Family Feud
I’m through with film. I’m switching to a digital SLR. This won’t interest most of you, but I know my siblings, at least, will give me some amount of shit and it’s easier to start the process now so I can get it over with. Despite being technophiles in many ways, certain modernities incur their wrath. (For better or worse, mobile phones are here to stay Jolin. At least the future is looking bright these days).
Let me get to the meat of the matter. Take a look at this picture:
The colours are terrible — washed out, old, boring. Any ideas why? I have a few. Maybe the film expired. Maybe I got the exposure wrong. Maybe it went through one too many x-ray machines at airports. Maybe the photo lab did a bad job developing the negatives. Maybe the scans are to blame.
I don’t have the time or resources to pinpoint exactly where the error lies. I have lost more than one film to this and other equally frustrating problems, and at the rate I take pictures that equals months of photographs. I’ve finally reached the point where I don’t care, because there is a better way. All the issues I had with digital photography a year ago have slowly been crossed off my list, to the point where this is my new object of desire:
The Canon Digital Rebel XTi. I know, that’s strike two against me since it’s not a Nikon. Digital is a new and scary world. I’d like to pair it with this:
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. When pared with the smaller-than-35mm CCD in consumer digital cameras, this 17-55mm lense gives the equivalent of a 28-90mm zoom. I’m a one-lens person as it keeps the backpack light, so a lens with this range will give me a very nice break from the fixed 50mm I’m currently constrained to.
So what’s the catch? At a combined total of around US$1700, luxury doesn’t come cheap. I could travel a long time on that money. Unfortunately for me, and for those of you wanting more pictures on my blog, this may have to wait.
In the meantime, feel free to share your enragement at my abandonment of film. You’re welcome to try to convert me back. But I’ll warn you, you’ll probably end up wasting as much time as I have with film photography.
10 comments:
Hey, it's your funeral. :-) I still take predominantly B&W and I just don't think digital cameras capture a good tonal range. I also haven't generally been able to take satisfactory photos with a digital camera (though I'm not using an SLR). I don't know why, but they don't seem to come out so well. I don't feel I have control over depth of field, focus, etc. But I'm sure an SLR like the Canon would be different in this regard.
For me, though, one of the main attractions of my film camera is ruggedness and not worrying about a battery. I'm still careful with it, but my camera can take a bit of a beating and be fine. Plus, I have no qualms shooting in the rain. At worst I'd just have to let it dry out.
I can certainly see the attraction of digital from a convenience standpoint. But I wonder how it would change my photography -- would I spend more time checking shots and re-taking them? Would I be less careful with what I shot and just end up with dozens or hundreds of photos to look through with none being quite right? I don't know. In many ways there's something quite satisfying about taking a careful shot and then moving on, hoping for the best when it's developed in the future, so not worrying about re-shooting for the perfect shot. On the other hand, I was in a private garden last week with a huge, over-1000-year-old yew tree that was amazing. I wasn't sure how my first shot had come out, so I took 3-4 more because I knew I wouldn't have the chance again.
So, I don't know. Digital is not something I'm interested in right now. Seems like it would be more complicated (worrying about batteries, off-loading photos to the computer, etc.). Plus, I really like manual focus lenses. I get the impression that to buy a camera with similar quality and control to my FM3 would cost a lot more (and that's assuming I didn't care about the ruggedness and battery issue).
But I don't feel strongly about someone else using a digital camera. Certainly not as strongly as I do about some other devices which are the main cause of societal collapse. :-)
Let me take this piece by piece, since you have many of the same reservations I used to have.
I still take predominantly B&W and I just don't think digital cameras capture a good tonal range.
This was a big problem for me since I shoot primarily in black and white (apart from this trip where I haven't been able to find good B&W film). You have to mess around with Photoshop/iPhoto/whatever on the computer to get results with digital B&W. Who wants to spend time doing that? But then it hit me that this is no different than film, where you really need to develop your own photos to get any kind of good output. I don't do that (for a variety of reasons), and so my B&W results are very patchy. I have one picture which was a throwaway on the first print I had made, but the second is so different that it's now one of my favourites. So I'm actually worse off with film at the moment since I have no control over the results. With digital at least I'll be able to control the picture from start to finish. Add to that no scratched negatives, no cumbersome low-quality transfers to the computer, the ability to archive everything on the computer where I can easily make prints instead of a shelf where I forget about them...
I also haven't generally been able to take satisfactory photos with a digital camera (though I'm not using an SLR).
Yes, this is why a pocket digital is out of the question (that, and I'm still bitter about that Pentax I had which gave up the ghost after little more than a year). This doesn't apply to dSLRs though. I believe no depth-of-field control is an inherent limitation with the optics of the tiny lenses of pocket cameras. I plan to get one after the dSLR when I have the budget as they're invaluable for all the types of circumstances where an SLR doesn't make sense. But you have to be a more skilled photographer than I am to be able to frame and capture something more worthwhile than a snapshot with one. It's possible but it sure isn't easy.
