for every current film format, and for the vast majority of actual working applications, there is a digital solution that blows film away. In fact, the rule of thumb that is quickly emerging amongst working pros is that for a given format, high-end digital capture equals the quality of film in the next format up. So: half-frame 35mm=35mm film, full-frame 35mm= medium format film, and medium format digital= large format film.
This is not theory, it's practice, by people who pay their rent based on knowledge of their tools, like me. We can sit here and argue useless, geeked-out factoids like line-pair resolution (the photo world equivalent of the mhz myth), but at the end of the day the only factor that matters is how the final image looks to the majority of people who are seeing it. And digital kicks film ass here.
Don't even get me started on workflow and cost savings!
I would urge you to put down the calculator, pick up a camera, and shoot some test images side by side. Don't take my word for it. Don't waste your time theorizing about resolution limts and color depth of analog vs. digital, because nobody who matters cares about this crap. Just make some images using the best film capture tools, and the best digital capture tools, and see for yourself, the way pros do.
If you can't afford to, financially or intellectually, please excuse yourself from the debate, because you'll just be blowing hot air.
Wrong. So wrong. Nice imposing numbers and stats, though.
In the real world, on print, where it matters to 99.9% of all users, high-end digital capture equals or exceeds film capture. My images run full-bleed across large-format layouts in W Magazine, Vogue, and you can't see the difference between the shots I used to take on my RZ67 and the ones I now take on my 1Ds. That's all that matters. You will never meet an editor who asks you what kind of line-pair resolution you can provide.
Could I get a theoretically sharper result with large format and film? Who cares? I've got a job to do, and digital does it better than film did. It's only about where the rubber meets the road.
As a professional photographer who has switched over entirely from medium format film (6x7cm) to shooting with the 1Ds full-frame digital, I can say confidently that in the real world, the image quality is already here. While the frame size may be smaller physically than the medium format film, the noise is much much lower, which leads to a higher apparent visual quality.
The only question remaining isn't when digital will reach film quality (it's already exceeded it), but when the new breed of medium format digital backs reach the quality/price/speed ratio of the 1Ds. Then the competition between medium format and 35mm will have some new relevance.
But make no mistake, in every way, for most applications, film is dead.
I started out in photography with all-manual cameras, mainly old Nikons (F3, FM2) and then medium-format RZ67 when I started shooting pro. I think in many ways it's very valuable to learn on "old-school" manual/mechanical cameras. But the advantages to learning with a digital camera far outway the minor advantages adhering to a strictly old-school analog rig would give you.
Newbies today, with access to instant review, live histograms, and no film/processing costs or lag time, can learn much faster and less painfully (expensively) than they ever could have dreamed of previously. This is a good thing. As long as they apply themselves, and learn from the info they now have at hand as they shoot, they can polish their technique without many thousands of dollars in wasted effort.
As for your declaration of camera "must's":
Full 35mm sensor
Already here. Canon 1Ds, not the only full-frame sensor, but the best. Better than the film it replaces on many levels.
No built in flash. Face it, if you need a flash, you're going to need a REAL flash, not some cheapo flashlight built into the camera.
Wrong. A built-in flash is something I'd love to have on my 1Ds, even when shooting professional gigs. I have the 550EX big gun, and it's great. But often if I'm shooting in a casual setting, or in quick-and-dirty reportage style, the 550EX is overkill. I just want a little fill or catchlight for the eyes. Using a "real" flash just for that is like driving nails with a sledgehammer.
Traditional SLR feel. I need the shutter time on the top right of the camera on a dedicated knob. No multi-purpose jog wheel, a traditional knob with full stops. 60, 125, 250, no fraction-of-a-stop BS.
Traditional feel is great, but no need for old-school knobs. I want a design that allows me to make my exposure changes without taking my eyes off the viewfinder and my hand off the shooting position. The current (as of about 1995) paradigm for pro-SLR's is designed for that. I can adjust my aperture and shutter speed using either my index finger and/or thumb, and never take my eyes far off from my subject. The partial-stop exposure adjustments are also welcome, as most of the time in life my subjects aren't courteous enough to confine their brightness range to tidy single-stop increments.
No LCD display...
