A digital Luddite

[Sharon Knettell]

Hi,

I have been feeling digitally deprived and rather a Luddite when it comes to the digital camera arena. I have resisted getting one because my Nikon FE 2 has been such a stellar performer low these 25 years.

If iI use prints I like to blow them up so I can stand as far back from them as I would a model, so I don't tighten up my brush strokes. In order to do that I would have needed a digital camera of at least 11 megapixels, or so I was informed by my printmakers. Also, the new autofocus 85 mm lenses were not as fast as mine, which is an incredibly fast f1:2. I also have a macro 55mm f2:8 which is sharp as a tack and an excellent copy lens.

Most , if not all my photography is done in available light so I don't need expensive and complex strobe equipment. I can take a picture of a model I am painting in the same natural light for extra reference. I can shoot quickly (great for kids) and shoot in lower light that with a slower lens.

My little beauty needed a little fixing , the second time she has been out for repairs in all those years, so I took it too the local camera repair shop that the pros go to. The owner of the shop said "Now there is a real camera! " I said but everyone is switching to digital. He said "Why switch when you have a Rolls".

He said the digitals are cheaply made and are always in for repair. They don't shoot as quickly, a memory chip (or whatever)can go bad and ruin your whole shoot. He went on to say that the prints are not as crisp and they lack depth of field and the print color is not a good.

Also for archival purposes, film is better. Who knows what system will be in place in the future to retrieve the digital images.

As my lenses are not autofocus, he told me if I need a digital just get a Nikon D50. It will work with my lenses. I don't have to spend megabucks on a digital if I decide I need one. He added, for .99, I can get my images on a disc at CVS. Also he said , now the secret among professional photographers (especially wedding) is 'shhh' film.

I just thought I'd pass that on in case anyone still has an 'old-fashioned' film camera and is feeling left behind.

[Mike McCarty]

Sharon:

I don't know anyone that has converted to digital SLR from film that would ever consider going back to film. I think I would disagree with all his assertions.

Whatever print your film camera can conjure up using Kodak 160 Portra, or 160 Fuji color print film, a 6mp digital SLR will surpass it. And even if you wanted to argue the edges of that comparison the benefits that accompany digital are so numerous as to make any small difference not worth going back for.

[Sharon Knettell]

Mike,

The gentleman I was talking to today is a well respected camera repairman. The go to guy for camera info locally.

I did not solicit the information.

I did notice however a thread on the Nikon D70 and the problems that were occurring with that.

My camera has given me 25 years of faithful service. It was recommended to me, as well as the lenses, by a well-known Magnum photographer. He said the digitals are in for repair every 6 months.

I also noticed another thread about copying art and the difficulties with the dslr's. The camera person told me that the people at the museums were also having problems successfully copying paintings with the digitals.

He also said the wedding photographers are returning to film.

My 85mm lens is a fast f1:2. There is no lens faster that I know of.

I would argue the print quality. I would need at least a 11 megapixel camera to give me the quality of the large blow-ups I have needed in the past. Small 8x10's are not a problem, but try a D70 on a 30x40 or bigger print and see what happens.

[Mike McCarty]

Sharon,

As far as DSLRs breaking down - maybe they do break more than the old film cameras. Someone selling cameras would certainly know those numbers better than I. I know that my Nikon D70 has been in the shop once in the couple of years I've had it. I shot Nikon film cameras for twenty five years before I finally came late to my first digital, the D70. Like everyone else I was waiting for the price to come within my grasp.

About the reliability ... I think that anyone who is serious about their mission has always brought a backup (I'm thinking of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now), whether they shot film back when, or digital today. Although some of the good sturdy film cameras were very tough they were not immune to trouble. Now my backup is my old film steam engine, with a roll of Fuji 160 pro film that I keep in my fridge (should I have bought 400? what will my conditions be? I don't know, I had to guess) . I wish it were another D70. If my D70 breaks again I will send it off again to Nikon, who fixed it free last time, and eagerly await it's return.

I would argue the print quality. I would need at least a 11 megapixel camera to give me the quality of the large blow-ups I have needed in the past. Small 8x10's are not a problem, but try a D70 on a 30x40 or bigger print and see what happens.

