I think you're on to something there. Sometimes, after a full weekend
of shooting, even with just 35mm, I MIGHT bring back 5 rolls. With the
4x5 I have to work to get 8 exposures in a day. I can't even imagine
getting 600 exposures in a day. To me that really brings home the fact
that shooting weddings, etc. is really a whole different world. I try
to put a fair amount of thought into each frame and pretty much use a
tripod and cable release exclusively. The exception would be for
snapshot things like my daughter's soccer games. If I were doing what
you're doing, I'd be digital all the way. To do otherwise would be, as
you said, economically unfeasable. While I do sell some prints, all of
my work is really for me. That means I have no time crunch and no need
to be able to show digital proofs. I'm inclined to argue the point
about drum scans, but I wouldn't feel right about it since I haven't had
that done with a 35mm slide for quite some time. Most of my 35mm color
stuff is either simple snapshots, or for slide shows for family and
friends, or for 4,000 dpi scans to make 8x10 prints for same. Pretty
much all of my drum scans now are from MF or 4x5 tranparencies. I do,
however, still do a lot of 35mm black and white, along with the medium
and large format. In fact, I seem to be spending more and more time on
black and white these days, and less and less on color. Nevertheless, I
don't believe that color slide film has met it's match quite yet. Right
now it seems that there are a lot of people on both sides of the fence
screaming their fool heads off on a purely emotional basis. Rather like
a political rally. Many of the tests on web sites and in magazines are
biased towards where the majority of their advertising money is coming
from - again very similar to politics. It's amusing to note that most
of the outdoor magazines that spend a lot of copy advocating digital
still feature mostly photographs that were shot on transparency.
Outdoor Photographer is a good example of this. AS far as 35mm goes,
even if it hasn't met it's match it soon will. On a purely technical
basis, that is. After that the sensor technology will run agains a wall
and the manufacturers will have to start building more durable cameras
that will actually have to last at least 5 or 6 years, then 35mm will
have met it's match economically as well. That will most likely be
within the next few years, and that's when I'll buy my next digital SLR.
By that time maybe they'll have inkjet technology developed to the point
where it won't run when I spill my beer on it, I won't hold my breath
though.
In the end, Chuck, I think the only way to find out for sure is for you
to bring your digital rig up here to Wyoming. Then we'll go out and
shoot people and landscapes and drink good beer and in the end I'm
certain we'll have it all figured out. Whaddya think? :-)
Bruce
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 6:28 PMt really brings home
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: When digital is no good...
>
>
> Our respective views of digital and film are highly colored by how we
> use our cameras. I shot over 600 images yesterday at a bat mitzvah.
> 200 of those will likely be culled due to technical
> problems... out of
> focus, bad exposure, etc. since a large part of it was shot
> with flash
> in semi-darkness. Of the remaining 400 about 100 or so will
> be chosen
> to be shown to the client. Some of the key images will get some
> retouching before the client ever sees them; meaning there's no
> guarantee those images will sell. Many more of the final
> choices will
> also get retouched.
>
> It wouldn't be feasable to work like this using film. And spending
> $25/pop on a drum scan is simply out of the question even if it could
> produce a much better image which I think is now questionable. As to
> the utility of drum scanning you might want to read this:
> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml>
>
> For the way you work and especially for black & white, film
> continues to
> make sense. It certainly makes sense for you economically
> and quality
> wise for black & white. But I think when it comes to color that film
> has already met its technical match. It has most certainly met its
> economic match for the way I often work.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
> Bruce Nolting wrote:
> > An interesting read. His best digital images seem to be
> neck and neck
> > with his best 35mm images to me. And the medium format images blow
> > them both away, of course. It seems to me that the
> performance of the
> > 35mm images is due more to scanner limitations than film
> limitations.
> > I suspect that if he had sent good slides over to West
> Coast Imaging
> > and had them scanned on the Heidelberg Tango drum scanner he would
> > have quite a pleasant surprise. Yes, that costs more money than
> > processing a RAW file in PS, but so what. I can process a
> heck of a
> > lot of E-6 and send the best slides to West Coast for
> scanning for the
> > many thousands of dollars it would cost me to convert completely to
> > digital (and then keep up with the new models every year as the old
> > ones malfunctioned). I'm quite sure John H. will be able to keep my
> > OM's running until I'm too decrepit to use them. My old
> Yashica TLR
> > is still almost like new after 40 years and my 4x5 was made
> in 1938 or
> > thereabouts - both of them will probably last my grandkids
> to the end
> > of their days. I'm not anti-digital, I use it all the time
> and there
> > are certainly areas where it works best. I couldn't run my web biz
> > without it. I just find that film gives me both better quality and
> > better value when it comes to my "serious" photography - primarily
> > landscapes and nature stuff. That's for color work. For black and
> > white there's still nothing that even comes close to a well done FB
> > print toned in selenium (IMHO, of course). The fact that I like
> > getting in there and playing with the chemicals much more
> than sitting
> > in front of a screen is just a bonus.
> >
> > Anyway, digital is certainly here to stay. So, I might
> add, is film.
> >
> > Just my 2 photons worth.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>[mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chuck Norcutt
> >>Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 4:07 PM
> >>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>Subject: [OM] Re: When digital is no good...
> >>
> >>
> >>Try reading the following:
> >>Part 1:
> >><http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html>
> >>Part 2:
> >><http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7A.html>
> >>Comparison of several digital cameras with film:
> >><http://www.gnyman.com/Digital%20Cameras%20comparison%20with%2
> >>0Film.htm>
> >>
> >>In theory, 20MP may be correct but, in practice, when you
> >>scan with that
> >>much resolution whatever is there tends to be masked and
> >>hidden by the
> >>grain. Sometimes the grain even gives the impression of
> >>detail that's
> >>really not there.
> >>
> >>Chuck Norcutt
> >>
> >>
> >>Bruce Nolting wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I seem to recall reading somewhere that in order to match the
> >>>information content (resolution, color depth, etc.) of a
> >>
> >>professional
> >>
> >>>grade 35mm slide (one taken on pro-grade film such as Velvia, using
> >>>good equipment and technique) it would take at least a 20
> >>
> >>mp sensor.
> >>
> >>>I haven't seen anything that leads me to doubt that, yet,
> >>
> >>either. Now
> >>
> >>>to go try and dig up the reference...
> >>>
> >>>Bruce
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>As regards detail on digital and film, an 8Mp Canon 20D clearly
> >>>>>surpasses what you can record on 35mm Provia.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm afraid that absolutely nothing I have ever read or
> seen suggests
> >>>>to me that that might possibly be true.
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>Simon
> >>>>==============================================
> >>>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> >>>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>==============================================
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>==============================================
> >>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> >>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>>==============================================
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>==============================================
> >>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> >>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>==============================================
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==============================================
> > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> > List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> > ==============================================
> >
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|