Move to film from digital?

First of all I apologize in advance for a very long post. But here goes:

I have owned a digital SLR (my very first SLR, and second camera, btw) for about a year now.

Lately I have been quite bothered with the quality of my photographs. Here are a few of the problems I am facing:

- contrary to public opinion, the sheer low cost of digital photography (no messy chemicals, no scanning, no buying an extra refridgerator, etc. despite being attractive are actually a hindrance to me. Lately I have been taking the barest minimum of compositions in the field - only to avoid the excessive time spent in front of the computer processing and analyzing all those shots, wondering whether to throw them away or not. I was getting so mad at having so many useless shots; and yet spending countless hours in front of the computer analyzing and storing them that I made a conscious decision to shoot the scene only if I like it (and give up the attitude of "let me shoot it now and worry whether it's good or not later". Sometimes I hike for miles and miles and return without having taken my camera out of my bag - I just don't want to take useless shots anymore that will incur an additional expense in time.

- The shots from digital aren't the final shot - they're just the beginning. The medium captured some scene, but now I have to sit down and work with it, and process the image in such a way that it resembles the scene the way I saw it - it's simply too much. Contrast and saturation can be taken only so far before they start falling apart.

- I don't own expensive photo-processing software like Photoshop CS2, I use the free Elements 2 that got supplied with my camera. Hence I am bereft of any higher quality photo processing algorithms (that a few people believe are the cause of my dis-satisfaction with the dynamic range of digital shots). However shelling out so much money on Photoshop CS2 - more expensive than my computer or my camera - makes me balk (I wonder if I could spend the money fruitfully elsewhere)

- lately I am getting more and more attracted to high-altitude climbing and mountaineering. It's not too far in the near future that I aim on making base camp trips to the tallest mountains on this planet. The base camps are themselves about 5000m+ above mean sea level. This alone makes my portable digital storage useless (since it has a hard drive that is un-useable above 3000m+).

- power consumption in high-altitude weather, and cold conditions is not the strongest of the features of digital SLRs

- digital SLRs are so heavy they weight like a tank. Every bit of weight that I can lose is better in my opinion

- To top it all, I have been advised to buy a backup body.

- I wouldn't wanna buy a body that is exposed to the same physical limitations as the first (digital) body I own.

- Hence I am seriously wondering about switching to film. (That is almost like a coup - I haven't heard of anyone who has started off with digital and then switched to film).

Maybe I'm just being too paranoid, but I am getting seriously attracted to film. The advantages of having a lighter body, no hard-drives failing above 3000m+, film captures everything and is the final medium, no post-processing hassles in front of the computer, tweak light before it hits the medium, and the ability to move to full format - make me wonder whether I should stay with digital or tank it completely.


But there are a couple of aspects of film that I am not aware of (having used only 2 rolls of film on a borrowed camera all my life).

- How serious is the problem of color shifts in slide films?

- Do you really need to store your slides in refridgerators? I have been receiving conflicting answers on this issue from different professionals.

- Eventually I will have to digitally scan my slides too, so it isn't exactly going to keep me away from the computer.

- Are bodies like the Canon Elan 7N good enough to handle a tank-like lens like my Canon 24-105? I believe the 24-105 weights twice or thrice as much as the Elan 7N - is it going to affect the stability of the camera?

- Are Elan 7Ns really good for high-alt and cold weather photography?

I was wondering about the EOS-1 and the EOS-3, but the weight just as much as the heavy digital SLRs, so I decided to not bother with those cameras.

I am really clueless about the world of film, so it is quite possible that I might be making really wierd arguments here.

What do you think?

Well as a film shooter, I have shot 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x7 and 4x5 so pretty much most formats. I moved over to digital a while back thinking it would be more cost effective and give me more time to shoot. I could also shoot like crazy as I have a endless supply of CF cards. How wrong was I. Not only did I now have to sit at the computer for hours sorting and sifting through all the images, I then has to process them all in a raw converter. This to me was wasting my time,, valuable time I felt I could be doing other things, like spend time with my wife. So i came to the conclusion digital was not what I wanted. One other major to me was print size and digital just didn't give me results I could 1.Sell and 2.Be happy selling.

I moved back to film only last month, I brought a Fotoman 6 x 17 camera, I have a review in the review forum, and I will never go back to digital. I prefer to have a slide that I can print off, well my print lab tat still does the most amazing Cibachromes I have ever seen. Printing direct from slide enables me to sell prints that are hand crafted.

Ii have a mate that has over 100,000 slides dating back over 25years, Colour shifting is not a issue. He has them sleeved and stored in filing cabinets. Refrigeration, well you can do that but most don't bother. Ask yourself where you digital files will be in 20 years time. I know my slides will still be fine.

Personally the 7n isn't bad but I would fork out for a EOS3 without grip. Great camera and will handle the knock and bumps of backpacking high altitude better than a 7n.

Anyway that's my opinion and there will be heaps of I would never use filmers again pitching in but each to their own

I believe in picking the tools that best suit you, your style, your intent, etc. The first question you need to ask is, what is the ultimate goal/purpose for your photographs? Prints? Stock? Hobby/share with family/friends?). This answer should influence the decision. If your goal is prints, the concensus is that DSLR resolution/quality is superior to 35mm and 645. You'd getter prints by staying with your current format, unless you plan on carrying a 6x6cm or 6x7cm at the altitudes you plan to take it. For sharing and memories, film and prints seems a whole lot simpler to me.

