...that move photographers to the latest camera equipment? How influenced are you to do what everyone else is doing? Do you feel like you have to go digital if your still using film or high end digital if your still in the 5 and 6 Mp world. Is it a dissatisfaction with yoru current equipment that makes you switch or is it peer pressure, or is it some form of envy of other photographers? Do you think your images will be any less if you don't go with the flow?
For me the currents isn´t all that strong, I´m still using film and at this point I dont se any benefits in changing to digital. For me film does everything I need and I personally think digital SLR is still to pricy. Also at some point in a few years I would like to add a LF camera for landscape.
I just returned from a Danny Burk workshop in Maine and while we were up there, on several occasions we ran across the same photographer who spent all of his time talking about how great his gear was. The best lenses, bodies, meters, blah, blah, blah. Not once, even in good light, did we ever see him shoot. His website certainly did not impress us either.
I really have to think a bit before changing gear. Familarity with what I currently have and to a lesser extent, cost. Does a new piece of gear solve a problem I have regularly encountered? If not, then no, it simply is not going to be considered. There are times I'd like a 500 mm, but I would use it maybe 5 days a year. It doesn't solve a problem I have often enough to justify its purchase.
I debated for a long time on the 35 mm digital vs film, and put off the switch for several years. What eventually converted me was the introduction of Canon's 20D which, I felt, would provide imager quality comparable to film. Toss in the savings on film processing for about 11,000 digital frames last year and I felt that this was a good tradeoff.
When I do buy a 4x5 camera and lenses to replace the currently borrowed equipment, I will almost certianly purchase used, probably Nikon lenses whose design dates to the 80's. Why? Cost is a consideration, but at the same time, these lenses are better than I am. And at any reasonable print size and viewing distance, I will never notice the difference.
I would certainly love to have a Canon 1DS Mark II, or a bag of Schneider XL lenses, Do I need this? No. Can I justify its purchase based on wanting the latest and greatest? No, No, NO!
It is the photographer. I have seen way too many superb images posted here to believe anything different.
I don't think the currents affect my decisions at all. I've never been one to follow the crowd very much. For me the switch to digital was brought about by Nikon offering a higher MP body, which I had been patiently waiting for. Speaking strictly for me, switching to digital has been wonderful as I had a rather poor excuse for a scanner. The high price of the switch has already been mitigated somewhat just in film cost alone. I've had my D2x for only 7 months and have shot approx. 8,000 frames to date. That equates to approx. 220 rolls of 36 exp. Fuji + processing, time spent scanning, filing, etc. I figure it won't be too long before it pays for itself in film cost alone! That will NEVER happen with a film camera. With film, the cost is ever increasing. Don't misunderstand, I'm not knocking film, just saying that economically digital has a large advantage.
One of the reasons I bought digital was I love travel-people photography. I thought about a rangefinder but then scanning is always there. Film-processing is also costly in Germany and I'm stuck in a small town. Within few weeks I have my workflow in order and am getting very good results.
I sold all my MF equipment because my 8mp body does almost everything my 645 did, may be details are not there. (It is nowhere near 6x7 landscapes.) Additionally it also does macro, people etc etc. When I see a good opportunity, at a 'been before' place I use my Shen-Hao. I'm still following the same 'roll film - sheet film' attitude. I still use only two 256MB cards and delete 60-70% of the shots.
In that sense I'm waiting for 12mp+ not so costly body, heck I may even buy 5D (12mp+ -> may be 3D) if it is replaced by 3D. But this is not 'following the herd' but a well-thought decision. It must have been the same when color film came out for bw people. I was never against digital, I have always used digital darkroom. It may affect my photography a lot, I may make images I never thought of before.
I just do my own thing. I've used my stuff until I feel I'd get a significant benefit from using something newer. Could be anything from quality to cost effectiveness. I got into digital SLRs originally because learning to shoot primarily on film was getting too costly for me and I felt I could learn faster while trying both simultaneosly. That camera lasted me 3.5 years. I was still learning new things about how to push it to the limits until the shutter died. Then I bought my new camera in October. I've since shot 12,000 images with it. If I were on film still, I'd probably have a tenth of that amount at most. Too expensive on one's own dime without any trust fund assistance or a working wife to bankroll me.
I asked - What do "I" need? From a personal standpoint and from a professional standppoint. I'm a nikon shooter, and bought my first digital camera only a year ago. For two years, friends and other professionals that shot Canon heap tons of (insert word) on me; but the choice was; wait for Nikon to catch up, or spend 20K to switch to Canon. (Camera + Lenses) I was comfortable with my own decision to wait and see what Nikon would come up with, and in the meantime I kept using film. No amount of anything I saw or heard from anyone else was enough to make me question my own needs or decision. Then Nikon came out w/ the D2x, and I new that my own personal requirements had been met, and I never gave a rat's (insert another word) about what anyone else thought.
My decisions are market- or client- driven. If we need something to do a job, we buy it. If a piece of gear simply sounds neat or I see others using it, it goes on the "buy someday" list a few notches below an antique pickup truck and a bigger boat.
Of course, the business manager in our family (my fiscally conservative wife) has me pretty well trained after 35 years!
I am not opposed to digital, heck I own 12 digital bodies! I guess what is bothering me is how some vocalize the virtues of digital over film or seem to have an agenda of nailing the coffin shut on film, but doing it in a somewhat arrogant manner and casting a sense of belittlement on those who decide it is not for them. Guy your article hit the nail on the head for me and said what I think I would have said. I don't spend that much on film in one year anyway, last year I spent around $1K in film and processing, I do my own scanning with a quaity that can produce a print on a lightjet or inkjet upto 20x25 or 20x30 with out any question in quality. Out of that, last year I have produced about half a dozen images that were printed for my shows and that have sold.
I suppose my questioning is more along the lines of understanding the psychology of the consumer than anything else. For me, its about not succumbing to my own ego to want to be like everyone else. Peer pressure, whether its forced or passive is a strange thing and I guess I was just wondering if others are/were effected by it as I tend to be. For the most part, I shun being swayed by it and just go with what I like, but in the end don't we all end up going with the flow?
Youssef, I was as big a skeptic as anyone and I have no religious preference one way or another. For me it was something I had to see for myself - I had to capture my own image the way I want it (not download a sample file), edit it on my own computer, and print it on my own printer to make sure it meets my requirements regardless of anything else. I gave it a fair shot and at various points still had my doubts but ultimately I became convinced that digital was a great tool for a lot of what I like to do. It's certainly not the only tool in my pack and I have no intention of ever limiting myself to doing any one thing only one certain way and avoid all others (how stupid would it be if I were a carpenter who only used a Dremel tool for every job?). I use what works. Many times it's digital (or Dremel ) but sometimes it isn't.
I went digital not because it was "the thing to do" but because as I was new to photography, I was having a terrible time learning proper exposure techniques and wasting a lot of film. I did not like the lag time between taking the shot and seeing the result, and by the time I got the developed photos back, I forgot how I took the shot, and never was really learning. Digital helped tremendously in that respect. Now that I have learned so much (with the help of NPN too, of course ) I would like to upgrade from my 6.1 mp D70 to the D200 that offers more megapixels. I don't need it right away, but I would like to begin marketing my images, and feel that more megapixels would help. As for the things I have purchased in the past (lenses, tripod) I think I purchased the things that I felt I needed, not just what everyone else was using.
This is a perfect opportunity to remind everyone again to check out the ROVING CAMERA PROJECT. Stop by and give us your honest opinions....and think about whether it's more important to have lots of fancy gear, or just a vision of the beauty that surrounds you.
Back in the day when I was a hot rock climber I'd listen to other climber talking about which climbing shoe was the best. They'd go on and on and on and try all the different models and always the latest and greatest. I'd tell them, "you know what? The best climbers can climb in any shoe, The shoes don't make the climber, find a shoe that fits, that you like the color of, figure out what it does best, and then just go climbing and forget about it".
It's that same way with me and photography. I looked at the cameras, I bought one I liked, I bought some good lenses, a good tripod, etc. I don't have gear envy, I love my gear and it does a good enough job for me. Now, I concentrate on taking good photos and don't even think about the gear. I can hardly stand talking about this lens or that or megapixels or ballheads, I simply don't care.
I guess I would have to say there is no current for me, Youssef. I hear what your saying about those that talk up digital like anyone using film is somewhat behind the times. You see that kind of attitude almost anywhere on the net or even in public. The best tool is always going to be the one that you have with you when the shot presents itself. Myself personally I own zero digital bodies. I will most likely shoot LF for several more years, but will also add a digital body or even two for other projects that are not suitable for LF. I never get excited, and in no way will I ever allow anyone to decide what is best for me or my photography, unless I specifically ask for their input. The only part of gear than matters to me is I wish I had more money to purchase it.
Currents are of course huge. Its blaring from all the magazines, in all the hi tech consumer good stores, is the main focus of advertizers, lots of newly well to do neighbors are buying them as the latest gadgets on the block just like computers, and prices to get in are in the consumer range.
To be in the position to readily act on changing to different camera systems as new stuff come out, one has to be well off financially, else one is apt to work with what they have. One also ought to have a real need for whatever there interest is. Until 2000 most serious photographers were entrenched within the film camera system they had long since committed to with expensive lenses. After shooting 35mm for years, I escaped that dilemna and bought both MF and LF in 1989 because I had a lot of money at the time and always wanted to make larger landscape prints. Subsequently I don't see much advantage of buying a DSLR since I mainly shoot 4x5 for fine art, have skills dialed in, and have considerable experience processing images into Lightjet prints. The amount of film and processing I need for my 4x5 work is really not that significant because I expose less than a couple hundred sheets each year. So I don't expect to feel any need to change anytime in the next few years. The only real pain there is drum scanning is very expensive and it is really the only choice.
The digital camera age is really just a few years old now. I doubt many of those going to the high end DSLR's are from the ranks of view camera users unless they have money to toss around. Most are rather new photographers and those who were in the huge ranks of 35mm SLR users. However I think most of we MF/LF photographers have bought if not a DSLR then a compact digital camera. To really get to the high end of digital requires a lot of money in ways well beyond the pricy cameras. One also needs to deal with complex technologies and particularly software that is yearly changing dramatically. Additionaly the whole high ink jet printing realm is in like technological change and turmoil that most of the DSLR users have also flocked to en mass. Just more nauseating mental anguish I don't need either thankyou. As someone dealing with hi tech computer engineering for a couple decades, I have considerable reticence about jumping too quickly into new rapidly changing technical products.