Are you saying that you are blowing up your film prints to this size and you are good with the quality? It would seem to be a fairly easy test to perform. A DSLR 6mp shot at best quality raw against the best 160 color print film. No doubt an 11mp DSLR camera would do a better than either, can't argue that, but until you go to a medium or large format film camera you're not going to best the 160 in you FE.

I'll bet you a New England clam chowder spread on a Kaiser roll, or however you guys eat that stuff, that the difference would tip to the DSLR against the FE with 160.

As far as your lenses, they would work great on your new digital Nikon. They wouldn't be taking advantage of some of the digital features, but they would still work well and pocess all the attributes that you rightly covet. I still use my old lenses on my D70.

If there really is a rush back to film then those heading that way should be pleased to find a truck load of perfectly good film cameras waiting for them on EBAY for pocket change.

I can only witness to my own experience over the last few years, and I'm not a real photographer, only a guy that uses photos for purposes other than a photographic end.

For ease of operation, real time editing, image quality, dynamic changes per image, archiving, ongoing expense, ability to practice endlessly for free, and knowing when I walk away from a shoot that I have got the goods, I would hate to go back. Digital has too much to offer and a much brighter future. Digital will get better, I can't see a bright future for film.

My mouths tired, maybe others have formed different opinions.

[Richard Monro]

All I know is that the high priced photographer that did my daughter's wedding shots would never go back to film...and he has been in the business for almost 30 years.

Being able to directly manipulate the photo in programs like Photoshop is a great asset for me. Before I had to digitize the film photo before I could play with it.....a great waste of time.

[Chris Saper]

Sharon,

Film will always work to a degree. I fought digital stuff forever,and didn't convert until I saw my tax expense for photo processing get to $6,400 one year.

I think that all of my images are far superior now. The color is better- the values are far better.

You don't have to go to 11 MP to do most things. Have the local guy with the 11 MP camera shoot your work, if you want.

In any case unless you have a huge large format printer to produce great big prints, it's moot. Bigger negatives have always produced spectacular results. A 2 1/4 square format is mountains above 35 mm, and no one can compete with an 8 x 10 negative.

I have heard that Kodak will stop producing B/W paper in the next couple of years. The Carousel is a thing of the past. I have had a complete darkroom for 27 years, This past year I decided that it was a dinosaur. I contacted six local high schools to find ONE that would take my donation. In the nick of time.

Any time you go to a new tech thing, it takes investing in a learning curve. I am still investing, but I am so much happier along the way.

[Jeff Fuchs]

Two comments.

Sharon mentioned having CVS put your prints on CD. I've done that once, before I had a digital camera, but it was Wal Mart, not CVS. The results were terrible. Their process is apparently a high-speed deal that makes inferior scans. I don't recommend it.

Second, if you stick with film, why not use slide film? Slides seem to preserve color very well, and detail is not lost in printing. You could use a slide projector and make the image any size you like without paying for mega size prints. Of course, sooner or later someone will accuse you of projecting the image on your canvas.

I worked at a photo lab in college, and I have seen how much detail gets lost in printing. If you lighten the print to pick up dark features, the whites are washed out. Darken, and you lose everything in shadow. Slides lose nothing.

[Sharon Knettell]

The reason I posted this topic was I was surprised by the comments my camera guy said to me. He is the go to guy for all the best pros around, news, wedding, advertising, fashion, (you name it) photographers.

I was feeling digitally disadvantaged. He regaled me with the problems that the full-time photographers were having with the digital process and equipment. And interestingly enough Nikon is reintroducing more FM cameras.

I just thought I would pass the information on as everyone seems to be jumping on the digital bandwagon. Film has worked for me lo these many years and I thought it would help those with limited funds decide to keep theirs. I don't use my camera much except to copy my art or to photograph my model if she leaves for college and I am stuck with an unfinished painting. Printing IS expensive! You need them in a portfolio anyway whether or not you use a digital or a film camera.

I do not use CVS, I use a pro for my scans.

[Jeff Fuchs]

By the way, I'm pretty sure luddite is my birthstone. We have something in common!