Addressing some of your thoughts/questions:
The shots from digital aren't the final shot - they're just the beginning.

It's fair to say that if you plan on making prints, you're going to find the same to be true with film.

How serious is the problem of color shifts in slide films?

Color shifts over the length of exposure (reciprocity failure), or color shifts as stored transparencies fade? The former can be dealt with by exposure compensation and filters, the latter can be mitigated by strict storage conditions. Primarily, keep them cool and in darkness and they'll outlast you.

Do you really need to store your slides in refridgerators?

NO. It's the best storage you can give your film, but modern emulsions are incredibly stable. Keep your film away from direct sunlight and it'll remain stable long after the stamped shelf life. I used to make a point of carrying a film cooler on longer road trips. I now keep my film inside the vehicle, out of the sun, and I have not had ONE problem (my film has been subject to high desert temperatures).

Eventually I will have to digitally scan my slides too, so it isn't exactly going to keep me away from the computer.

There are no free rides!

Good luck with your decision!

ps: you don't need to give up one format for the other. Why not keep digital for what you currently do, and shoot film for the mountaineering/altitude trips?

My bet is, you won`t be sure before you have tried. The good thing is that these days, you could get a used EOS 3 or even 1x dirt cheap compared to what they cost new. And you already have the lenses. Don`t get rid of your digital right away - you might find that both mediums have their strong sides as well as weaknesses.

Ashutosh,
1. I have used 35mm, 645, 67, and now 4x5. I purchased digital for 'travel' shots and now use it most of the time. I also started with canon hoping one day I might buy 5D. That was not to be (mostly the higher cost and fear of failure of such as expensive equipment). I now use D80 and find it atleast as good as 35mm film scanned with the best scanner out there sans grain. And mind you scanning film also takes a lot of time. Correcting those scans is even more time consuming imo.
Bottomline: to me it does not make much sense to get a 35mm film camera atleast from the quality pov.

2. I'm also very selective in the field and only own a couple of 1gb SD card without any memory bank. I normally make day trips though so it is not much of problem for me. Many people over here use their digital cameras in the mountains and harsh conditions. Todd might chime in here, he is almost always in the mountains I hear. so is Guy, jerry and marc. They do own 5D and seem to have no problems whatsoever. Not sure about the height though.

3. If you have to get a canon body then EOS3 is the best buy out there or 1. I'm sure 7N is also good too. I carried my 500N upto 4300m and had no problems at all.

4. If you want to make big enlargements then get a 4x5. You will automatically make fewer exposures and spend less time in front of computer.
5. color shift: what MG said.

I don't see it as either/ or. I vote for both. The others have provided good responses so far, and I think there are compelling reasons to own both a film camera and a digital.

There will always be circumstances when one will work better than the other, whether due to the subject and style of shooting or due to circumstances. Very long exposures or huge enlargements come to mind as advantages for film, while the ability to eliminate film costs and hassles in remote settings makes digital my choices.

The easy way is to buy a film body to go with your digital and lenses, giving you the freedom to choose and shift as the situation changes--- often in the same day.

More complicated and expensive, but with advantages for large prints, is the addition of a 4x5 outfit to go with your digital body.

I'd be tempted to buy a 35mm film body to compliment your digital and lenses as cheaply as possible for now, then improve your film system if it works out well for you. It would be a shame to switch completely, only to discover that you really should have kept the digital, when you can buy a film body so cheaply with no other change to your setup.

I think what everyone seems to be missing so far is this guy's application. He has two very severe restrictions due to high altitude works. One is the intense cold, the other is the weight factor (multiplied by the altitude.) There are two problems in the field he is facing with digital cameras. One is keeping batteries running, and the second is not being able to carry much weight. There are solar battery rechargers that would be a partial solution, but they add weight. He also complained about digital photo storage not being reliable at high altitude. He's been using some sort of hard drive for that--maybe a different form of storage would be lightweight and more reliable. How about simply carrying a half dozen 2 GB media cards so you don't have to download anything until you get back? That wouldn't weigh much, consumes no power, and takes up little room.

The obvious film camera choice for him is not the Canon Elans or anything similar. It would be either the Nikon F3HP or the FM2n. These are far less dependent on batteries and legendary in ruggedness. I think the FM2n can be used even without a battery, although the meter won't operate. He would still need a good film scanner and all the issues that go with that, of course. From a performance in the field standpoint, I think an FM2n would be something to look at closely though. An inexpensive digital body such as the Nikon D50 or better yet the D80 would compliment the system for use at lower altitudes.

There are software choices between Elements 2.0 and CS2. How about simply buying the moderately priced Elements 4.0? It's very powerful and a good value for the money.