I'm on my third compact digital camera in five years because I find they conveniently fill a huge void below the limitations of my LF work. The first was a 2mp that was just is too low quality. Next was a 4mp that froze up within a year. Now with a 7mp, imaging is good enough that I regularly use it for more serious closeup work. If I move up yet another notch it will only be because I've found something that does closeup and macro work much better since that is something I love to do. But even if I found $50k under a rock next week, it would not otherwise go for DSLR. So yeah I understand why the current is flowing the way it is but I'm not going to be floating my boat there anytime soon. ...David
An actual conversation in the parking lot of a motel in Minnesota during the owl irruption of 2004-2005. I was loading the car with camera gear. Another photographer, whom I'd never seen before, was also loading gear before he approached me from across the lot:
Other Photographer: "What'ch you shooting?"
Me: "The owls!"
Other photographer: "No, I mean what kind of camera?"
Me: "Oh, I misunderstood. Canon."
Other photographer [exasperated]: "No, film or digital?"
Me: "Oh. Misunderstood again. Film."
Other photographer, walking away: "Oh. Well I'm getting great stuff with my 20D."
Clearly this was someone who wanted to talk about the wonders of digital, and was sorely disappointed not to find a fellow advocate. Most digital shooters don't have the obsession that bad, of course, and most are a pleasure to shoot with. But I have never heard, and can't imagine, the reverse of that conversation.
I am often told by others that if I were using a digital camera I'd be able to make hundreds (or even thousands) of photos and how I would save a ton of money by not having to deal with film and its associated processing costs.
I both agree and disagree with the above. Yes, its true that I'd spend a lot of money if I were to make that many photos using film, getting it processed and later having to pay for high quality scans. However, isn't it naive on the part of these people to assume that just because digital capture allows me to make hundreds of photos for a fraction of the cost, I'd really want to want do so. Or more importantly, even if I wanted to would I really find that many compositions which interest me enough for me to photograph them?
When I am out making photographs the camera has never been a limitation for me. On the other, my inability to make many photos is the lack of creative vision. As a result of this I only expose a handful of frames each year (last year I exposed around 10 rolls of 220 film) and even out of those exposures very few get past the lightbox.
I know what I have to work on and thankfully at the moment that doesn't involve upgrading my camera gear.
One of my workshop participants and I were talk about this this past weekend. I was reminded of the many times folks look at some of my images and say... " That's a great image, you must have a good camera"
One of my workshop participants and I were talk about this this past weekend. I was reminded of the many times folks look at some of my images and say... " That's a great image, you must have a good camera"
Seems like the more this is discussed, the more entrenched each "side" becomes. My advice is - give every system an honest try (to a point where you're comfortable you've tapped its potential) and decide for yourself. Better yet - have someone who knows the system well give you a demo.
Most of us live in places where equipment rental is available or where fellow photographers live who may not mind letting you try their gear.
Guy I just read your link to Paul Butz's review. He certainly had some negative comments that are mostly about operation features like mirror lock up in such cameras that still need improvement. The one thing that really stood out from my view camera perspective was the lack of movements. As one makes larger prints the issue of detail becomes more important. Having shot 6x7 a few years I know there are a lot of situations without near foregrounds where that is not too important however there are then again quite a number where it makes a huge difference. With a view camera you can shoot things that perpendicular plane cameras just cannot get reasonable top to bottom left to right sharpness with. When one of these manufacturers takes a break from courting all the small format shooters and concentrates on a machine that will appeal to view camera users, they will likely get an immediate jolt of interest. ...David
David, I agree - no one system is perfect, which is why I don't limit myself to just one, nor would I recommend to others to arbitrarily limit their options. The more tools you have (and are skilled at using) the more quality work you'll produce.
Interesting question Youssef. Through my connections with other photographers in the city where I live I heard a lot about how good the latest ..... was. When autofocus first showed up I waited quite a while before I got that - it works wonderfully for me, especially because I have some hand impairment. When digital came out I again heard how great it was and again I waited. Two years ago I borrowed a DSLR from Canon (I'm a CPS) and shot with it for a couple of weeks. That trial showed me that digital would work really well for what I do. Now I shoot exclusively digital as it is the right technology for me. As for what equipment I use - who cares??? I guess since I can't tell by looking at an image what brand or model the image was made with and there are many images made with cameras and lenses I'll probably never own, the real test for me is whether or not the photographer can produce an image that speaks to me. All the rest I'm happy to leave to the advertising copy writers
I'm still essentially a film shooter since I haven't been able to pull the trigger yet on a Maxxum 7D. Since they may be disappearing soon I suppose I better get on the stick. I do have a Canon S2 which is amazingly competent and with which I have had a lot of fun. I very much like the immediate gratification and immediate results of digital. I'm looking forward to doing digital with my stable of lenses and an optical viewfinder. But since the 7D is just 6mp and has a 1.5x factor I suspect I will use it mostly for wildlife and macro and continue to shoot film for landscapes. I have a Nikon 4000dpi scanner, know how all the Fuji slide films perform and still like looking at those little stained glass windows on the light table. I do expect to use the D7 as a meter and composition tool as well. Much of my photography is done on vacations or on short jaunts out of town so it would be great to know if I have a good shot before returnng home. I'm always a little disappointed with some shots I get back from the lab and more so when I can't get back to the scene and reshoot.
I read a commentary not too long ago that excoriated digital shooters for lack of craft - they just shoot a lot and edit. I'm hoping my film experience will help me avoid that pitfall.
Posted by Kent Staubus on May 25, 2006 at 12:33 AM
I have always been a sort of "contrarian." I am NOT a herd animal. When digital really started heating up a few years ago and people started asking me why I didn't have a digital camera, I got really turned off. Instead of a Nikon D1, I bought a 4x5 view camera. Today I've been toying with the idea of buying the D200, but will probably buy a Shen Hao field camera instead. I find that I like going down my own path. If "everyone is doing it," that's a strong incentive for me to do the OPPOSITE! Over the past ten years I bought into the myth that buying a more expensive camera will help me produce more better phots. I bought a Pentax SF-1 when that was hot. Then, a Nikon N6006 because Nikon was "better." Then I bought a Nikon N90s because that's what all the "serious" photographers were using. Then I bought a Bronica 645 system, then a Nikon F100. Briefly, I had an F5 in there too, but it was just too big and clumsy. Know what? I finally learned that buying a camera will NOT help me make better photos. I am just SO burned out on the whole subject. This past six months I've even been only taking my Nikon N80 (with broken AF) with only the 50mm f1.8 lens on some of my out of town trips. My favorite shots taken so far this year have been with that $100 worth of gear. I have a photo essay in a national magazine at the moment, and two thirds of the photos were taken with the 50mm lens.
I am just tired of hearing about camera gear, and just want to talk about how and why we make images. In fact, I am so sick of it I'm seriously thinking of buying a Leica IIIf with a 50mm and 135mm lens--technology from the early 1940s! Last fall I was invited to attend an "important" railroad photography meeting geared for professionals. I showed up with my 4x5, my Gitzo 1325cf, and a half dozen three dollar point & shoot cameras! (That's right, I was sticking a $3 camera on a thousand dollar tripod.) My shots were as good as anybodys too. Even the disposable cameras created some nice publishable shots. Everyone was amazed, but really, they shouldn't have been. By using a camera that basically only had two buttons (flash and shutter) I was able to concentrate 100% on the image! Most of them concentrated on pushing buttons on complicated cameras. I think that for many that distracted them from concentrating on the vision.
Sure, I have the money to buy pretty much any photo gear I want. But that's just it--I just don't want to. Lately, I'm thinking that the simpler my gear gets, the more creative my shots become. Maybe what I need is a Kodak Brownie from 1922. Think I'm kidding?
"I am just tired of hearing about camera gear, and just want to talk about how and why we make images."
That's what I was leading to and hoped someone would say it. In the rush to get the latest and greatest we are rushing past things so fast now that we are forgeting to make images. I am out a lot "photographing" yet most of my time is spent looking and contmeplating a photo and not snapping away happily, at least for my serious work. I don't like pointing to any particular person, but the latest talk on alot of forums is is the P45 MF digital back and how it can best drum scanned LF film. To me its a big SO WHAT! Its not going to make photo on its own, and then for that matter how often do you need that much resolution. Grant it, I do photograph with a LF camera these as my primary tool, and even though I still for the most part don't need that much resolution, the print size that sells the most is a 6x9, and my 3 MP canon D30 can handel that. But then for my 20x25 or 24x30 enalrgement that hangs in the shows is what gets the sales of the smaller ones. Rarely do I sell one that large, but...
As I stated before, I don;t have a problem with either format (film or digital) or for that matter even camera format 35mm, MF, LF or pano. Its a tool, the means to an end which is a photograph. and As you said Kent, why that photo and what the photo says is much more pertinent. Yet I rarely ever see the those caught up in the flow discussing that. I have enjoyed this discussion.
"Seems like the more this is discussed, the more entrenched each "side" becomes."
Not me. I will probably go digital within the next year, when there's a camera that will handle my needs for wildlife (full frame, at least 11 MP, at least 5 fps). But I don't think Youssef intended to trigger yet another debate about technology. His whole point was about peer pressure and the obsession with technology that we see among some digital shooters.
Has anyone ever seen the kind of proselytizing that digital inspires? For example, panoramic cameras like the Fuji and XPan are highly useful and make very marketable images (wish I had one!). But was there ever a push to convince everyone they had to have one? You could say the same thing about large format. In that respect, I think digital is unique. And oddly enough, the campaign started well before digital had even matched 35mm film. I read many times that 5 MP was all anyone would ever need; today some of the same people who said that admit they have trouble selling the images. I will shoot digital, but I will never understand the almost religious fervor for it.
there's a camera that will handle my needs for wildlife (full frame, at least 11 MP, at least 5 fps).<<<
don't know abt 5fps but 11mpff cameras are already out.