Complaining about an LCD is about the same as complaining about having a back window in your car. Sure, it makes the car more expensive, and can be distracting, but it sure f*cking beats the alternative. When the shit hits the fan and you need to get the shot, why wouldn't you want to be able to verify it while you're on set/location, when you can do something about it, instead of when you pick up your clips? And yes, a good photographer should be able to nail a shot without recourse to an LCD. Or Polaroid for that matter. But when you've got a $75,000 shoot, and clients over your shoulder, it's sure nice to show them they don't need to worry
No bells and whistles.
The only bells and whistles on a good pro DSLR, as compared to a good pro film SLR, are the ones related to the digital capture workflow (menus for white balance, sharpening, quality, file format, etc). Set 'em once and forget 'em. And they're all pretty self-explanatory. I do agree that a lot of pro SLR's (digital or otherwise) in the past ten years have gone overboard with custom functions. But again, if you don't need them, you don't have to muck with them. If you do need them, they can be a lifesaver.
So, right now, we're really only left with one advantage to an old-school camera over a full-frame DSLR. Price. And that's big, comparing the $500 to the $7500. But factor in the film/processing savings over the life of the camera (even assuming a life span of ten years for a good mechanical camera and two years for a given digital sensor), and the massive productivity gains you make, and the advantage swings back to digital.
Each frame I shoot on film I
Re:Five facts from a professional photographer
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No, actually, these were Lambda prints for gallery exhibition. And the "shit" evidently did fly, since neither the service bureau that made the Lambdas, nor the gallery curators could eyeball the differences in source between 1Ds digital and 67 chrome drum-scanned.
You can use 45 as a "bare minimum" if you like, but you're simply wasting resolution, unless you happen to be shooting Ansel-Adamsy forest pictures for a 10 foot print to be viewed 3 feet away.
My clients are primarily glossy fashion magazines, where detail and color accuracy in both fashion and beauty shots is vital. I used to shoot chrome or pro color neg, mostly 67 or 45. I now shoot digital, mostly 1Ds, sometimes Leaf. My images often run across a two-page spread, as big as 16x20. I'm still getting hired, so I can only assume that means digital is finally "here".
As for digital sensors and dynamic range, you must not have much experience with actual pro digital gear. High-end digital capture has as much dynamic range as traditional analog capture. And both have more dynamic range than any reflective print can display. So, since 99% of all images are intended for print, that extra dynamic range is just wasted, or used as a cushion for artistic changes.
And I don't take wedding photos either. Check out my site. The content was shot on everything from a point'n'shoot T4 to 67 chrome to 45 color neg, to 22mp digital capture. Each tool has a job, and increasingly, film's job is to waste money.
Five facts from a professional photographer
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 5, Informative
OK, some basics about (digital) photography from a working professional photographer (not advanced amateur, not EX-professional, not wannabe professional, but a real-life I-pay-all-my-bills-by-taking-pictures professional)
1. Image quality will be determined by the combination of how many pixels you capture (megapixel count/resolution) and the size of those pixels (sensor size/photosite size), with the weight of the influence going to the photosite size. Thus, resolution being equal between two cameras, the camera with the larger sensor size will give you higher quality captures.
2. Garbage In, Garbage Out applies to cameras too. This should be obvious. Make sure your lens is able to capture all the data you want to feed to your sensor. If you have a full-frame, 24x36mm 11mp Canon 1Ds (the current professional favorite, myself included), you are wasting it's resolution by putting a cheap lens on it. I've noticed, in fact, that even the highest-quality lenses tend to be unable to deliver enough detail to this stunning sensor, so a cheapo lens is going to f*ck you.
3. For professional use, film is now dead. Game over. I've done the head-to-head comparisons. I own medium and large-format cameras. I own a high-end drumscanner. I own a large-format printer. I've compared the quality from my previous breadwinning equipment (medium format film scanned by drumscanner) to my current breadwinning equipment (full-frame digital Canon 1Ds) and the digital kicks film ass. That's why it's my current breadwinner.
Seriously, I had 4x6 foot prints made (notice I said FEET, not INCHES) from drum-scanned 6x7cm transparencies, and from 11mp Canon 1Ds captures, and my own lab couldn't tell the difference. Bye-bye film. And the $10,000 price tag was paid for in film/processing savings before I even got the credit card bill. (for more about how cost affects quality, see below, #5)
4. The best camera for you is all about what you intend to do with it. A camera is just a tool. Pick the right one for the job. Because of this, most professionals have, on average, more than 3 different camera systems. So, decide what you want the camera for, and the rest of the decisions about it's suitability get easy.