A large format (4x5) field camera like the Shen Hao would be fantastic for the kind of mountain scenery he seems to be thinking of, but I don't think it would be an option for the higher elevations. For one thing, the wind would be a killer. For another, I think fooling around with knobs etc. barehanded would be dangerous at high altitude (frostbite.) While I am tempted to recommend one for lower altitude photos, he might have to teach himself how to use it, and we are back to the problem of scanning the film. An Epson 4990 or their newer one would certainly do it, but costs are starting to add up here.

Ashutosh--
Considering you are talking about very remote areas, electrical power is not a good option, and what you said your needs are, I'll offer up two options for you to consider:

1. Nikon FM2n (used from eBay,) two small zoom lenses (such as Nikons 28-105mm and 70-200mm f4 from eBay), Nikon film scanner Coolscan V, Photoshop Elements 4.0, small carbon fiber tripod.

2. Quality point & shoot digital camera WITH image stabilization (such as Canon SD700 or Canon G7,) five or six 2 GB media cards, small carbon fiber tripod, extra batteries, Photoshop Elements 4.0.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG7


The biggest downside of the smaller point & shoot cameras is they can't use ND grad filters very well. Their upside is great performance in a small light package. The image stabilization works too.


Kent in SD

Thanks to you all for your very informative replies! Let me try to answer them one by one:

Keith:

You are right digital storage takes up more money on storage in the long run than slide film ever will. But the EOS3 is actually heavier than my Canon 20D!

Michael:

I photograph for personal thrill, and sell prints of the photographs I make. I am not represented by any stock company at the moment, but I wouldn't be averse to the same.

Also when I was talking about color shifts, I was implying the reciprocity failure and fading of transparencies; I'm sorry my original statement doesn't sound as clear now that I read it again

About keeping my digital *and* buying a film camera; it would be a nice thing to do. However since my 20D is not a full-frame camera, and I own a specialized EF-S lens specifically for that purpose, it wouldn't be too long before it starts to get really expensive.

Cost is one of the big issues I went for a refurbished 20D instead of a 5D or anything like that - I went for the best in terms of quality and price at that point in time.

Prashant;

Your suggestion about carrying multiple CF cards is a good one and I actually did think about it in the past - the only problem being: buying so many CF cards is going to be much more expensive than the Elan7N!

Hank, thanks for bringing up the 4x5 topic; it did cross my mind over the last few months. It would be interesting to switch to 4x5 film instead of 35mm film (the only issue being price)

Kent, your suggestions are well taken, but moving to a Nikon lineup is going to be even more expensive!

I guess I am underestimating the markup cost involved in pursuing my endeavors!

But one question that hasn't yet been answered so far - the quality of digital photographs; this has almost gone completely unchallenged! Initially when I wrote that post, I thought I was extremely inept at RAW processing, and maybe somehow I was missing some important detail that everybody knew and were using to get impeccable digital photos. Maybe I was wrong.

But when I look at all you guys out there, it seems your "digital" photos are so amazing! Even some mundane compositions I've seen using digital have such amazing clarity and detail and complete lack of artifacts.

Did any of you take any RAW processing courses? I am completely self-taught, and pick up tidbits on RAW processing from here and there; and my computer science background helps me come up with my own versions of the same. Maybe that is my weak department?

AR,
One of my dream 'course' is to go with GuyT+MG workshop for LF, damn even spending some time with them would be great. And a course offered by Charles Crammer.

If am right you are in Canada, you can easily goto US for such a course. And don't forget THE Darwin Wigget. Not sure though if he offers such courses.
Seeing your work, I guess it should be no big deal for you to learn all the tech stuff. In fact I do not see any problem with your technique.
I've learnt most of the stuff myself and with a lot of help from NPNers.

And I will mention again: the quality of digital camera output is now so good that 35mm film is almost 'gone'. You may want to consider a better digital body or be ready to scan the slides and spend same amount of time in front of computer (or a larger camera ) . My digital images take at the most '10' minutes work whereas film work takes a long time.

Interesting topic Ashutosh. In your original post you mention that you were shooting too much. I think we all have gone through that when we first got digital and, like you, ended up with huge numbers of images we didn't like and wasted a lot of time. Experience and a bit of self discipline has helped me in that area.

I've been a photographer for a lot of years and have used various types and formats of film and now digital. I'm satisfied enough with digital that I've moved completely away from film. It sounds like you're at the stage of learning post processing and may perhaps need some more time with both film and digital to make your decision. I'm not sure where you live but it might be worth your while to see if there's a camera club in your area. This would be a good way to get to meet other photographers and learn both film and digital techniques.

I'm really not sure if the answer to your problem is more or different equipment. It sounds like you need to learn some more before you can make your final choice. The public library might be a good source of recent books on technique and processing.

Either film or digital should work well for you. I hope you begin to enjoy your photography again.

I moved from film to digital, selling my 645 just recently. I'm still holding onto my 4X5. I'd second the thought that image processing is no less time consuming with film than digital. They are just different. With digital maybe one of the issues is contrast adjustments and with film I was always trying to dig detail out of shadow areas. I got to the point where scanning was becoming tedious and would just guess that equal or less time is spent with a RAW converter and filing images.

I think everyone needs to find what works for them, Ashutosh, but my humble experience doesn't quite match up with your first 6 or 7 points. There are some qualities to a printed film image that I can't quite put my finger upon that still make it a little different and special.