"don't know abt 5fps but 11mpff cameras are already out"
I'm well aware that 11 MP and 16 MP cameras are out. In the Canon line, they are limited to 3 FPS and 4 FPS respectively. A number of people I know have tried them for wildlife and found them a little slow.
I'm not sure, but I think some of that "religious fervor" that Cliff mentioned has something to do with the near instant gratification that digital imaging is able to supply us with. As in, why-would-anybody-want-to-wait-for-something-that-they-can-have-RIGHT-NOW?! I'm certainly not immune to that syndrome but lately it has been making me feel kind of empty, frustrated and even a bit angry at times. There is just no way I'll ever be able to, and maybe I don't even want to, keep up with the rushing speed of advancing technology in the field of photography. I simply don't have that much money and when you roll all the other competing technology assaulting us every day in with the photo goodies...my mind nearly blows a gasket!!! I don't think wanting all this stuff is good for me as a human being. There needs to be a happy medium, at least for me. I feel like I need to fight the current or it may drown me.
Being an outdoor enthusiast, when I choose gear for hiking or climbing, skill level comes first, then of course comfort, style then price (to bring me back to reality) There's a lot of fancy/expensive gear out there, but just cuz its a hot item, doesn't mean I can automatically surpass the skill level I'm at to become a pro :)
Cameras, I have to look at my skill factor also. I would love to have a 5D but I'm enjoying making great pictures while I learn with my 8 megapixel because I know I'm not at the skill level that requires a 5D and the reality is, owning a fancier camera will not improve my skills, practice on my less fancy camera will!
I’ve spent some time conversing with Paul about the TS-E lenses and now he understands, I hope, that the limitations of movements are really not that big of an issue when using Canon. I will tell you guys, if it weren’t for the TS-E’s I’d be shooting a Nikon D2X or still shooting a view camera. There are a ton of movements in the TS-E’s when it comes to what I used when shooting with the view camera. Being that I’m a mountain shooter I almost never used back tilt, only front tilt with rise and fall. With a 5-minute mod to the TS-E’s they can have tilt/rise & fall on the same plane. To this day I’ve just never had an issue with the mirror lockup either. I guess my many years shooting an EOS 1 I got used to it.
To answer the main question, I didn’t move from 35mm to 4x5 due to any peer pressure and the same goes for my move to digital. My main focus is the books that I produce for my publishing company Mountain Trail Press. So, the need for big film was not really an issue. Once I had a chance to work with a DSLR and the TS-E lenses…well that’s when I moved to digital!
Now, I’ll tell you my problem with this whole issue. I’m speaking from experience on both sides of the fence, large-format and now digital. The ego’s fly from both sides, not just digital! I recall the chastising that I got as I made the change to digital. Man, the LF crowd can be brutal. Hell, I used to fight like hell to why I used the view camera, I’m still eating crow to this day!
I’ve also spent some time talking with Charles Cramer after his move to digital and he has taken the same ridicule from his former LF and film fellows. He hit the nail on the head! He stated that he was treated like a defector! Well, that’s exactly how I felt/feel. Now, what is the first thing that we, the defectors, want to do? Prove every single one of our critics wrong. So we work our ass off to create image that are equal to or exceed our old images in our portfolio. This is all to prove our critics wrong! This is just the way guys are.
For me the 5D mated with the TS-E’s is perfect for my end use. I just received my 2007 Blue Ridge Mountains Wall Calendar. Three of the 13 images are large-format and the remaining are digital (5D & 1DS). I’ve asked photographers and non-photographers if they could pick out the LF images. To this date only one has been able to distinguish the difference and it was only because he knew the LF images from past. He stated that he was shocked how well the images match. So, yes, I made the right choice in my move! But I reiterate, this was my choice and no one else’s. If anyone reading this post is contemplating a move do your homework just as I did and make the choice due to own research not by what I or anyone else states.
I still get riled when I read that quote the Jack Dykinga wrote in an OP article “Anyone trying to shoot a landscape with even a 16.7MP camera is silly!” Damn, I guess Art Wolfe, Tom Mangelsen, John Shaw, Dave Middleton, our own Todd Caudle, Gary Crabbe, Mark Adamus …along with numerous other digital photographers that shoot landscapes are just stupid. And people question why we sometimes get defensive? Again, it goes both ways but we tend to only read what is conducive to our personal interest.
Other photographer: "No, I mean what kind of camera?"
Me: "Oh, I misunderstood. Canon."
Other photographer [exasperated]: "No, film or digital?"
Me: "Oh. Misunderstood again. Film."
Other photographer, walking away: "Oh. Well I'm getting great stuff with my 20D."
Rreminds me of an elderly friend who went to trap shoots with a disreputable looking cheap shotgun, then beat the pants off all the guys with shotguns worth many thousands of dollars. He owned world-class shotguns, but was sick and tired of the gear heads in that venue. Yeah, it helps that he won Olympic gold in trap shooting in his youth, but the larger point is clear: It's not what you shoot, but how you shoot it.
My favorite stunt with avid gear heads is to ignore their gear and ask them technical questions about a scene. Scatters them faster than a skunk at a picnic.
Now, what is the first thing that we, the defectors, want to do? Prove every single one of our critics wrong. So we work our ass off to create image that are equal to or exceed our old images in our portfolio. This is all to prove our critics wrong!
And thus the vicious cycle of gearhead-ism begins, Jerry . You're attempting to 'exceed' old images from a technical standpoint, which, as has been spoken about ad nauseum, doesn't concern viewers and buyers. If you want to exceed your old images, work on your vision - the gear you use is irrelevant. Excellence comes from your within, not your TSE's, number of MP's, or your frame rate.
When a photograph makes me say whoaaahh, the last thing I'm looking for is the technical details.
"If I could return in twenty years or so I would hope to see astounding interpretations of my most expressive images. It is true no one could print my negatives as I did, but they might well get more out of them by electronic means. Image quality is not the product of a machine, but of the person who directs the machine, and there are no limits to imagination and expression."
--Ansel Adams
I'm not talking about technical standpoint or exceeding old images due to camera and I've never had or needed to worry about my frame rate. When I made the change the general consensus from my LF friends was that I could never again create images with such impact. I wanted to and proved that the camera had nothing to do with the final image. It had nothing to do with digital, film, or format. (And yes, the TS-E's allow for perspective control and I find that it is a must when shooting specific types of landscapes). It's all about the final image and my move to digital from large-format should prove that. I definitely moved down in the MegaPixel market!
Also, if you are going to quote me quote all relevant text!
"I’ve also spent some time talking with Charles Cramer after his move to digital and he has taken the same ridicule from his former LF and film fellows. He hit the nail on the head! He stated that he was treated like a defector! Well, that’s exactly how I felt/feel. Now, what is the first thing that we, the defectors, want to do? Prove every single one of our critics wrong. So we work our ass off to create image that are equal to or exceed our old images in our portfolio. This is all to prove our critics wrong! This is just the way guys are."
As we all know Charles has taken a beating over his tests between 4x5 film and his new 39MP back.
My take is shoot what you want, when you want, how you want.
As a LF guy, all I can say is Go Canon Digital. I bought stock in Canon 3 years ago and with everyone upgrading, buying the next best, converting from Nikon...etc, the stock has gone up where the money I have made due to it is funding my LF film costs.
Did I tell everyone how great digital is? And how much fun I am having shooting LF because of it.
That is a funny story Hank about the Olympic trap shooter.
I agree with Jerry. People on the street talk so much about the whole digital and film thing. At one job of mine, some dude walks in and tells me digital can't do this, this and that. It's only good for snapshots and that there's nothing like good ol' film. I didn't even respond to the absurdity. Obviously he hasn't seen my portfolio before much less anyone here at NPN. A true fan of the art doesn't favor looking at images of any format over the other.
This is a great discussion folks...keep it up! I actually have a couple of photos that I feel are very good that I made with a disposable camera when my interest in photography was first sparked. I guess it was about the first time I ever even used a camera for an artistic view instead of just snapshots at holidays or vacations. No tripod, no filters, no settings. But still good photos.
I know, here I go again....but I really encourage you to check out the ROVING CAMERA PROJECT. Give us some opinions. I can't speak for Mark, but I think at least one point of the project is to make you think outside the box (gear, film, megapixels, etc.) and take a look around. Use your vision to create an interesting photo without all the "stuff". Isn't that what it's all about, and what you have all been saying here....the medium is not so important, it's the vision, talent, eye of the photographer, that makes a good image?
Michael Gordon wrote: If you want to exceed your old images, work on your vision - the gear you use is irrelevant.
I just have to ask, so where do you become “relevant enough” to tell me to work on my vision? But, of course, we as photographers should always work on our vision, keeping it fresh, but for one photographer to tell another is a bit ludicrous. Especially when you do not have any idea what my personal vision is or what propels that vision forward. My vision comes from my love of the Blue Ridge Mountains where I was born and raised and that’s what drives my VISION! If you've never visited these mountains and have no understanding of their history then you have no idea what motivates me or any other Southern Appalachian photographer to go out and photograph. My books and calendars are only a byproduct of my photography. I hope that my images contained within my books and calendars will help save a piece of our sacred mountains for future generation.
Jerry, I think Michael meant you need to eat more carrots to protect your excellent vision so it can continue to serve you well as a photographer (especially having to focus on those tiny viewfinders )
Thanks for the chuckle! I guess my eyes must be really good cause I've never had a problem with the viewfinders of the full frame cameras! Maybe it's all that great Mexican food I eat! Gotta love those fresh jalapenos!!!!!
I just have to ask, so where do you become “relevant enough” to tell me to work on my vision? But, of course, we as photographers should always work on our vision, keeping it fresh, but for one photographer to tell another is a bit ludicrous.
OK, Jerry, I was wrong. You shouldn't work on your vision. Your gear is everything. I apologize.
Especially when you do not have any idea what my personal vision is or what propels that vision forward.
I think you're getting a little worked up here for no reason, Jerry. You clearly state that you have a personal vision (for your Blue Ridge Mtns); I'm merely suggesting you obsess over that and not your gear. I apologize for my comments being seen as out of line.