The most important factor is usually not sheer resolution and image quality. It's about usability of design and ease of handling. If it were all about resolution then most photographers would be using 8x10-inch view cameras. But we realize that a stunning, mega-high-resolution image is useless if the important moment we wanted to capture was missed due to slow camera operation.
That's why most pros use medium format or 35mm, and most ams use point'n'shoots.
So, pick a camera that feels good, is understandable to operate, and doesn't get in your way. After these criteria are satisfied THEN you look at resolution/sensor size.
5. The single most important equation for making better photographs is (forethought x volume of action). In other words, think about what you want to achieve with your images, then shoot as much as you can, and hone your results. This is really where digital capture shifts paradigms. Once you go digital, ANY digital, your visual experiments cost you nothing.
With film, every time you want to try something new, you are still paying for film and processing (even if you own your own darkroom). This means, effectively, that film and processing are an economic tax on your creative growth.
So, as long as you stay focused on what you want to achieve (rather then just shooting because you can), buying ANY decent digital camera will yield you better results then sticking with film, and it's use tax.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how new or groundbreaking photoblogs are for readers, but as a working professional photographer I find mine to be a valuable venue to try out experiments, or show personal work (in my case, really personal work), or just air pieces that I've done that clients might be too timid to publish. I think, just as "normal" blogs, they're probably an intermediate evolution in the publishing paradigm, a transition from editor-mediated publishing to a direct creator-consumer relationship. At the very least they represent a handy way to share my artist's sketchbook with readers who want something a little more "raw" and direct.
You can check mine out at dailysiege.com. Sorry, standard warnings: free reg. req., try bugmenot.com, and most definitely not safe for work, or for kiddies.
I can walk into a gallery and 99% of the time I can spot which are digital and which aren't...
It's funny, I hear this all the time. Actually, it was just such a situation that finally made me switch from film to digital for the preponderance of my work. I had a gallery exhibition of large prints made primarily from my drum-scanned 6x7 transparencies. These prints were 4x6 feet. I mixed in a few images, of exactly the same subject matter and lighting, but that had been shot originally with a Nikon D1x (not a huge capture by any standards)
As an experiment, I asked everyone if they could spot the digital captures. No one could with any consistency (they basically were just guessing.) Even my service bureau couldn't pick them out, and they had printed both!
It was then that I realized that digital had passed the "good enough" test. Not perfect, but "good enough". I'm sure it's just a question of time till it passes your "good enough" test too.
Of course they said the same thing about painting when photography made it's debut.
Actually, I think a better comparison would be the transition from Victorian era plate processes to modern cut film techniques. We're not dealing with a new art form here, merely the next generation of the same art form. Dedicated artists, archivists, and craftspeople will still use the old materials, be it for artistic effect, or nostalgia. Just as you can still find artists using cyanotypes, and, in your case, platinum. But the vast majority of artists will transition to the new materials, and the art will evolve (as it is).
Thanks for the lively discussion!
I think we're on total agreement on the philosophical aspects here. That every job has a tool, and that those tools should only be judged based on real-world qualitative criteria, not lab and manufacturer specs. My real world experience has shown that compared to analog capture, digital quality behaves as if it were one format better than it is. In other words: APS digital=35mm film, 35mm digital=medium format film, and medium format digital=4x5 film.
As prices continue to come down, even for small volume and boutique operations, even large-format art photographers like yourself will make the switch, for qualitative reasons. I can see in your work (which is beautiful by the way) that it would be great to be able to capture digital, retouch, and output back to 11x14 neg for platinum printing, removing the loss of quality and waste of time associated with the film/scan/film dance you need to do now.
Off topic, have you done any experimenting with digital infrared?
Useful.
Yes, if you want to make an 8x10 foot print, to be viewed from one foot away, then large format (at least 8x10 inch), low-ISO film is the way to go, I'll grant you that.
But, really, for every current film format, and for the vast majority of actual working applications, there is a digital solution that blows film away. In fact, the rule of thumb that is quickly emerging amongst working pros is that for a given format, high-end digital capture equals the quality of film in the next format up. So: half-frame 35mm=35mm film, full-frame 35mm= medium format film, and medium format digital= large format film.