Ashutosh,

I've never photographed anything above about 12,000 feet, and only with film, but a quick Google search turned up this story of Nikon-sponsored trip to Everest base camp with Nikon digital equipment:

http://pdnevents.com/everest/bio.html

I suspect if you check the net, you can find more info on people using digital cameras for high altitude photography.

Hi Ashutosh,
From experience, the Elan 7n is as useable as most autofocus film bodies HOWEVER, the shutter is not a professional grade unit and I was able to kill mine in less than 2 years. (Maybe 20,000 + actuations?) Subsequent trips to Canon repair have not solved the problem. Sticks open. Mine is now a nice paperweight. EOS 3 or even a 1n would probably hold you in good stead. I do have an EOS 20D but I'm not sellin my EOS 3 and I still shoot a few rolls of film from time to time.

Ashutosh,

So, are you planning on scanning your slides? Do you have any idea how much a really super high-quality 35mm film scanner is? Do you have any idea how hard it is to scan a slide and get what you want from it? Do you have any idea how long it takes to scan a slide at high resolution? And do you know that it still takes a complex photo editing program like photoshop for scanning film? These are questions that I would recommend that you really look at before regressing back to 35mm film. If you want to work with film I would go no smaller than 6x4.5cm.

Giving up film was the best thing I've ever done! In a 18 months I've taken more publishable photos in digital than over five years shooting large-format and 645. I'm never going back!

BTW, sorry that we can't help you on the small calendar project. We need an order of atleast 1000copies to print over the big pond.

Prashant, and Ed, I live in Montreal right now. Hardly any landscapers here from what I know, except Patrick, who currently seems to be AWOL.

Roger, you are right with your remark there. Of the entire 2 rolls of velvia slide film I ever shot, I realised there was that one thing in those photographs that was missing from my digital shots - film shots after scanning look a bit "continuous" (for lack of a better word) and smooth. Digital ones seem to have that matrix look to them.

Cliff and Arni, thanks for very usefull info.

Jerry, you are right there, slide scanning is slow, which I hinted at in my first post, but I had no idea who would sit around and play with it in photoshop. Is that the norm? I had the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED in mind when I decided to investigate into acquiring a film camera.

Thanks for your great responses, really appreciate your time and effort!

Ashutosh--

Nikon too expensive? Used FM2n body$140, used 28-105mm $150, used Nikon 70-210 f4--$130. (eBay prices.) The lenses are capable of pro results. The main reason to look at something like the FM2n is for the possibility of battery free operation and the ruggeness. Another thought is a Fuji rangerfinder 645 with two lenses. Whatever you get, you will certainly need better photo software than Elements 2.0. I still suggest the Elements 4.0. It does most of what CS2 will for 1/5 the cost. If not shooting at high altitude, a 4x5 field camera is the way to go, especially if cost is a big obstacle. You seem to have that style of thinking that would be a good fit. A 4x5 is not a good fit for windy summits or serious climbing though. It takes about 15 minutes to get off a shot and a tripod is necessary.


Kent in SD

Ashutosh,

Everyone keeps bringing up the 4x5, I again say that I've shot more publishable images in the 18 months while using digital as I did in 5 years shooting film with large format. Also, as a book publisher I can tell you that a high res 4x5 scan takes about an hour just to complete and then you have to spend the time in photoshop to get the image as you want. If you want 40x50's and are in love with being a large-format photog then look at large-format. If most of your images are going to be in the 20x30 range (and smaller) and you want to be a photographer instead of a camera operator look at the 5D with the TS-E lenses.

Oh, and if you have someone else scan your 4x5's they'll cost you for high quality high res files. And also, the 4x5's will cost you about $5.00 per shot! Remember, missed shots cost exactly the same as good shots because you have to have them processed to see if you got the shot! Film and processing cost for me was in the $4,000 to $5,000 range per year when shooting 4x5. That buys me a lot of CF cards and external hard drives!

Interesting information there, Jerry. I wasn't aware of these issues relating to the 4x5 format.

Ashutosh,

Jerry makes some good ppoints regarding the hard and soft costs of using large format. However, from your description of your style, i.e. high altitude, cold, remote. Another consideration at high altitude is the effect on our brain due to reduced oxygen. Seemingly simple cognitive tasks are not so easy. So, a simple 35mm film camera with a minimum of electronics may be your best solution. The Nikons that Kent mentioned are excellent for this type of work.

Having spent time at high altitude in the Andes, I will say that a film camera with a mechanical shutter, manual focus, and a simple on-board light metering system will stand you in good stead. I used an old Canon Ft-b and a couple of FD lenses at altitudes between 12,000 and 20,000 feet in very cold conditons: The camera never failed me. Tha camera uses one small battery to power the meter, and that's it. It is a very simple camera that is easy to use and quick to operate, which can be a real plus at altitude. Take a look at KEH.com. They have a huge assortment of great used gear for very reasonable prices. Their service is excellent!

-PB

Ashutosh, it sound sto me like you are working hard to convince yourself that the issue is your camera gear. While this may be the case, my observation is that in most cases it is not. Gear is the easiest thing to blame for lack of results but in fact when you examine some of your reasons what you're really indicating is lack of time, lack of skills, etc.