For me, though, one of the main attractions of my film camera is ruggedness and not worrying about a battery.
Ruggedness is one point I'll give to you. As far as I know this is a problem across all consumer-level SLRs, film or no. People want cheap and feature-packed. Computer chips housed in plastic do the job. The Pentax Super-A I've had on long-term loan from Jess has travelled with me constantly for the last number of years (I've, uh, treated it very well Jess, honest...) and is absolutely no worse for the wear. They just don't make metal bodied cameras at this level anymore.
I'm not so worried about batteries. The longest period of time I've not had access to electricity on this trip is around 9 days I think. However, if I ever fulfill my dream of working in the Antarctic I may come crawling to your door, begging to use your fully mechanical battery-less Nikon which is able to withstand much more extreme conditions
But I wonder how it would change my photography -- would I spend more time checking shots and re-taking them? Would I be less careful with what I shot and just end up with dozens or hundreds of photos to look through with none being quite right?
You already know my one-shot photography philosophy. Maybe I'll soften a bit, but it drives me crazy to waste time taking tons of photos and then waste even more time deleting 90% of them. I've got better things to do with life. So I don't think it should get too bad.
Seems like it would be more complicated (worrying about batteries, off-loading photos to the computer, etc.).
The one essential piece of electronics I already bring everywhere is an iPod, so that's the off-loading problem solved already. If I get caught anywhere without the iPod, every photo developing store I've come across downloads pictures from any type of memory card to CD.
Plus, I really like manual focus lenses.
Another big one for me. Using auto-focus lenses in manual mode doesn't cut it. But sometime in the last year I stopped wanting manual focus and got tired of how it limited what photos I could take. In-the-moment shots are incredibly hard. (The portrait I got of Susan on one of our walks is possibly the only one I've pulled off.) And the occasional shots where I failed to focus correctly, whether it was due to carelessness or low lighting, are frustrating enough to make me want to leave it up to the camera to handle for me. For the small minority of times I need to manually focus, I'll deal with the AF lens in manual mode.
I get the impression that to buy a camera with similar quality and control to my FM3 would cost a lot more
I thought you had an FM2? The FM3 was my old object of desire, now shifted to ex status. But yes, it probably would cost a lot more. I don't know if they even exist. It's a little like comparing apples to oranges, because the FM2 is a very specific type of camera — just the essentials for the pure photographer, or the photographer-in-training, and built to withstand extreme conditions — which I don't think has made the transition to the digital age.
If I look at how my current camera limits me (no auto-focus, no modern lightweight zoom) compared to how a new camera would (no usage in certain very rare situations like extreme temperatures or long-term lack of electricity), it becomes obvious which side outweighs the other. It's not that the FM2-style film camera doesn't have merit, but why choose it based on the advantages it gives for scenarios I will take less than 1% of shots in?
The turning point for me was a conversation I had a month ago with a guy travelling with a Nikon dSLR. He said one of the things he liked most about switching over to digital was that he was able to learn things in one month that he hadn't been able to learn after years of shooting with film. With film you have to be meticulous in writing down film ISO, shutter speed, and f-stop for every shot. (I know you do this Jolin; I've never been patient enough.) And then you have to wait. And when you get the pictures back, you have to match each one up with your records. And furthermore, you have to try to remember what the situation was that you took the picture in: the lighting conditions, movement, etc. With digital you try something and see the results right there.
I have to say, when I finally do make the switch I'll miss the suspense of getting a film developed. There's something to be said for having to wait to see the results of a week's or month's worth of shooting. I'll also miss the occasional comment by someone who is into photography upon seeing my vintage camera case and Pentax: "Oh, you're a real photographer!" The great part about film is that I can't switch on the camera to show them the pictures which would prove otherwise.
You have to mess around with Photoshop/iPhoto/whatever on the computer to get results with digital B&W. Who wants to spend time doing that? But then it hit me that this is no different than film, where you really need to develop your own photos to get any kind of good output.
But my concern/feeling is that the source (negatives or original file) is much better for B/W film than a dSLR in B/W mode. I think that the CCDs in digital cameras are optimised for colour and so you never have the full range of tones to work with. I agree that my B/W photos would be a lot better if I hand printed them, but I tend to get pretty good results from the lab (for browsing through 4x6 prints -- I would still hand develop for a nice enlargement). I can understand it's different when you're moving around and can't find one good lab and stick with it.
I'm not so worried about batteries. The longest period of time I've not had access to electricity on this trip is around 9 days I think.
I feel like whenever I travel now I'm carting around chargers and when I get somewhere I'm always plugging things in to replenish their batteries. That's more the hassle I'm talking about. Small thing, I know, but I like how my camera is like a book: I pack it and use it, that's it. I'm not trying to plan when I'll next be able to charge it.
If I get caught anywhere without the iPod, every photo developing store I've come across downloads pictures from any type of memory card to CD.