This is not theory, it's practice, by people who pay their rent based on knowledge of their tools, like me. We can sit here and argue useless, geeked-out factoids like line-pair resolution (the photo world equivalent of the mhz myth), but at the end of the day the only factor that matters is how the final image looks to the majority of people who are seeing it. And digital kicks film ass here.
Don't even get me started on workflow and cost savings!
I would urge you to put down the calculator, pick up a camera, and shoot some test images side by side. Don't take my word for it. Don't waste your time theorizing about resolution limts and color depth of analog vs. digital, because nobody who matters cares about this crap. Just make some images using the best film capture tools, and the best digital capture tools, and see for yourself, the way pros do.
If you can't afford to, financially or intellectually, please excuse yourself from the debate, because you'll just be blowing hot air.
Wrong. So wrong. Nice imposing numbers and stats, though.
In the real world, on print, where it matters to 99.9% of all users, high-end digital capture equals or exceeds film capture. My images run full-bleed across large-format layouts in W Magazine, Vogue, and you can't see the difference between the shots I used to take on my RZ67 and the ones I now take on my 1Ds. That's all that matters. You will never meet an editor who asks you what kind of line-pair resolution you can provide.
Could I get a theoretically sharper result with large format and film? Who cares? I've got a job to do, and digital does it better than film did. It's only about where the rubber meets the road.
As a professional photographer who has switched over entirely from medium format film (6x7cm) to shooting with the 1Ds full-frame digital, I can say confidently that in the real world, the image quality is already here. While the frame size may be smaller physically than the medium format film, the noise is much much lower, which leads to a higher apparent visual quality.
The only question remaining isn't when digital will reach film quality (it's already exceeded it), but when the new breed of medium format digital backs reach the quality/price/speed ratio of the 1Ds. Then the competition between medium format and 35mm will have some new relevance.
But make no mistake, in every way, for most applications, film is dead.
Newbies today, with access to instant review, live histograms, and no film/processing costs or lag time, can learn much faster and less painfully (expensively) than they ever could have dreamed of previously. This is a good thing. As long as they apply themselves, and learn from the info they now have at hand as they shoot, they can polish their technique without many thousands of dollars in wasted effort.
As for your declaration of camera "must's":
Full 35mm sensor
Already here. Canon 1Ds, not the only full-frame sensor, but the best. Better than the film it replaces on many levels.
No built in flash. Face it, if you need a flash, you're going to need a REAL flash, not some cheapo flashlight built into the camera.
Wrong. A built-in flash is something I'd love to have on my 1Ds, even when shooting professional gigs. I have the 550EX big gun, and it's great. But often if I'm shooting in a casual setting, or in quick-and-dirty reportage style, the 550EX is overkill. I just want a little fill or catchlight for the eyes. Using a "real" flash just for that is like driving nails with a sledgehammer.
Traditional SLR feel. I need the shutter time on the top right of the camera on a dedicated knob. No multi-purpose jog wheel, a traditional knob with full stops. 60, 125, 250, no fraction-of-a-stop BS.
Traditional feel is great, but no need for old-school knobs. I want a design that allows me to make my exposure changes without taking my eyes off the viewfinder and my hand off the shooting position. The current (as of about 1995) paradigm for pro-SLR's is designed for that. I can adjust my aperture and shutter speed using either my index finger and/or thumb, and never take my eyes far off from my subject. The partial-stop exposure adjustments are also welcome, as most of the time in life my subjects aren't courteous enough to confine their brightness range to tidy single-stop increments.
No LCD display...
Complaining about an LCD is about the same as complaining about having a back window in your car. Sure, it makes the car more expensive, and can be distracting, but it sure f*cking beats the alternative. When the shit hits the fan and you need to get the shot, why wouldn't you want to be able to verify it while you're on set/location, when you can do something about it, instead of when you pick up your clips? And yes, a good photographer should be able to nail a shot without recourse to an LCD. Or Polaroid for that matter. But when you've got a $75,000 shoot, and clients over your shoulder, it's sure nice to show them they don't need to worry
No bells and whistles.
The only bells and whistles on a good pro DSLR, as compared to a good pro film SLR, are the ones related to the digital capture workflow (menus for white balance, sharpening, quality, file format, etc). Set 'em once and forget 'em. And they're all pretty self-explanatory. I do agree that a lot of pro SLR's (digital or otherwise) in the past ten years have gone overboard with custom functions. But again, if you don't need them, you don't have to muck with them. If you do need them, they can be a lifesaver.