Rather than spend more time and money on camera gear I would wholeheartedly recommend spending the money on a good editing program (i.e. Photoshop CS2) and some training or books to go along with it.

I can relate to you not liking to spend time working your images on the computer. For each of us there's parts of the process we like more than others. Still, to avoid these critical steps of presenting your image to the viewer is akin to a marathon runner deciding they don't really feel like putting the effort to cross the finish line half way through the race. Good results require investment in time, skills (both field and processing), and practice. There are no shortcuts and I doubt film will cure these issues for you.

For alpine climbing and mountaineering I would stick to one camera body and one flexible zoom lens with a couple of extra batteries. For very technical stuff I wouldn't suggest anything more than a very light weight body (or even high end point-and-shoot). In fact a small high quality P&S can be a great companion to your DSLR system for times when weight is an issue.

Guy

Jerry wrote

If most of your images are going to be in the 20x30 range (and smaller) and you want to be a photographer instead of a camera operator look at the 5D with the TS-E lenses.

So if your not using digital you are a camera operator not a photographer, you have to be joking right. Every post I have seen here about film you push the fact you used to shoot 4x5 now shoot digital. That's great seems to work for what you want to achieve and I won't argue that but to state that if Ashutosh wants to be a photographer he need digital, as you stated above, is laughable.

Guy,

Thanks for your reply. I am not necessarily trying to convince myself that the problem is my camera gear, but the fact that digital to me seems to be a rather incomplete medium; and without expert skills in post processing work and significant amount of time to boot, it is unlikely to give what should have been in the first place.

When I hear Galen speak about spending more time in the field, and his technically perfect photographs (which I would believe are un-manipulated in photoshop); I believe photography should be all about the experience and the ability to tweak and control the light before it hits the medium to make sure it mimics the scene rather than be handed with a poor imitation in hand to be only brought to acceptable levels with great amounts if photoshop manipulation, time, and very little technological leeway in the process.

Let me give a real world example.

The attached image was made when I was trying out the first of the 2 slide films I have ever used (It's a Velvia 50).

The image attached with this post was made with a D20 and Canon 10-22mm lens. It covers the left half of the photograph above.

I think the difference is so mind-boggling, words fail me when I try to describe it.

The digital was processed in RSP, increased the temperature by about 2000K, increased contrast a bit, and set the "vibrance" value in RSP to 7 (default in "sample" mode). No fill light added. Processed without sharpening, and then resized for web.

For the film? I think I clearly remember only clicking the shutter after plugging in the same exposure readings for the D20 shot (same ISO and same exposure settings). Then got it scanned, and resized for web (which make it loose quite a bit of color, but still the image is not too far off from the full size version).

Guy has excellent points. I too have learned a few years ago that only in special instances is camera gear to blame for missed shots. Usually it is lack of good composition, at least in my case. A change in camera gear won't solve that. You also have specific gear related issues, such as battery life in cold climates, not having access to electrical outlets to recharge batteries, and of course reducing weight to a minimum. Those kinds of things are gear related, or at least you need a strategy to cope with them.

Gerry--

No doubt the expensive Canons with the TSE lenses can replace a 4x5 for most applications, but I look at it from a practical Midwesterner's POV. First, while I have the cash, I'm too cheap to spend it on an $8,000 camera, or even a $3,000 one. I'm also too cheap to buy the $1,000 TSE lenses plus some "regular" lenses. At a minimum, a 5D plus TSE lenses would cost $6,000, I would estimate. For less than $2,000 I have the Shen Hao field camera and three decent lenses. That leaves a LOT of money for film and scanning. For the large poster sized shots I've made I passed the costs to the buyer anyway. As a non full time photographer I just can't can't justify having big $$ tied up in a rapidly depreciating asset (digital camera equipment.) Also, I wouldn't want to try using a tilt/shift lens on a 14,000 ft. mountain anyway. The gear you've selected matches your needs well, and the gear I have matches mine equally well. BTW, the way I look at it, 4x5 is actually the cheapest format to own and shoot. Sure, film is five bucks a pop, but you don't pop very many. The digital system I'm planning around the Nikon D80 looks like it's going to cost me far more to own and shoot than my 4x5 does. For what the original poster seems to be wanting, I'm still sticking to my recommendation of either a solid manual film camera such as the FM2n, or a high quality point & shoot like the Canon G7 (with image stabilization.) Either seems to solve a lot of problems. For simplicity, the G7 with extra batteries and CF cards looks like a very good option. It cuts down weight & bulk, eliminates the need for a scanner, and the cost is relatively low compared to the return.


Kent in SD

Ashutosh,

I'm still shooting film, so there's no digital bias here. I don't think the medium would be important to Galen, apart from purely practical considerations. He used something smaller than 35mm (Instamatic?) on his first shoots, I guess because it was lightweight and inexpensive. In low light, he sometimes intentionally underexposed, then used masking and dupe film to pull a publishable image from the dark original. Digital would be a be big advantage in low light, since you can shoot cleaner images at high ISOs; it's hard to imagine, having read his books, Rowell would pass up that advantage.

