Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

For better or for worse

womble
Posted 02/02/2010 - 13:38 Link
This has been discussed a bit before, but as I contemplate scanning some of my slide collection I have been thinking about this again.

In my film days (and I still use film alongside digital) each photograph cost money. At current prices that is about 25p per slide. As a result, I was quite careful about how many pictures I took and what of. For a month travelling in Europe (when I was a student) I used to splash out and buy 10 rolls of Kodachrome, i.e., 360 photographs. I felt I was being quite extravagant. I got to know the foibles of the ME Super light meter for the sort of subjects I photographed. For every box of slides I got back, I would have no more than one or two slides where the exposure was off or the focus wasn't right. The downside is that I wasn't very adventurous. The photographs are, in the main, competant record shots of buildings, monuments and landscapes ideal for lectures and slide shows of my trips, but not "beautiful" in an artistic sense, and few I'd want printed and framed.

Since getting a digital SLR I have changed. I still take those record type shots but I also spend much more time taking pictures of sunsets on the beach or snow-encrusted barbed wire and so forth. I now go out looking for photographs, rather than just taking my camera along with me on a trip. I find that often I will take quite a number of photographs of the same subject, varying the viewpoint slightly, changing the exposure a bit, trying different f-stops to change the depth of field, bracketing in case I want to try HDR and so on. On the other hand I have become sloppy in some aspects such as exposure. Often, especially if it is a static subject, I'll shoot, check the histogram and reshoot rather than carefully metering in the first instance. As a result, I have shot about 25,000 digital images in five years --- many of which I should delete --- compared to c. 10,000 slides in 28 years!

It seems to me, therefore, a case of swings and roundabouts. I am producing considerably more interesting photos since going digital (I'll leave you lot to judge the quality) and am much more experimental but technically I am definitely much more sloppy than I am with film. (I am even more careful with the view camera where every BW negative --- before processing and development --- is £1.10 and every colour slide is £2.70!). Digital has certainly re-ignited my interest. I had reached a level of competance with the sorts of photographs I was taking that I had stopped pushing the boundaries. Now, I'll try all sorts of things I wouldn't have even thought of before (partly as a result of the competitions on here).

I don't want to open up the can of worms about whether film or digital is better image-wise (a stale and boring debate), I am only really interested in how the change/addition of digital has impacted on how one approaches one's photographs. For me, I enjoy the differences and challenges of both (as well as grinning to myself when some dSLR mega-lens toting person looks in bewilderment as I wind on a film, manually focus, use a hand-held lightmeter and change screw-mounted lenses )

Best wishes, Kris.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website
Dangermouse
Posted 02/02/2010 - 14:02 Link
womble wrote:
(as well as grinning to myself when some dSLR mega-lens toting person looks in bewilderment as I wind on a film, manually focus, use a hand-held lightmeter and change screw-mounted lenses )

One of the best bits about using an MX!
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.
bwlchmawr
Posted 02/02/2010 - 14:07 Link
Super post, Kris. Most interesting and, I am sure, mirroring what a lot of us whose photographic "careers" straddle film and digital ages (oops, that sounds as if the film age has come to an end!)I love your commitment and enthusiasm.

I'm sure I take too many photographs and have to be much more rigorous when deleting. I also know I've become reinvigorated by the digital age and my enjoyment of the craft has increased many fold.

Although I no longer have any interest in film (other than being pleased some people are keeping it alive) what's interesting for me, since acquiring my Pentax DSLR, is the new life it's given to old K mount and M42 lenses. I don't know if they're up to modern standard or whether the way their images are accurately focused for flat films rather than bumpy digital (or is it the other way round?) but I don't really care. I just like the pleasure of manual focus and non-program exposure evaluation.

The results from your view camera must be really something. Ken Rockwell has one and uses it, too!

Best wishes,

Andrew
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
womble
Posted 02/02/2010 - 14:29 Link
bwichmawr wrote:
... what's interesting for me, since acquiring my Pentax DSLR, is the new life it's given to old K mount and M42 lenses. I don't know if they're up to modern standard or whether the way their images are accurately focused for flat films rather than bumpy digital (or is it the other way round?) but I don't really care. I just like the pleasure of manual focus and non-program exposure evaluation.

One advantage of APS-C is that it is using the "sweet spot" in the centre of the image circle of FF lenses which means that the image quality is sometimes quite a surprise. Also, the different 'quality' (in the sense of the look and feel of the image) of older lenses adds to the variety of images. The 'bokeh' of older lenses, especially, can be quite different to modern offerings. It doesn't suit all images but is a fun addition to what we can do.

bwichmawr wrote:

The results from your view camera must be really something.

I wouldn't go that far. I still haven't used it enough, and issues regarding developing and scanning hold me back. Getting access to the deep tank room at work is awkward (why am I developing images of churches in work hours?) and, sadly, the darkroom at work is disgustingly filthy with consequent impact on the quality of the images. I am looking at getting a BTZS set of deveoping tubes (or making my own) so that I can unload the film in a changing-bag and develop them at home.