Anyway, I gotta run - I'm off to buy some stock in digital. Thanks for the tip, Jim.
OK, Jerry, I was wrong. You shouldn't work on your vision. Your gear is everything. I apologize.
MG,
As I stated, gear has nothing really to do with it! You're the one that keeps reading more into it. As I stated also, I'm the one that moved down to a smaller capture. So, stop putting words in my mouth.
Also I stated, that all photographers should always be working on their personal vision to keep their images fresh. It's just not up to us/you to tell them that they should or how they should create that vision. Maybe, unless you feel that you're qualified. Do you think you are qualified? I know that I'm not, I personally feel that telling someone to work on their vision is a pretty egotistical thing to do.
Also I stated, that all photographers should always be working on their personal vision to keep their images fresh. It's just not up to us/you to tell them that they should or how they should create that vision.
Jerry: can you quote where I stated HOW a photographer should create that vision?
Maybe, unless you feel that you're qualified. Do you think you are qualified? I know that I'm not, I personally feel that telling someone to work on their vision is a pretty egotistical thing to do.
And you've accused me of reading too into it? Look, with a committment, one can learn how to operate a camera and master exposure within days of beginning photography. After the technicals are mastered, what's next? All I can think of is to continually develop one's way of seeing, or I have I left something out?
I'll answer your "qualification" question only by saying that I work on my photographic way of seeing every day that I crawl out of bed. I will never master it, as it is a continually evolving process and will continue until the day I die (or until I quit photography for aerial basket-weaving). My suggestion that you work on your vision was not pointed at Jerry Greer, but at every photographer who has mastered the technicals of camera use. If you can think of another way to grow and evolve as a photographer, please let me know.
I dont want to see this thread spiral into a flame war. I do find it interesting.
Now Mary Dennis wrote:
"...but I think some of that "religious fervor" that Cliff mentioned has something to do with the near instant gratification that digital imaging is able to supply us with. As in, why-would-anybody-want-to-wait-for-something-that-they-can-have-RIGHT-NOW?! I'm certainly not immune to that syndrome but lately it has been making me feel kind of empty, frustrated and even a bit angry at times...."
I can't say as to why it makes you angry, but this is leading to what I originally had in mind. How does photographing wiht digital equipment move the inner person. The revelry that the Digital convert kicks up stirring on the flow seems to carry everyone into it. Its fast, and capricious to some extent. I know not everyone here, as already stated, moved digital mindlessly, but in general I feel that the currents bring that on.
One aspect of photography that has always interested me, at least for landscape work, is the amount of patience that it required. From patience in the field to patience in getting the film back to the patience required in producing the prints or getting them published to the patience in learning how to photograph as well. What I tended to discover with digital was that it removed the aspect of patience from the equation. It gave the photographer instant gratification. Patience in general tends to keep one's inner being at ease and helps keeping one from getting worked up. So I found Mary's comment very interesting.
Second, in response to what Jerry stated:
"...I’ve also spent some time talking with Charles Cramer after his move to digital and he has taken the same ridicule from his former LF and film fellows. He hit the nail on the head! He stated that he was treated like a defector! Well, that’s exactly how I felt/feel. Now, what is the first thing that we, the defectors, want to do? Prove every single one of our critics wrong. So we work our ass off to create image that are equal to or exceed our old images in our portfolio. This is all to prove our critics wrong! This is just the way guys are. "
Well Jerry the question really, for me, is why even bother? I mean in the first place why even tell anyone you made the switch from film to digital? Had Charles Cramer just kept quite about it, continued to make stunning images, print them to 40x50 and if the quality is there, like he and the others who helped him show that it is there, would anyone have even thought he was doing anything different.
If the gear does not matter, then why make a point about what it is. Had you, Jerry, never told us that you made the switch, I don't think many would ever have been able to tell the difference in your work.
When I had made the decision to start using LF, I had asked for the opinions of the others here at NPN. One of the comments I recieved, can't remember who said it, after that person viewed my website was, "From the looks of your images, I thought you already were using LF". That was a very interesting comment for me to hear as it really made me think even harder about if making the move was a wise one. If my work already gave the impression of LF work, what was the point. In the end, the point was for me to use a camera system that matched my pace and dsiposition of image making in the field - slow and calculated.
And so I reiterate my original question but in different terms. If current itself has not motivated a switch, what pray tell, then motivates one who did make the switch to bring upon themselves all the grief that Jerry mentioned in tyring to defend one's equipment choice?
I mean does anyone ask a chef what brand pot he used to cook in? Does it matter? Does the chef go out and give a press release about it? It would seem that making a statement about what gear one used would only be self serving if such a claim brought the person some benefit - like maybe Canon is going to bank roll that photographer for his plug.
So if the Currents out there have not swayed one to make the switch from one format to another, What then make someone open themselves up to criticizim. If it is to prove the naysayers wrong, as Jerry mentioned, isn't that just the ego coming up for a breath, the desire to be 'king of the hill'? Wouldn't making claims be actually self-defeating in the end, as it will only show an insecurity about the choice made.
After I made the switch to LF I had my doubts about what I had done, and wrote an article for NPN about it. Its HERE and what I concluded was that camera did not matter, the claim did not matter, the acceptance of others did not matter. The only thing that really did matter was what resulted as photos.
I think this discussion is bring out some very interesting aspects of the human psyche that I find very interesting.
I keep hearing it said that the "camera doesn't matter" and I wonder why I am having a hard time accepting it. To me the camera does matter - a lot IMHO. If it were not for this fact people wouldn't gravitate toward certain formats, makes and models from among the many that we can choose from. If we don't accept this fact, however hard it may be to do so, we will continue to work with the wrong set of tools and the end result will be nothing short of frustration.
Now coming to the other point of what purpose does it serve to talk about the benefits of one's equipment - I think hearing about how someone has found a particular camera, format or capture medium to be beneficial to them is always a good thing; specially when those comments are coming from successful and accomplished photographers. For instance if I was in the market for a digital camera today I'd love to hear what Jerry, Guy, Tony, Marc (and many others) have to say about the Canon 5D. That information is more useful to me than reading sterile techno specs about the camera on some web-site. I want to know why other landscape photographes I look up to have chosen this camera and how they have used it effectively to make their photographs.
with regards to "the camera doesn't matter", for me what I mean by it is that whatever camera I need to produce the types of photos I endevor to produce should be the camera that is used. It should not matter if it is a 35mm film or digital of MF film or digital or LF or panoramic, or disposable ponit and shoot. You pick the tool that most fits the need, and in that sense for me the camera does not matter. A carpenter would not use a sldege hammer to frame a house nor would he use a 14oz. hammer to pile drive fence posts. They are both hammers and he would use the one that is most fitting. It would be insane for him to tout the virtures of using a sledge hammer for framing jsut because he does so and finds virture in it for him. He will get flack from others for doing that, no?
And with regards to obtaining ones advice on a given camera, you are correct. But what about the case when no one has asked, and the user of any given camera starts just spouting off about its virtues. Won't that photographer find flack coming his way? I asked some of those very photographers you mentioned about LF before I started using that camera, and now some of them have left the very camera they encouraged me to take up. What's up with that? Was thier advice wrong? should I feel jaded somewhat? Why didn't they tell me that - yeah I lke LF but I am thinking of jumping over to digital and so should you. Today its the virtues of digital. What if tomorrow a new method of image capture is developed that uses yet unheard of technology, then we will hear all of this again.
The point of my question was to try to understand what drives photographers to adopt one format or camera over another. If it is need driven then why raise the banner and open oneself to attack. Just do your job and produce the best photos you can and then recieve the accolades for the job well done. If it is ego driven, which I am afraid is more common amongst us than we care to admit, what can we say? And this is why I think the currents are so strong, the ego can't seem to be satisfied with what it has, especially when it sees someone else with something different and boasts to its superiority over all the rest. Those who have their egos in check will just go on doing whatever it is that they were doing happily and watch the flotsome flow along with the current. And those in the flow, will just keep flowing.
It’s simple, the excitement of finding a new flame to ignite ones photography! That’s why Charles, myself, Todd Caudle and anyone else that, once again, fell in love with taking photos using digital. For me it was like getting out of jail! No more being a camera operator, I feel that I’m a photographer. Hell, it’s just exciting! Just ask Todd or Charles, we’re having fun again. So, to answer your question why would we tell people, pure excitement! (Also, I teach digital workshops with Richard Bernabe, also a digital photog, so it’s hard to hide the fact that I’m using digital).
I can say that I’d never give up the past 5 years of using only a view camera. It made me the photographer that I am today, I’m certain of it. But now I’m taking the knowledge it taught me and I’m using it with my new camera system. And things couldn’t be better..
Again, peer pressure had nothing to do with my move to LF then to digital. It was all out of necessity. My move to LF came out of my personal need to change the way I was shooting. My move to digital came out of the following: I need the ability to create images for my books and calendars and in the capturing of the images I need to have mobility, I need numerous images from a location, and I need high quality images. I found through my own research that digital was the ticket.
You can call it ego, gearhead-ism, gear lust…just whatever you what to call it or me. All I can say is I love shooting with my 5D and TS-E’s. Best of all I’m making a living at it and some people out there love the images I make so they buy lots of my books and calendars. Heck, we even won some pretty big awards with our two calendars last year. I couldn’t be happier! So, call me what you wish because it really doesn’t matter. And if anyone wants to know why I love digital then just ask or better yet come to one of our workshops. We have a blast of a time in some of the most beautiful places on earth.
I asked some of those very photographers you mentioned about LF before I started using that camera, and now some of them have left the very camera they encouraged me to take up. What's up with that? Was thier advice wrong? should I feel jaded somewhat? Why didn't they tell me that - yeah I lke LF but I am thinking of jumping over to digital and so should you. Today its the virtues of digital.
I may have been one of those guys and I can assure you that my move came very sudden. I really had no idea that I would make the move. It all came from my business partner as I was putting together our Shenandoah National Park book with his images. He had sent some digital images along with his large-format images and I could not believe how well they compared to the LF stuff. At that point I started my research and it wasn’t long before I hard purchased my first digital camera, a 10D. Just a few weeks after that the 1DS and within a few weeks my LF stuff went up for sale. It just happened sorry!