Again, if high-altitude shooting is your interest, I would find out what other climbers are shooting, then decide whether or not that would work for you. But no camera is going to make any of us into Galen.

P.S. Your second shot above may actually have more potential than the first. You can see detail in the darks that could be brought out in Photoshop, while at the same time you could darken and intensify the sky to look like Velvia.

Forgot to mention: the velvia shot was made using a Nikon F65 camera, a Sigma 28-105 F3.8-5.6 super-cheap 100 dollar plastic lens, and pushed one stop during development, no MLU and no cable release.

The digital was made using my Canon D20, a Canon 10-22mm EF-S, MLU, cable release.

Both shots utilized a Manfrotto 055CL tripod.

Cliff;

It's true that just owning a film camera is not going to make any of us into Galen, and I don't think I am implying that - I think it would be near blasphemous. I am talking about the "technical quality of the color and output" of digital cameras, and not the quality of the composition.

Hence I uploaded my own crappy shots as examples, one shot on film and the other on digital.

I again say that I've shot more publishable images in the 18 months while using digital as I did in 5 years shooting film with large format........you want to be a photographer instead of a camera operator look at the 5D with the TS-E lenses.

Jerry: I've never used a digital camera, and ALL my 4x5's are publishable (define publishable.....). What does this prove? Absolutely nothing. It's an operator issue and has nothing to do with gear unless you equate with publishability being able to bag loads of shots and being able to do it faster than you can with a 4x5. There's a whole world of photographers out there using manual cameras and manually focusing and calculating exposure that would belly-roll at your "camera operator" comment (I am at this moment).

It's fine that you love digital and it works very well for you, but I'm not clear why you continue to degrade the view camera and traditional processes when it's something that worked well for you at one time.

Ashutosh,
to me dark room work is integral part of the 'image making' process. I really love to see how the image develops as I work on it using photoshop or black and white dark room.
If Galen had been a photoshop expert he would have used it to no end. Remember, he is often called as a manipulator by those purists who spent hours in the dark room to get that little more contrast (talk hipocrisy). To me his images are not about GND use or velvia but about the 'adventure' a 'superhero' kind of thing. You know what am talking?

Ok, so it is not the media as mentioned earlier and you agree with. As per your image, there is enough detail and one can easily extract it. In fact I try to get as flat an image as possible out of the camera or scanner.

I am talking about the "technical quality of the color and output" of digital cameras,>>>
I find the output of 350D/80D at least as good as 35mm film scanned. May be my skills are not that great but I have been really happy with the prints am getting. I recently put up 10 prints at a local gallery (exhibition is still going on) and it is mixture of 35mm film, 645/67, and digital. Guess what, the image I sold most (ok, 3 copies so what?) is done with D80. ( http://www.prashanteju.de/Exb_2006.html , last image.)

Asutosh,
Initially you wrote: "film captures everything and is the final medium, no post-processing hassles in front of the computer, tweak light before it hits the medium,"

Not so. You can shortcut post-processing only by having someone else do it for you - i.e. having the lab make your prints or scan it. This way you give up control over the final image. This might be OK for your purposes, but I seriously doubt it. The only case when film itself is the final product is when you`re viewing projected slides. Both digital and analog workflows require some form of tweaking.
Scanning film for the best result is NOT a simple push-button action. The approaches that give you the best detail usually leave you with funky colour and contrast - to be handled later in PS. I`m not trying to bash film here - just saying that you still need to post-process if you want to print your own images. Film is a different medium but not necessarily the simpler one to master.

The good thing with film is that you have an archival hard copy that you can reprocess any time when your skills have improved. The bad thing is that if you scan your film, you still have to get digital storage space (as in external hard drives and DVD-s) for your processed files. Straight scans are usually larger than RAW files (but that does not say much about the amount of recorded detail).

Film is a nice medium and I still recommend trying it but Velvia is by no means a magic cure for post-processing woes. In fact, less contrasty slides like Astia scan much better. Take another look at your sample images: the Velveeta has a black hole where the forest used to be. In this case, the blazing colour of the sky overpowers this lack of detail but in many other situations, it could ruin your image. I would definitely prefer your digital capture as a starting point for making a printable file.

Just to set the record straight, Galen Rowell was one of the first big name photographers to print digitally and the prints you see now in his gallery are heavily worked in Photoshop. In fact if you compare the quality of prints in his latest books (from processed digital scans) to his early ones you will notice a huge gap in quality.
Galen didn't have to be a Photoshop expert though. In the early years he had Bill Atkinson to help him scan, process and print his work and later he had staff to do it for him.

Guy

Ashutosh,

In the example above the digital file is much more detailed. The look of the film image can be easily simulated by adding some contrast and saturation. This is really the point - digital is more flexible and can give you the look of a given film as an option but also allows you to achieve the looks of any other film and possibly things not possible with any film. The reverse is not true. Once captured on a given emulsion, a lot of decisions are already made for you - you have much less room to mold the image into your vision - it either looks like it off the bat or it doesn't.

I suppose some might suggest capturing on low-contrast print film but that puts you right back where you are with digital - start off with low contrast and work from there.