Best wishes, Kris.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website
gartmore
Posted 02/02/2010 - 14:52 Link
Really good and thought provoking post.

When video replaced film in UK TV what had previously been called 'The Film Library' just couldn't cope with the sheer volume of material produced.

When shooting film you had a 'film budget' and that, for documentaries, might be around a 10:1 shooting ratio so for a sixty minute doc. you would have sixty rolls of film at maybe £250 per roll processed. With video, tapes only cost £10, so people would overshoot to sometimes 60:1 or 100:1. The result was you couldn't edit such high volumes of material.

In film the process was develop neg and have a basic print made which was used in the cutting room, the editing copy was sent to a neg. cutter who then cut the original camera negative and a print was then made. All previous materials then destroyed. One can of film left on library shelf. With video all the original tapes were kept, a hopeless situation.

Film discipline should apply in digital stills, make every shot count!
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Bob and his Pentax
Posted 02/02/2010 - 14:55 Link
That pretty much mirrors my experience to - film being too expensive to play with; but digital brings a freedom to experiment with viewpoints and exposures especialy with the ability to review instantly.

For me film 'died' in 1997 when I bought my first digital camera (a 0.3Mpixel Minolta compact).
Good luck

Bob

Pentax user since 1978, Digital since 1997.
Kit includes: K-7, K20D, K10D, *istDS, full set DA* lens, etc
alfpics
Posted 02/02/2010 - 15:11 Link
Great post Kris.

Largely agree with you - I experiment far more with digital 'cos I can try again straight away if the first attempt didn't work, and juts delete the file if it was a 'naff' idea! However i used to get quite a few duffers where I still hadn't got exposure right with film - the instant histogram helps greatly!

I, too, have taken a vast amount of digital photos over a few years compared to slide and print in the previous 30 or so. However I do tend to deleet a lot (although shoul delete a load more!!)

Andy
Andy
bwlchmawr
Posted 02/02/2010 - 15:12 Link
Kris,

Any chance of seeing the results of your view camera work? Particularly the church shots? (Or probably shot, considering what's involved.) I've done a few grave-yard shots of my own, recently and it would be of interest to so many people although clearly not a Pentax thing, as such.

Are you able to scour junk shops for those lovely old 19th century English-made brass lenses to screw onto the camera? That really would be fun!

Regards,

Andrew
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
robbie_d
Posted 02/02/2010 - 15:44 Link
Interesting post Kris.

I think in all aspects of life technology has encouraged a certain laziness in most of us be it cameras, cars, computers or whatever,

I think what digital cameras offer to counteract this is the opportunity to experiment, and lowered the barriers of entry making it much more affordable for more people to just "have a go".
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.
johnriley
Posted 02/02/2010 - 15:52 Link
I have noticed that in general photographers become much better, more quickly, than they did with film.

This has to be that there is no cost per image barrier and also that the results are instantly viewable. Thus the learning curve is fast and steep.
Best regards, John
Edited by johnriley: 02/02/2010 - 15:52
robbie_d
Posted 02/02/2010 - 15:54 Link
johnriley wrote:
I have noticed that in general photographers become much better, more quickly, than they did with film.

This has to be that there is no cost per image barrier and also that the results are instantly viewable. Thus the learning curve is fast and steep.

Particularly steep...
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.
Haworth
Posted 02/02/2010 - 16:11 Link
Interesting post Kris as my experience of moving from film to digital has been very similar.

I would be interested if my percieved 'improvement' were still there should I go back to shooting on a 5x4 or medium format film camera. Think it may be time to dig out the Mamiya and see......
'The RAW is the score and the print is the performance' - Apologies to Ansel Adams

Blog
Flickr
Anvh
Posted 02/02/2010 - 16:12 Link
Interesting post Kris, do you sometimes bring both systems with you?

I'm thinking of getting a 645 camera and have a play with that along side digital.
Digital is then more of a playground thing to try things out and the 645 is then the one capturing the final image that resulted with all that playing.

I believe some "masters" work that way, take an DSLR around for a walk taking photos and see what works and what not, and then take the more heavier MF camera to the places that were interesting and had potential.

johnriley wrote:
I have noticed that in general photographers become much better, more quickly, than they did with film.

This has to be that there is no cost per image barrier and also that the results are instantly viewable. Thus the learning curve is fast and steep.

True and also the lightroom is more accessible then the darkroom, that has probably also has something to do with it.
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
womble
Posted 02/02/2010 - 16:18 Link
Anvh wrote:
Interesting post Kris, do you sometimes bring both systems with you?

I nearly always have my digital set-up with me, often I'll take some 35mm film bodies too, very rarely and only on specially planned trips do I take the 5x4. I ought to use it a great deal more. The various snowy trees images would have lent themselves to 5x4 BW images nicely, and they were just outside my door so there wasn't any excuse except "not thinking of it" at the time. I bought the system rather specifically for architecture, and tend to forget to try it on other subjects.

K.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.