So, right now, we're really only left with one advantage to an old-school camera over a full-frame DSLR. Price. And that's big, comparing the $500 to the $7500. But factor in the film/processing savings over the life of the camera (even assuming a life span of ten years for a good mechanical camera and two years for a given digital sensor), and the massive productivity gains you make, and the advantage swings back to digital.
Each frame I shoot on film I
You can use 45 as a "bare minimum" if you like, but you're simply wasting resolution, unless you happen to be shooting Ansel-Adamsy forest pictures for a 10 foot print to be viewed 3 feet away.
My clients are primarily glossy fashion magazines, where detail and color accuracy in both fashion and beauty shots is vital. I used to shoot chrome or pro color neg, mostly 67 or 45. I now shoot digital, mostly 1Ds, sometimes Leaf. My images often run across a two-page spread, as big as 16x20. I'm still getting hired, so I can only assume that means digital is finally "here".
As for digital sensors and dynamic range, you must not have much experience with actual pro digital gear. High-end digital capture has as much dynamic range as traditional analog capture. And both have more dynamic range than any reflective print can display. So, since 99% of all images are intended for print, that extra dynamic range is just wasted, or used as a cushion for artistic changes.
And I don't take wedding photos either. Check out my site. The content was shot on everything from a point'n'shoot T4 to 67 chrome to 45 color neg, to 22mp digital capture. Each tool has a job, and increasingly, film's job is to waste money.
1. Image quality will be determined by the combination of how many pixels you capture (megapixel count/resolution) and the size of those pixels (sensor size/photosite size), with the weight of the influence going to the photosite size. Thus, resolution being equal between two cameras, the camera with the larger sensor size will give you higher quality captures.
2. Garbage In, Garbage Out applies to cameras too. This should be obvious. Make sure your lens is able to capture all the data you want to feed to your sensor. If you have a full-frame, 24x36mm 11mp Canon 1Ds (the current professional favorite, myself included), you are wasting it's resolution by putting a cheap lens on it. I've noticed, in fact, that even the highest-quality lenses tend to be unable to deliver enough detail to this stunning sensor, so a cheapo lens is going to f*ck you.
3. For professional use, film is now dead. Game over. I've done the head-to-head comparisons. I own medium and large-format cameras. I own a high-end drumscanner. I own a large-format printer. I've compared the quality from my previous breadwinning equipment (medium format film scanned by drumscanner) to my current breadwinning equipment (full-frame digital Canon 1Ds) and the digital kicks film ass. That's why it's my current breadwinner.
Seriously, I had 4x6 foot prints made (notice I said FEET, not INCHES) from drum-scanned 6x7cm transparencies, and from 11mp Canon 1Ds captures, and my own lab couldn't tell the difference. Bye-bye film. And the $10,000 price tag was paid for in film/processing savings before I even got the credit card bill. (for more about how cost affects quality, see below, #5)
4. The best camera for you is all about what you intend to do with it. A camera is just a tool. Pick the right one for the job. Because of this, most professionals have, on average, more than 3 different camera systems. So, decide what you want the camera for, and the rest of the decisions about it's suitability get easy.
The most important factor is usually not sheer resolution and image quality. It's about usability of design and ease of handling. If it were all about resolution then most photographers would be using 8x10-inch view cameras. But we realize that a stunning, mega-high-resolution image is useless if the important moment we wanted to capture was missed due to slow camera operation.
That's why most pros use medium format or 35mm, and most ams use point'n'shoots.
So, pick a camera that feels good, is understandable to operate, and doesn't get in your way. After these criteria are satisfied THEN you look at resolution/sensor size.
5. The single most important equation for making better photographs is (forethought x volume of action). In other words, think about what you want to achieve with your images, then shoot as much as you can, and hone your results. This is really where digital capture shifts paradigms. Once you go digital, ANY digital, your visual experiments cost you nothing.
With film, every time you want to try something new, you are still paying for film and processing (even if you own your own darkroom). This means, effectively, that film and processing are an economic tax on your creative growth.
So, as long as you stay focused on what you want to achieve (rather then just shooting because you can), buying ANY decent digital camera will yield you better results then sticking with film, and it's use tax.
Class dismissed.