Really at the end of the day either digital or chemical processing are a lot about practice. The more you do it, the better you become and the faster you will work. Shortcuts come at a cost and you need to be well aware of the cost before making the decision. Don't be tempted by any anecdotal benefit and ignore what you'll be giving up in exchange.

Guy

Galen Rowell was one of the first big name photographers to print digitally >>>
yes, ur right. I remember reading it in 'inner game'.
And yes, if you can afford a staff todo the job why not? More time in the wilderness. I will take it anytime.

Ashutosh--


Like you, I really dislike spending time in front of a computer. I'm an outside guy. However, I've been around NPN and other venues enough to see what Photoshop can do for images and am now completely sold on it. Really, I've come to think that computer abilities are 90% as important as photography skill. It's just become a fact of modern life. Why not buy a copy of Photoshop Elements 5.0 and a good book on how to use it, put in a solid month or two of working hard at it, and see where you're at then? I do think that software is unavoidable, so you might as well learn to do it well. I'm by no means a "purist" when it comes to using software. I see it as simply a tool to bring out the best in my images. Think of all this as using technology. By shooting slide film the way we did 15 years ago you weren't being "pure," you were simply using one technology. By using software processing you are simply using another technology. Either way, there is an "artificial" element/aspect to the images, right? Don't get hung up on it. Make it work FOR you.


Kent in SD

Thanks for your detailed respones, everybody. I appreciate them every bit.

Guy, just day before yesterday I received my copy of "Galen Rowell: A Retrospective". I cannot seem to tell much difference in the photographs printed in this book compared to the ones in his earlier ones.

But I have never seen Galen Rowell's prints in real life (outside of books), so mabye there is a difference. I don't know.

I think this thread has been a great learning experience for me. For a long time I assumed that when digital photographers said "minimal to no post-processing work done" about their photographs, I actually believed it to be "simply converted the RAW into TIFF, removed dust through cloning, resized and sharpened for web, and voila!".

Maybe I was wrong in that assumption - I guess people spend much more time processing and tweaking and manipulating their images than I had ever imagined ...

Only when I spend a whole lot of time, I do seem to get somewhat decent results, like the image attached. I think I must have spent about 2 1/2 - 3 hours on this image (I was really really bored that day, not to mention the bucketloads of rain we were receiving). The highlights aren't exactly what I'd like them to be, but anyways.

After processing this particular image, I was quite satisfied with my efforts.

But it triggered a moral dilemma. Deep inside, this image is not what my camera captured. It's a figment of my imagination, which I assume (and obviously, hope) accurately mimics the scene as I witnessed.

"But it triggered a moral dilemma. Deep inside, this image is not what my camera captured. It's a figment of my imagination, which I assume (and obviously, hope) accurately mimics the scene as I witnessed."

Your camera is a machine. You are the creator: the heart and mind behind the lens. To imagine, and then to create a work that closely resembles what you see and feel is at the very heart of all art. No moral dilemma here, in my opinion, Ashutosh.

-PB

Only when I spend a whole lot of time, I do seem to get somewhat decent results, like the image attached. I think I must have spent about 2 1/2 - 3 hours on this image

I hate to tell you, but that is NOT a lot of time (well, not for me anyway). Ansel Adams would spend days and sometimes even years to get a print he liked from an original negative.

If you're a stock photographer and are looking for high quantity and minimal processing you can get decent results by using a variety of actions you can apply in batch mode, but if you're after the best results you can possibly get from your original capture then expect it to take time.

Preston is absolutely right - who cares what the camera saw? I want to know what YOU have to tell me.

Guy

Ashutosh I have followed your work over the last 1 1/2 years that I have been into photography. A lot of your work is very good, you seem to have a good handle on technique & composition. However your postcapture has on occasion let you down, issues with lack of contrast, clipped colours & oversaturation. I wonder if your monitor is correctly calibrated as a starting point. I think if you get exposure right to within a stop, you should only be spending 5-10 minutes to get the shot 95% optimised. That's how long it takes me to get a shot from RAW processing (lightroom rather than PS CS2 of late) to a finished layered PS file. I notice that Marc Adamus, has on his website a tutorial about how he processes his work in 5-10 minutes. Check it out on http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/1896715

You LF guys are soooo touchy (remember I was once right there with you)! Dudes I was kidding with the camera operator thing but the rest was and is true fact and I'm speaking from experience not on assumptions.

MG you've said this many times that you don't care if you only get one good image a year and that's great! But I'm in the business of making calendars and books and one good image a year is not going to make it for me. (BTW, you make many more than just one great image per year, you are one of my all-time favorite photographers.) I've got my Blue Ridge Mountains calendar that's in its 7th year and one of the top 5 Barnes & Noble sellers. I now have a new 2008 North Carolina wall calendar that will be released this spring and in spring 2008 we will release my new hardcover book, Blue Ridge - Ancient and Majestic. This could not have been done the way I was shooting with large-format. There was no way I could keep up with the needs of our publications. Going digital has allowed me to move at a much faster pace so that I can keep up with our photo demands but has not hurt, only helped, my ability to bring home “publishable” images.

As for bashing large-format, that's not my intent but LF is not the holy grail of photography as some seem to want it to be and it's not for everyone in every way, as some may want it to be. Image detail and big prints are not the main reasons for making photographs! It took me a few years to see this for myself.