Posted by Eric Fredine on May 25, 2006 at 10:12 PM
Youssef,
You make an interesting observation: if people don't want to take flack for their choices they can always keep quiet about them! In fairness though, I think some of the sharing comes from genuine enthusiasm for the technology.
For me, I know that the equipment I'm using does effect how I photograph. I haven't decided if its better or worse or just different.
I don't think there is anything inherently better about one technology or approach over others. It is possible that some approaches may be a better fit for some people. However, I do find it curious that people often claim a particular approach works better for them - without having made a concerted effort to try other approaches.
As I've said before, I think we are lucky to have so many different options. Rather than seeing this as a threat I think its an opportunity for everyone to find what works for them.
I am not prone to name calling, so please forgive me if I gave that impression. And again, let me reiterate, I am not opposed to any format. I own and photograph with digital equipment as well when needed. My last post 'Father Of The Forest' was made with a Canon D60. My interest was what made us tick inside and to get us cognizant of what we do and why and to not just be one of the herd. I have found this discussion very fascinating.
Youssef, I feel like I am being manuevered to the latest camera equipment. The latest meaning digital. So yes, I do feel forced to go digital eventually. For the time being I have my Canon EOS 3000 as my backup system to my LF. I am not dissatisfied with my photo equipment. Eventually though, I would have to replace my SLR system. When that time comes, I no longer feel comfortable staying with film. So I am looking into a Canon D20 as a replacement for the EOS 3000. The trouble is that I am on a budget. In the past I could buy a 400 dollar camera system including lens (like my EOS 3000) and be perfectly happy for years to come. I could never buy a 400 dollar digital system and be happy with it. So I have to spend more money. I believe the Canon D20 is advanced enough that I could be happy with it and not worry about the constant revisions and upgrades that digital cameras and lenses are going through.
In many ways I believe the camera does not matter. But it should have certain features that I think does matter. Such as interchangeable lenses. Aperture and Shutterspeed control. Autofocus. I would be too restricted with a fixed lens point-n-shoot camera.
I have no intention of replacing or abandoning my Shen Hao. I bought my Large Format for the sheer joy of photography. I wanted to savour the entire process of creating images from beginning to end. But LF has its limitations. So I want to own two systems.
Jerry said "Hell, it’s just exciting! Just ask Todd or Charles, we’re having fun again."
Sorry to enter the fray this late, but I gotta do a little stickin' up for my homeboy! Looks like things got misconstrued in both directions.
When I sold all my LF gear and bought into digital, I never expected to feel the way I did. First of all, I came to the unforeseen conclusion that I was no longer in the "club," that being the specialized club of being someone able to wield a bulky 4x5 camera in the field and come away with reasonably good images. For most people it takes a long road to arrive at that place, and I was proud to have gotten there. But alas, no more. That was a little sad. Okay, a lot sad. Also, while I didn't think my photographic skills, or the "vision thing," were superior to the next guy's or gal's, but knowing what a good 4x5 image was capable of, I always felt that my LF images were technically superior in some respects to other formats. (Keep in mind that 75% of LF shooters think the same thing, and the other 25% are lying. )
So when I saw Jerry's results with digital, and his effervescent claims about digital's capabilities, I never saw it as equipment snobbery, but more accurately, I saw him as a witness for the defense. I have yet to see a digital photographer turn his nose up at an LF shooter, but I've seen plenty of that sort of thing going the other way. That's why I humorously/defensively told people after I made the switch that I'd gone over to the Dark Side.
So, you see, when you see someone singing the praises of digital, shouting it from the rooftop no less, it's partly defensive, but I think mostly it's that the process of shooting with such a mobile system so changes the way you shoot that it gives you a whole new set of pleasure points, and it's hard to keep quiet about the joy of this type of shooting after carrying around a slow, cumbersome 4x5 system for years. Unlike the quote above, I NEVER didn't have fun shooting LF, but shooting digital is a whole new (or old?) kind of fun. Instant feedback, variable ISO, no film/processing expense, about a third the gear weight, increased mobility, shooting tele – these are just the advantages I can think of off the top of my head. As long as I know from the outset that I'll never get a 40" wide print from a 12.8-MP camera that will rival a print from an LF Velvia transparency, I'm happy to have chosen to make the switch to the Dark Side!
I am probably so late to the discussion that it has been over and everyone has moved on. I read it with interest a couple days ago, but wanted to let it "simmer" in my mind. I am not sure my view adds anything, but here goes.
I don't necessarily go "with" or "against" the current---or view it as either a friend or an enemy. I know that it will "flow" no matter what. I started my serious photography with a fully manual 35mm SLR. The teacher who motivated me to start recommend slide film as the best "teacher." Little lattitude for exposure error and WYSIWYG. I shot K64, and then "graduated" (to my subjective mind, it was the best ever) to K25. Back then, that was basically "the" choice. The "currents" eventually brought Fuji Velvia, which for a long time seemed to be the Nature Photographer's film of choice. I never warmed up to it, but eventually, shot a lot of Sensia II. One of the advantages was it was ektachrome (sp?), and therefore was easier to get processed locally (maybe that's some of that "instant gratification showing up). I missed K25 (don't even know if you could get it now). But that's me. I observed and truly appreciated some very talented photographers using other films and other formats.
In college, I shot for the college newspaper and the year book for two years. Along with that, I had darkroom privileges, including use, on a limited basis, for my own work. It was B&W only, and although I am primarily a color shooter, I was really glad to learn about the process of developing, and the amount of creative process (some might call it "manipulation") available to try to reproduce my personal vision (I know-----what does this have to do with "currents"? It leads to my personal motivation to switch to digital).
From that time on, I always told myself I would have a darkroom. I even collected some of the more inexpensive parts. But it would have to be color and that meant time, space and money. I never did get the darkroom---not exactly. But now I sit at the "darkroom" daily.
So, digital was kind of an "emancipation" for me. I can now capture, "develop" print, mat and frame my own work. Of course there are many ways to come to that. I could scan slides. Lots of that has to do with personal workflow, budget and convenience.
I don't see it as a "digital" vs. "film." I also do not see my "gear" as and end---only as a means to an end (to which there are admittedly many paths--the beauty is that we have choices). Many of us are intrigued by the technology that goes into any fine piece of equipment. I loved the "bank vault" feel of the higher-end Nikon and Canon cameras I owned or used. Sometimes, I went for a specific feature----(e.g., faster AF, or DOF preview, etc.). I am amazed at the science and technology that goes into the new digital cameras. If that makes me the proverbial "gear head," so be it. But we fool ourselves to say "gear doesn't matter." It does. As long as it doesn't become the end----or impede the creative process. As a young photographer, I may have observed expensive equipment and assumed the hands that held it were talented. I don't now---and doubt most here do. We judge talent by the end result. But that doesn't make it a "bad thing" to be interested in equipment, and what equipment others use and why.
I am not discerning enough to look a a high-end print and determine whether it was original digital capture, or film scanned and printed, or wet darkroom process in most instances. Nor does it really matter to the aesthetic result, IMO. But my natural curiousity might still lead me to wonder. The answer should not make any difference to my original reaction to the print.
The current will not stop. Like natural current, it will cause, slowly over time, a certain amount of change (some might refer to it as erosion). I know, for me, the current has created some advantages to my photography and, hopefully, has helped me focus on its creative aspects.
My $0.02 (which is probably about what its worth <g>)
Discussion
56 repliesRegards
I really have to think a bit before changing gear. Familarity with what I currently have and to a lesser extent, cost. Does a new piece of gear solve a problem I have regularly encountered? If not, then no, it simply is not going to be considered. There are times I'd like a 500 mm, but I would use it maybe 5 days a year. It doesn't solve a problem I have often enough to justify its purchase.
I debated for a long time on the 35 mm digital vs film, and put off the switch for several years. What eventually converted me was the introduction of Canon's 20D which, I felt, would provide imager quality comparable to film. Toss in the savings on film processing for about 11,000 digital frames last year and I felt that this was a good tradeoff.
When I do buy a 4x5 camera and lenses to replace the currently borrowed equipment, I will almost certianly purchase used, probably Nikon lenses whose design dates to the 80's. Why? Cost is a consideration, but at the same time, these lenses are better than I am. And at any reasonable print size and viewing distance, I will never notice the difference.
I would certainly love to have a Canon 1DS Mark II, or a bag of Schneider XL lenses, Do I need this? No. Can I justify its purchase based on wanting the latest and greatest? No, No, NO!
It is the photographer. I have seen way too many superb images posted here to believe anything different.
I sold all my MF equipment because my 8mp body does almost everything my 645 did, may be details are not there. (It is nowhere near 6x7 landscapes.) Additionally it also does macro, people etc etc. When I see a good opportunity, at a 'been before' place I use my Shen-Hao. I'm still following the same 'roll film - sheet film' attitude. I still use only two 256MB cards and delete 60-70% of the shots.
In that sense I'm waiting for 12mp+ not so costly body, heck I may even buy 5D (12mp+ -> may be 3D) if it is replaced by 3D. But this is not 'following the herd' but a well-thought decision. It must have been the same when color film came out for bw people. I was never against digital, I have always used digital darkroom. It may affect my photography a lot, I may make images I never thought of before.
Here are my thoughts:
http://scenicwild.com/sw/newsletter/Issue8/index.html
(scroll down to the first article)
Guy
Of course, the business manager in our family (my fiscally conservative wife) has me pretty well trained after 35 years!
I suppose my questioning is more along the lines of understanding the psychology of the consumer than anything else. For me, its about not succumbing to my own ego to want to be like everyone else. Peer pressure, whether its forced or passive is a strange thing and I guess I was just wondering if others are/were effected by it as I tend to be. For the most part, I shun being swayed by it and just go with what I like, but in the end don't we all end up going with the flow?
Guy
This is a perfect opportunity to remind everyone again to check out the ROVING CAMERA PROJECT. Stop by and give us your honest opinions....and think about whether it's more important to have lots of fancy gear, or just a vision of the beauty that surrounds you.