Yes, that's true. I'd forgotten how much this has changed in the past few years.
But sometime in the last year I stopped wanting manual focus and got tired of how it limited what photos I could take. In-the-moment shots are incredibly hard.
I just set the aperture/shutter speed to a large depth of field so that precise focusing is less necessary. In my (pretty limited) experience, auto-focus lenses seem to focus on the wrong part of a photo pretty often, leading to less than satisfactory results.
I thought you had an FM2? The FM3 was my old object of desire, now shifted to ex status.
When I left my FM2 on a train a couple of years ago, Nikon had stopped making them and so the insurance company replaced it with an FM3A. I was worried at first, but the FM3A is a brilliant upgrade to the FM2. Whilst it can use a battery for electronic adjustment of shutter speed, when you're in manual mode the shutter speed control is still completely mechanical so it will work without a battery. And the light meter display is nicer in the FM3A.
It's not that the FM2-style film camera doesn't have merit, but why choose it based on the advantages it gives for scenarios I will take less than 1% of shots in?
Shooting in the rain represents significantly more than 1% of my shots! :-) But the ruggedness thing is not so much about getting a camera that works in arctic conditions. It's more about getting a camera that will travel well. I feel that portable electronics (or their battery or their charger) tend to break more frequently than I want from my camera.
With film you have to be meticulous in writing down film ISO, shutter speed, and f-stop for every shot. (I know you do this Jolin; I've never been patient enough.)
I don't write down shutter speed and f-stop anymore. I only did this for the first trip I was using an SLR on. It gave me a good feel of the interplay between settings and once I understood that, noting them down for each shot was overkill. Now I just note the date and location/subject. If I'm using a filter, I often write that down too. I have very occasionally noted the shutter speed and f-stop in the past couple of years, but it was for particular reasons (e.g. testing the effect of shooting running water at different shutter speeds). I'll admit though that it's nice how all this information is automatically embedded with each shot in a digital camera. (And I know it's possible to get a similar thing with a data back for a film SLR, but I've never had one and it's more of an extra than a standard feature.)
I can understand the attraction to you of moving to dSLR. It's just not my thing right now. It will be interesting to see how your experience measures up when you (eventually?) switch.
By the way, why are you interested in a Canon? It seems that most professional photographers I see use Nikon. I know you're not professional, but I assumed that meant Nikon dSLRs were better than Canon (and it would give you access to the wide range of Nikon-compatible lenses).
By the way, why are you interested in a Canon? It seems that most professional photographers I see use Nikon.
For film, yes, as you know, Nikon is the choice. For digital, the consensus is that Canon makes the better cameras. For the time being at least. It seems to be a neck and neck race, but what I hear and read is that Canon nudges out Nikon on picture quality.
It would be great to be able to use all the Nikon lenses. But again, I'm looking to have one good zoom to use so it's not an issue. If I get the chance in the future, I'd like to get a 200mm fixed-length, and possibly an extension tube for extreme close-ups. But pretty much any camera manufacturer will have equipment that caters to those needs. If I was a professional that needed access to a rental library of specialised lenses maybe my choice would be swayed.
Having said that, Nikon does have a special place in my heart, so I'm rooting for them to take the crown. Maybe in the future I can upgrade to one.
I don't have time for this lengthy scholarly debate. Fortunately, I can settle it with the following quote:
A bad workman always blames his tools
Well said, Jess!
For film, yes, as you know, Nikon is the choice. For digital, the consensus is that Canon makes the better cameras.
Actually, I was talking about dSLRs -- the professional photographers that I see tend to have Nikon dSLRs (not that I run across huge numbers of them). But maybe Nikon is good at the very high/professional end and not as good as Canon at the medium/enthusiast end? Or maybe the pros have stuck with Nikon because of the lenses they already had or brand loyalty.
It would be great to be able to use all the Nikon lenses. But again, I'm looking to have one good zoom to use so it's not an issue.
I wasn't thinking so much about the range of lenses -- I'm sure there are Canon (compatible) lenses to suit your needs. I was thinking more of the quality of the Nikkor lenses which is very good. But I'm coming from a film perspective, so I don't know how this all shakes up in the dSLR world.
I have to duck out of any responses regarding whether Canon or Nikon is better at the professional level, because in the end I'm fairly ignorant about it all. Have only heard bits and pieces.
Same with lens quality. At the consumer level, I have no idea if Nikkor makes significantly better equipment than Canon, but I'm willing to accept the possibility. In the end I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter for me as whatever lens I buy is going to be far better than what I'm currently working with.
If I see anything that suggests there is a significant quality advantage one way or the other, I may reconsider what to buy. I have plenty of time until the day comes.
My contribution is to say that I will wait for Contax to come out with a top-of-the-line digital SLR so I can use 35mm film Contax tubes and lenses. Wait, did I hear they have gone out of business .....?
This conversation is exactly what makes the Warrens a unique, somewhat strange phenomenon. -Eero
Post a Comment