It's that same way with me and photography. I looked at the cameras, I bought one I liked, I bought some good lenses, a good tripod, etc. I don't have gear envy, I love my gear and it does a good enough job for me. Now, I concentrate on taking good photos and don't even think about the gear. I can hardly stand talking about this lens or that or megapixels or ballheads, I simply don't care.
To be in the position to readily act on changing to different camera systems as new stuff come out, one has to be well off financially, else one is apt to work with what they have. One also ought to have a real need for whatever there interest is. Until 2000 most serious photographers were entrenched within the film camera system they had long since committed to with expensive lenses. After shooting 35mm for years, I escaped that dilemna and bought both MF and LF in 1989 because I had a lot of money at the time and always wanted to make larger landscape prints. Subsequently I don't see much advantage of buying a DSLR since I mainly shoot 4x5 for fine art, have skills dialed in, and have considerable experience processing images into Lightjet prints. The amount of film and processing I need for my 4x5 work is really not that significant because I expose less than a couple hundred sheets each year. So I don't expect to feel any need to change anytime in the next few years. The only real pain there is drum scanning is very expensive and it is really the only choice.
The digital camera age is really just a few years old now. I doubt many of those going to the high end DSLR's are from the ranks of view camera users unless they have money to toss around. Most are rather new photographers and those who were in the huge ranks of 35mm SLR users. However I think most of we MF/LF photographers have bought if not a DSLR then a compact digital camera. To really get to the high end of digital requires a lot of money in ways well beyond the pricy cameras. One also needs to deal with complex technologies and particularly software that is yearly changing dramatically. Additionaly the whole high ink jet printing realm is in like technological change and turmoil that most of the DSLR users have also flocked to en mass. Just more nauseating mental anguish I don't need either thankyou. As someone dealing with hi tech computer engineering for a couple decades, I have considerable reticence about jumping too quickly into new rapidly changing technical products.
I'm on my third compact digital camera in five years because I find they conveniently fill a huge void below the limitations of my LF work. The first was a 2mp that was just is too low quality. Next was a 4mp that froze up within a year. Now with a 7mp, imaging is good enough that I regularly use it for more serious closeup work. If I move up yet another notch it will only be because I've found something that does closeup and macro work much better since that is something I love to do. But even if I found $50k under a rock next week, it would not otherwise go for DSLR. So yeah I understand why the current is flowing the way it is but I'm not going to be floating my boat there anytime soon. ...David
Paul Butzi's review of the 5D
Ultimately, as Paul says - you can't argue with the prints.
Guy
Other Photographer: "What'ch you shooting?"
Me: "The owls!"
Other photographer: "No, I mean what kind of camera?"
Me: "Oh, I misunderstood. Canon."
Other photographer [exasperated]: "No, film or digital?"
Me: "Oh. Misunderstood again. Film."
Other photographer, walking away: "Oh. Well I'm getting great stuff with my 20D."
Clearly this was someone who wanted to talk about the wonders of digital, and was sorely disappointed not to find a fellow advocate. Most digital shooters don't have the obsession that bad, of course, and most are a pleasure to shoot with. But I have never heard, and can't imagine, the reverse of that conversation.
I both agree and disagree with the above. Yes, its true that I'd spend a lot of money if I were to make that many photos using film, getting it processed and later having to pay for high quality scans. However, isn't it naive on the part of these people to assume that just because digital capture allows me to make hundreds of photos for a fraction of the cost, I'd really want to want do so. Or more importantly, even if I wanted to would I really find that many compositions which interest me enough for me to photograph them?
When I am out making photographs the camera has never been a limitation for me. On the other, my inability to make many photos is the lack of creative vision. As a result of this I only expose a handful of frames each year (last year I exposed around 10 rolls of 220 film) and even out of those exposures very few get past the lightbox.
I know what I have to work on and thankfully at the moment that doesn't involve upgrading my camera gear.
Best regards.
Interesting.
JG
Interesting.
JG
Most of us live in places where equipment rental is available or where fellow photographers live who may not mind letting you try their gear.
Guy
...David
Guy
I read a commentary not too long ago that excoriated digital shooters for lack of craft - they just shoot a lot and edit. I'm hoping my film experience will help me avoid that pitfall.
I am just tired of hearing about camera gear, and just want to talk about how and why we make images. In fact, I am so sick of it I'm seriously thinking of buying a Leica IIIf with a 50mm and 135mm lens--technology from the early 1940s! Last fall I was invited to attend an "important" railroad photography meeting geared for professionals. I showed up with my 4x5, my Gitzo 1325cf, and a half dozen three dollar point & shoot cameras! (That's right, I was sticking a $3 camera on a thousand dollar tripod.) My shots were as good as anybodys too. Even the disposable cameras created some nice publishable shots. Everyone was amazed, but really, they shouldn't have been. By using a camera that basically only had two buttons (flash and shutter) I was able to concentrate 100% on the image! Most of them concentrated on pushing buttons on complicated cameras. I think that for many that distracted them from concentrating on the vision.
Sure, I have the money to buy pretty much any photo gear I want. But that's just it--I just don't want to. Lately, I'm thinking that the simpler my gear gets, the more creative my shots become. Maybe what I need is a Kodak Brownie from 1922. Think I'm kidding?
Kent in SD
"I am just tired of hearing about camera gear, and just want to talk about how and why we make images."
That's what I was leading to and hoped someone would say it. In the rush to get the latest and greatest we are rushing past things so fast now that we are forgeting to make images. I am out a lot "photographing" yet most of my time is spent looking and contmeplating a photo and not snapping away happily, at least for my serious work. I don't like pointing to any particular person, but the latest talk on alot of forums is is the P45 MF digital back and how it can best drum scanned LF film. To me its a big SO WHAT! Its not going to make photo on its own, and then for that matter how often do you need that much resolution. Grant it, I do photograph with a LF camera these as my primary tool, and even though I still for the most part don't need that much resolution, the print size that sells the most is a 6x9, and my 3 MP canon D30 can handel that. But then for my 20x25 or 24x30 enalrgement that hangs in the shows is what gets the sales of the smaller ones. Rarely do I sell one that large, but...
As I stated before, I don;t have a problem with either format (film or digital) or for that matter even camera format 35mm, MF, LF or pano. Its a tool, the means to an end which is a photograph. and As you said Kent, why that photo and what the photo says is much more pertinent. Yet I rarely ever see the those caught up in the flow discussing that. I have enjoyed this discussion.
"Seems like the more this is discussed, the more entrenched each "side" becomes."
Not me. I will probably go digital within the next year, when there's a camera that will handle my needs for wildlife (full frame, at least 11 MP, at least 5 fps). But I don't think Youssef intended to trigger yet another debate about technology. His whole point was about peer pressure and the obsession with technology that we see among some digital shooters.
Has anyone ever seen the kind of proselytizing that digital inspires? For example, panoramic cameras like the Fuji and XPan are highly useful and make very marketable images (wish I had one!). But was there ever a push to convince everyone they had to have one? You could say the same thing about large format. In that respect, I think digital is unique. And oddly enough, the campaign started well before digital had even matched 35mm film. I read many times that 5 MP was all anyone would ever need; today some of the same people who said that admit they have trouble selling the images. I will shoot digital, but I will never understand the almost religious fervor for it.
don't know abt 5fps but 11mpff cameras are already out.
I'm well aware that 11 MP and 16 MP cameras are out. In the Canon line, they are limited to 3 FPS and 4 FPS respectively. A number of people I know have tried them for wildlife and found them a little slow.
Cameras, I have to look at my skill factor also. I would love to have a 5D but I'm enjoying making great pictures while I learn with my 8 megapixel because I know I'm not at the skill level that requires a 5D and the reality is, owning a fancier camera will not improve my skills, practice on my less fancy camera will!
I’ve spent some time conversing with Paul about the TS-E lenses and now he understands, I hope, that the limitations of movements are really not that big of an issue when using Canon. I will tell you guys, if it weren’t for the TS-E’s I’d be shooting a Nikon D2X or still shooting a view camera. There are a ton of movements in the TS-E’s when it comes to what I used when shooting with the view camera. Being that I’m a mountain shooter I almost never used back tilt, only front tilt with rise and fall. With a 5-minute mod to the TS-E’s they can have tilt/rise & fall on the same plane. To this day I’ve just never had an issue with the mirror lockup either. I guess my many years shooting an EOS 1 I got used to it.
To answer the main question, I didn’t move from 35mm to 4x5 due to any peer pressure and the same goes for my move to digital. My main focus is the books that I produce for my publishing company Mountain Trail Press. So, the need for big film was not really an issue. Once I had a chance to work with a DSLR and the TS-E lenses…well that’s when I moved to digital!
Now, I’ll tell you my problem with this whole issue. I’m speaking from experience on both sides of the fence, large-format and now digital. The ego’s fly from both sides, not just digital! I recall the chastising that I got as I made the change to digital. Man, the LF crowd can be brutal. Hell, I used to fight like hell to why I used the view camera, I’m still eating crow to this day!
I’ve also spent some time talking with Charles Cramer after his move to digital and he has taken the same ridicule from his former LF and film fellows. He hit the nail on the head! He stated that he was treated like a defector! Well, that’s exactly how I felt/feel. Now, what is the first thing that we, the defectors, want to do? Prove every single one of our critics wrong. So we work our ass off to create image that are equal to or exceed our old images in our portfolio. This is all to prove our critics wrong! This is just the way guys are.
For me the 5D mated with the TS-E’s is perfect for my end use. I just received my 2007 Blue Ridge Mountains Wall Calendar. Three of the 13 images are large-format and the remaining are digital (5D & 1DS). I’ve asked photographers and non-photographers if they could pick out the LF images. To this date only one has been able to distinguish the difference and it was only because he knew the LF images from past. He stated that he was shocked how well the images match. So, yes, I made the right choice in my move! But I reiterate, this was my choice and no one else’s. If anyone reading this post is contemplating a move do your homework just as I did and make the choice due to own research not by what I or anyone else states.
I still get riled when I read that quote the Jack Dykinga wrote in an OP article “Anyone trying to shoot a landscape with even a 16.7MP camera is silly!” Damn, I guess Art Wolfe, Tom Mangelsen, John Shaw, Dave Middleton, our own Todd Caudle, Gary Crabbe, Mark Adamus …along with numerous other digital photographers that shoot landscapes are just stupid. And people question why we sometimes get defensive? Again, it goes both ways but we tend to only read what is conducive to our personal interest.
Other Photographer: "What'ch you shooting?"
Me: "The owls!"
Other photographer: "No, I mean what kind of camera?"
Me: "Oh, I misunderstood. Canon."
Other photographer [exasperated]: "No, film or digital?"
Me: "Oh. Misunderstood again. Film."
Other photographer, walking away: "Oh. Well I'm getting great stuff with my 20D."
Rreminds me of an elderly friend who went to trap shoots with a disreputable looking cheap shotgun, then beat the pants off all the guys with shotguns worth many thousands of dollars. He owned world-class shotguns, but was sick and tired of the gear heads in that venue. Yeah, it helps that he won Olympic gold in trap shooting in his youth, but the larger point is clear: It's not what you shoot, but how you shoot it.
My favorite stunt with avid gear heads is to ignore their gear and ask them technical questions about a scene. Scatters them faster than a skunk at a picnic.
And thus the vicious cycle of gearhead-ism begins, Jerry
When a photograph makes me say whoaaahh, the last thing I'm looking for is the technical details.
"If I could return in twenty years or so I would hope to see astounding interpretations of my most expressive images. It is true no one could print my negatives as I did, but they might well get more out of them by electronic means. Image quality is not the product of a machine, but of the person who directs the machine, and there are no limits to imagination and expression."
--Ansel Adams
Guy
I'm not talking about technical standpoint or exceeding old images due to camera and I've never had or needed to worry about my frame rate. When I made the change the general consensus from my LF friends was that I could never again create images with such impact. I wanted to and proved that the camera had nothing to do with the final image. It had nothing to do with digital, film, or format. (And yes, the TS-E's allow for perspective control and I find that it is a must when shooting specific types of landscapes). It's all about the final image and my move to digital from large-format should prove that. I definitely moved down in the MegaPixel market!
here
"I’ve also spent some time talking with Charles Cramer after his move to digital and he has taken the same ridicule from his former LF and film fellows. He hit the nail on the head! He stated that he was treated like a defector! Well, that’s exactly how I felt/feel. Now, what is the first thing that we, the defectors, want to do? Prove every single one of our critics wrong. So we work our ass off to create image that are equal to or exceed our old images in our portfolio. This is all to prove our critics wrong! This is just the way guys are."
As we all know Charles has taken a beating over his tests between 4x5 film and his new 39MP back.
As a LF guy, all I can say is Go Canon Digital. I bought stock in Canon 3 years ago and with everyone upgrading, buying the next best, converting from Nikon...etc, the stock has gone up where the money I have made due to it is funding my LF film costs.
Did I tell everyone how great digital is? And how much fun I am having shooting LF because of it.
Thanks everyone.
I agree with Jerry. People on the street talk so much about the whole digital and film thing. At one job of mine, some dude walks in and tells me digital can't do this, this and that. It's only good for snapshots and that there's nothing like good ol' film. I didn't even respond to the absurdity. Obviously he hasn't seen my portfolio before much less anyone here at NPN. A true fan of the art doesn't favor looking at images of any format over the other.
I know, here I go again....but I really encourage you to check out the ROVING CAMERA PROJECT. Give us some opinions. I can't speak for Mark, but I think at least one point of the project is to make you think outside the box (gear, film, megapixels, etc.) and take a look around. Use your vision to create an interesting photo without all the "stuff". Isn't that what it's all about, and what you have all been saying here....the medium is not so important, it's the vision, talent, eye of the photographer, that makes a good image?
I just have to ask, so where do you become “relevant enough” to tell me to work on my vision? But, of course, we as photographers should always work on our vision, keeping it fresh, but for one photographer to tell another is a bit ludicrous. Especially when you do not have any idea what my personal vision is or what propels that vision forward. My vision comes from my love of the Blue Ridge Mountains where I was born and raised and that’s what drives my VISION! If you've never visited these mountains and have no understanding of their history then you have no idea what motivates me or any other Southern Appalachian photographer to go out and photograph. My books and calendars are only a byproduct of my photography. I hope that my images contained within my books and calendars will help save a piece of our sacred mountains for future generation.
Guy
Thanks for the chuckle! I guess my eyes must be really good cause I've never had a problem with the viewfinders of the full frame cameras! Maybe it's all that great Mexican food I eat! Gotta love those fresh jalapenos!!!!!
OK, Jerry, I was wrong. You shouldn't work on your vision. Your gear is everything. I apologize.
Especially when you do not have any idea what my personal vision is or what propels that vision forward.
I think you're getting a little worked up here for no reason, Jerry. You clearly state that you have a personal vision (for your Blue Ridge Mtns); I'm merely suggesting you obsess over that and not your gear. I apologize for my comments being seen as out of line.
Anyway, I gotta run - I'm off to buy some stock in digital. Thanks for the tip, Jim.
MG,
As I stated, gear has nothing really to do with it! You're the one that keeps reading more into it. As I stated also, I'm the one that moved down to a smaller capture. So, stop putting words in my mouth.
Also I stated, that all photographers should always be working on their personal vision to keep their images fresh. It's just not up to us/you to tell them that they should or how they should create that vision. Maybe, unless you feel that you're qualified. Do you think you are qualified? I know that I'm not, I personally feel that telling someone to work on their vision is a pretty egotistical thing to do.
Jerry: can you quote where I stated HOW a photographer should create that vision?
Maybe, unless you feel that you're qualified. Do you think you are qualified? I know that I'm not, I personally feel that telling someone to work on their vision is a pretty egotistical thing to do.
And you've accused me of reading too into it? Look, with a committment, one can learn how to operate a camera and master exposure within days of beginning photography. After the technicals are mastered, what's next? All I can think of is to continually develop one's way of seeing, or I have I left something out?
I'll answer your "qualification" question only by saying that I work on my photographic way of seeing every day that I crawl out of bed. I will never master it, as it is a continually evolving process and will continue until the day I die (or until I quit photography for aerial basket-weaving). My suggestion that you work on your vision was not pointed at Jerry Greer, but at every photographer who has mastered the technicals of camera use. If you can think of another way to grow and evolve as a photographer, please let me know.
Now Mary Dennis wrote:
"...but I think some of that "religious fervor" that Cliff mentioned has something to do with the near instant gratification that digital imaging is able to supply us with. As in, why-would-anybody-want-to-wait-for-something-that-they-can-have-RIGHT-NOW?! I'm certainly not immune to that syndrome but lately it has been making me feel kind of empty, frustrated and even a bit angry at times...."
I can't say as to why it makes you angry, but this is leading to what I originally had in mind. How does photographing wiht digital equipment move the inner person. The revelry that the Digital convert kicks up stirring on the flow seems to carry everyone into it. Its fast, and capricious to some extent. I know not everyone here, as already stated, moved digital mindlessly, but in general I feel that the currents bring that on.
One aspect of photography that has always interested me, at least for landscape work, is the amount of patience that it required. From patience in the field to patience in getting the film back to the patience required in producing the prints or getting them published to the patience in learning how to photograph as well. What I tended to discover with digital was that it removed the aspect of patience from the equation. It gave the photographer instant gratification. Patience in general tends to keep one's inner being at ease and helps keeping one from getting worked up. So I found Mary's comment very interesting.
Second, in response to what Jerry stated:
"...I’ve also spent some time talking with Charles Cramer after his move to digital and he has taken the same ridicule from his former LF and film fellows. He hit the nail on the head! He stated that he was treated like a defector! Well, that’s exactly how I felt/feel. Now, what is the first thing that we, the defectors, want to do? Prove every single one of our critics wrong. So we work our ass off to create image that are equal to or exceed our old images in our portfolio. This is all to prove our critics wrong! This is just the way guys are. "
Well Jerry the question really, for me, is why even bother? I mean in the first place why even tell anyone you made the switch from film to digital? Had Charles Cramer just kept quite about it, continued to make stunning images, print them to 40x50 and if the quality is there, like he and the others who helped him show that it is there, would anyone have even thought he was doing anything different.
If the gear does not matter, then why make a point about what it is. Had you, Jerry, never told us that you made the switch, I don't think many would ever have been able to tell the difference in your work.
When I had made the decision to start using LF, I had asked for the opinions of the others here at NPN. One of the comments I recieved, can't remember who said it, after that person viewed my website was, "From the looks of your images, I thought you already were using LF". That was a very interesting comment for me to hear as it really made me think even harder about if making the move was a wise one. If my work already gave the impression of LF work, what was the point. In the end, the point was for me to use a camera system that matched my pace and dsiposition of image making in the field - slow and calculated.
And so I reiterate my original question but in different terms. If current itself has not motivated a switch, what pray tell, then motivates one who did make the switch to bring upon themselves all the grief that Jerry mentioned in tyring to defend one's equipment choice?
I mean does anyone ask a chef what brand pot he used to cook in? Does it matter? Does the chef go out and give a press release about it? It would seem that making a statement about what gear one used would only be self serving if such a claim brought the person some benefit - like maybe Canon is going to bank roll that photographer for his plug.
So if the Currents out there have not swayed one to make the switch from one format to another, What then make someone open themselves up to criticizim. If it is to prove the naysayers wrong, as Jerry mentioned, isn't that just the ego coming up for a breath, the desire to be 'king of the hill'? Wouldn't making claims be actually self-defeating in the end, as it will only show an insecurity about the choice made.
After I made the switch to LF I had my doubts about what I had done, and wrote an article for NPN about it. Its HERE and what I concluded was that camera did not matter, the claim did not matter, the acceptance of others did not matter. The only thing that really did matter was what resulted as photos.
I think this discussion is bring out some very interesting aspects of the human psyche that I find very interesting.
Now coming to the other point of what purpose does it serve to talk about the benefits of one's equipment - I think hearing about how someone has found a particular camera, format or capture medium to be beneficial to them is always a good thing; specially when those comments are coming from successful and accomplished photographers. For instance if I was in the market for a digital camera today I'd love to hear what Jerry, Guy, Tony, Marc (and many others) have to say about the Canon 5D. That information is more useful to me than reading sterile techno specs about the camera on some web-site. I want to know why other landscape photographes I look up to have chosen this camera and how they have used it effectively to make their photographs.
with regards to "the camera doesn't matter", for me what I mean by it is that whatever camera I need to produce the types of photos I endevor to produce should be the camera that is used. It should not matter if it is a 35mm film or digital of MF film or digital or LF or panoramic, or disposable ponit and shoot. You pick the tool that most fits the need, and in that sense for me the camera does not matter. A carpenter would not use a sldege hammer to frame a house nor would he use a 14oz. hammer to pile drive fence posts. They are both hammers and he would use the one that is most fitting. It would be insane for him to tout the virtures of using a sledge hammer for framing jsut because he does so and finds virture in it for him. He will get flack from others for doing that, no?
And with regards to obtaining ones advice on a given camera, you are correct. But what about the case when no one has asked, and the user of any given camera starts just spouting off about its virtues. Won't that photographer find flack coming his way? I asked some of those very photographers you mentioned about LF before I started using that camera, and now some of them have left the very camera they encouraged me to take up. What's up with that? Was thier advice wrong? should I feel jaded somewhat? Why didn't they tell me that - yeah I lke LF but I am thinking of jumping over to digital and so should you. Today its the virtues of digital. What if tomorrow a new method of image capture is developed that uses yet unheard of technology, then we will hear all of this again.
The point of my question was to try to understand what drives photographers to adopt one format or camera over another. If it is need driven then why raise the banner and open oneself to attack. Just do your job and produce the best photos you can and then recieve the accolades for the job well done. If it is ego driven, which I am afraid is more common amongst us than we care to admit, what can we say? And this is why I think the currents are so strong, the ego can't seem to be satisfied with what it has, especially when it sees someone else with something different and boasts to its superiority over all the rest. Those who have their egos in check will just go on doing whatever it is that they were doing happily and watch the flotsome flow along with the current. And those in the flow, will just keep flowing.
It’s simple, the excitement of finding a new flame to ignite ones photography! That’s why Charles, myself, Todd Caudle and anyone else that, once again, fell in love with taking photos using digital. For me it was like getting out of jail! No more being a camera operator, I feel that I’m a photographer. Hell, it’s just exciting! Just ask Todd or Charles, we’re having fun again. So, to answer your question why would we tell people, pure excitement! (Also, I teach digital workshops with Richard Bernabe, also a digital photog, so it’s hard to hide the fact that I’m using digital).
I can say that I’d never give up the past 5 years of using only a view camera. It made me the photographer that I am today, I’m certain of it. But now I’m taking the knowledge it taught me and I’m using it with my new camera system. And things couldn’t be better..
Again, peer pressure had nothing to do with my move to LF then to digital. It was all out of necessity. My move to LF came out of my personal need to change the way I was shooting. My move to digital came out of the following: I need the ability to create images for my books and calendars and in the capturing of the images I need to have mobility, I need numerous images from a location, and I need high quality images. I found through my own research that digital was the ticket.
You can call it ego, gearhead-ism, gear lust…just whatever you what to call it or me. All I can say is I love shooting with my 5D and TS-E’s. Best of all I’m making a living at it and some people out there love the images I make so they buy lots of my books and calendars. Heck, we even won some pretty big awards with our two calendars last year. I couldn’t be happier! So, call me what you wish because it really doesn’t matter. And if anyone wants to know why I love digital then just ask or better yet come to one of our workshops. We have a blast of a time in some of the most beautiful places on earth.
I may have been one of those guys and I can assure you that my move came very sudden. I really had no idea that I would make the move. It all came from my business partner as I was putting together our Shenandoah National Park book with his images. He had sent some digital images along with his large-format images and I could not believe how well they compared to the LF stuff. At that point I started my research and it wasn’t long before I hard purchased my first digital camera, a 10D. Just a few weeks after that the 1DS and within a few weeks my LF stuff went up for sale. It just happened sorry!
You make an interesting observation: if people don't want to take flack for their choices they can always keep quiet about them! In fairness though, I think some of the sharing comes from genuine enthusiasm for the technology.
For me, I know that the equipment I'm using does effect how I photograph. I haven't decided if its better or worse or just different.
I don't think there is anything inherently better about one technology or approach over others. It is possible that some approaches may be a better fit for some people. However, I do find it curious that people often claim a particular approach works better for them - without having made a concerted effort to try other approaches.
As I've said before, I think we are lucky to have so many different options. Rather than seeing this as a threat I think its an opportunity for everyone to find what works for them.
Cheers,
Eric
I am not prone to name calling, so please forgive me if I gave that impression. And again, let me reiterate, I am not opposed to any format. I own and photograph with digital equipment as well when needed. My last post 'Father Of The Forest' was made with a Canon D60. My interest was what made us tick inside and to get us cognizant of what we do and why and to not just be one of the herd. I have found this discussion very fascinating.
In many ways I believe the camera does not matter. But it should have certain features that I think does matter. Such as interchangeable lenses. Aperture and Shutterspeed control. Autofocus. I would be too restricted with a fixed lens point-n-shoot camera.
I have no intention of replacing or abandoning my Shen Hao. I bought my Large Format for the sheer joy of photography. I wanted to savour the entire process of creating images from beginning to end. But LF has its limitations. So I want to own two systems.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Sorry to enter the fray this late, but I gotta do a little stickin' up for my homeboy! Looks like things got misconstrued in both directions.
When I sold all my LF gear and bought into digital, I never expected to feel the way I did. First of all, I came to the unforeseen conclusion that I was no longer in the "club," that being the specialized club of being someone able to wield a bulky 4x5 camera in the field and come away with reasonably good images. For most people it takes a long road to arrive at that place, and I was proud to have gotten there. But alas, no more. That was a little sad. Okay, a lot sad. Also, while I didn't think my photographic skills, or the "vision thing," were superior to the next guy's or gal's, but knowing what a good 4x5 image was capable of, I always felt that my LF images were technically superior in some respects to other formats. (Keep in mind that 75% of LF shooters think the same thing, and the other 25% are lying.
So when I saw Jerry's results with digital, and his effervescent claims about digital's capabilities, I never saw it as equipment snobbery, but more accurately, I saw him as a witness for the defense. I have yet to see a digital photographer turn his nose up at an LF shooter, but I've seen plenty of that sort of thing going the other way. That's why I humorously/defensively told people after I made the switch that I'd gone over to the Dark Side.
So, you see, when you see someone singing the praises of digital, shouting it from the rooftop no less, it's partly defensive, but I think mostly it's that the process of shooting with such a mobile system so changes the way you shoot that it gives you a whole new set of pleasure points, and it's hard to keep quiet about the joy of this type of shooting after carrying around a slow, cumbersome 4x5 system for years. Unlike the quote above, I NEVER didn't have fun shooting LF, but shooting digital is a whole new (or old?) kind of fun. Instant feedback, variable ISO, no film/processing expense, about a third the gear weight, increased mobility, shooting tele – these are just the advantages I can think of off the top of my head. As long as I know from the outset that I'll never get a 40" wide print from a 12.8-MP camera that will rival a print from an LF Velvia transparency, I'm happy to have chosen to make the switch to the Dark Side!
I don't necessarily go "with" or "against" the current---or view it as either a friend or an enemy. I know that it will "flow" no matter what. I started my serious photography with a fully manual 35mm SLR. The teacher who motivated me to start recommend slide film as the best "teacher." Little lattitude for exposure error and WYSIWYG. I shot K64, and then "graduated" (to my subjective mind, it was the best ever) to K25. Back then, that was basically "the" choice. The "currents" eventually brought Fuji Velvia, which for a long time seemed to be the Nature Photographer's film of choice. I never warmed up to it, but eventually, shot a lot of Sensia II. One of the advantages was it was ektachrome (sp?), and therefore was easier to get processed locally (maybe that's some of that "instant gratification showing up). I missed K25 (don't even know if you could get it now). But that's me. I observed and truly appreciated some very talented photographers using other films and other formats.
In college, I shot for the college newspaper and the year book for two years. Along with that, I had darkroom privileges, including use, on a limited basis, for my own work. It was B&W only, and although I am primarily a color shooter, I was really glad to learn about the process of developing, and the amount of creative process (some might call it "manipulation") available to try to reproduce my personal vision (I know-----what does this have to do with "currents"? It leads to my personal motivation to switch to digital).
From that time on, I always told myself I would have a darkroom. I even collected some of the more inexpensive parts. But it would have to be color and that meant time, space and money. I never did get the darkroom---not exactly. But now I sit at the "darkroom" daily.
So, digital was kind of an "emancipation" for me. I can now capture, "develop" print, mat and frame my own work. Of course there are many ways to come to that. I could scan slides. Lots of that has to do with personal workflow, budget and convenience.
I don't see it as a "digital" vs. "film." I also do not see my "gear" as and end---only as a means to an end (to which there are admittedly many paths--the beauty is that we have choices). Many of us are intrigued by the technology that goes into any fine piece of equipment. I loved the "bank vault" feel of the higher-end Nikon and Canon cameras I owned or used. Sometimes, I went for a specific feature----(e.g., faster AF, or DOF preview, etc.). I am amazed at the science and technology that goes into the new digital cameras. If that makes me the proverbial "gear head," so be it. But we fool ourselves to say "gear doesn't matter." It does. As long as it doesn't become the end----or impede the creative process. As a young photographer, I may have observed expensive equipment and assumed the hands that held it were talented. I don't now---and doubt most here do. We judge talent by the end result. But that doesn't make it a "bad thing" to be interested in equipment, and what equipment others use and why.
I am not discerning enough to look a a high-end print and determine whether it was original digital capture, or film scanned and printed, or wet darkroom process in most instances. Nor does it really matter to the aesthetic result, IMO. But my natural curiousity might still lead me to wonder. The answer should not make any difference to my original reaction to the print.
The current will not stop. Like natural current, it will cause, slowly over time, a certain amount of change (some might refer to it as erosion). I know, for me, the current has created some advantages to my photography and, hopefully, has helped me focus on its creative aspects.
My $0.02 (which is probably about what its worth <g>)