Ashutosh wanted to get out from behind the computer! Going to large-format IS NOT going to get anyone out from behind the computer. Well, unless you let someone else do the computer work. Then the final image becomes someone elses vision and that's a whole different story.

Re this:

"Going to large-format IS NOT going to get anyone out from behind the computer. Well, unless you let someone else do the computer work. Then the final image becomes someone elses vision and that's a whole different story."

I just chime in here because I didn't see anyone else mention this during this interesting thread. An advantage of film is that you've already got a hard reference copy of how you want the image to look (assuming you're using a film stock you're pleased with, exposed it properly, etc). A technician in the lab only needs a decent light panel to give him or her all the guidance he or she needs. If you're not happy, starting out, with how the image looks on film, then that of course is another thing. But I think what Ashutosh was getting at, was that very often we are happy with what we capture on film - it is already, in that sense, a "finished product" - ie one not requiring further interpretation, just reproduction. Remember how in the days of film people often preferred positive to negative film for this very reason.

The same cannot be said of digital. This then makes handing-over the slide to the lab, for scanning, processing, and printing, a much safer, more reliable, more feasible activity than handing over a raw digital file. With film, if you can afford it, it is feasible to get out from behind the computer - while with digital, not so, not without losing a lot of control to make it look the way you want, as has been pointed out. (Unlike film photographers pleased with how their images look on the slide, I've yet to hear a digital photographer talk about consistently getting raw captures they are completely satisfied with.)

As an aside: I like the "black hole" of Ashutosh's Velvia capture. If we're talking about the digital capture, I would subtract whatever detail it held in the forest. The image IMO works best with this jagged negative space in the middle, and any attempt to fill-in the negative space with detail, detracts from the overall image.

Scott

Scott,

When I started publishing books and calendars I worked with some of the best prepress techs in Asia. At that time they did all of the drum scans for my publications and even though they had the hard copy (film) the images always had a little of the techs personal color preference in it. Usually minor but enough to make a difference. So in 2001 I decided to work with those same prepress techs and they set me up with the CMYK parameters for their presses and I now do all of the prepress work here in-house, this includes all film scans and digital camera files. I can say with great happiness that our products look as close to the original file as I've ever seen in offset presswork. Especially taking into account the limitations of CMYK offset printing.

The reason I tell you this is that everyone sees colors a little differently and to think that someone can match your ideals exactly even with the original film as a reference is really stretching it a little far.

As for being happy with the RAW file, I’m always happy with the file if I have all the information available without any, or very little, clipping. (So, does that make me your first?) If I have all the info I’ve got it made and I can work that image just as I want to work that image and make it the way I want that image in print whether in a book, calendar, or wall art.

Also, why would I ever want to hand over a RAW file? No one hands over a RAW file for someone else to work. At the most it takes me 10 minutes to ready an image for printing in any form. We hand over a ready-made color profiled TIFF image that will print perfectly if the printer or press operator is competent with the job at hand. When scanning large-format it took at least and hour per tranny to get to the same point!

Jerry,

Thanks for your reply. I only mentioned the hypothetical, of handing over a raw digital file, because that would be the analogy for handing over an untouched-up piece of film. I realize nobody hands over a raw digital file, but why is that? Its for exactly the reasons I mentioned - the need to postprocess it to apply your interpretation to the image before printing. Whereas many people hand over film and get back prints that, most of the time, very closely match the transparency, with no computer time on the part of the film shooter - indeed that's been my experience with Calypso Imaging, and its how Calypso, West Coast Imaging, and etc market themselves to film shooters (read their testimonials). So its in that sense that I tend to agree with Ashutosh: that film is like a "finished product". For those who, for whatever of a myriad of possible reasons with which we may or may not agree or sympathize, are averse to spending quality time with the computer, this is a film advantage.

By the way, your work is gorgeous.

Scott

Scott, you've put it very succinctly; could've have said it better.

In that sense, my belief is that I have to bring the RAW file to come close to what film would've done. Then try to improve on top of that. Certainly film comes very close to a finished product, whereas digital is an incomplete medium. I guess it took me many more words to say it than you

This last bit of discussion brings up a point I've made in other threads that essentially the current digital process that most DSLR photographers use is without adequate calibration or control so that after capturing images a photographer may only have their memory to recall what the scenes looked like. That is of course is far more likely to result in variations with enhanced "in one's mind's eye" variations obviously more likely. Getting excellent fidelity is of course possible for those that have the tools and made the effort for such a workflow. And of course there are some experienced photographers that have developed sensitive skills being able to judge color and light that do very well by that alone. Personally I think DSLR digital photography systems will be significantly more useful when manufacturers can add a readily available neutral color/luminance fidelity small image size capture function that can complement any capture. Given such a function, subjective judgements will tend to be moderated giving users something consistent to compare with. Of course with higher fidelity films like Astia, Provia, EPN-100 etc that consistency is built in that just varies with exposure a bit. ...David

Ashutosh - I still shoot 35mm, but hopefully not for much longer. I shoot slide film exclusively, and I spend ridiculous amounts of time behind the computer. Well, first, I have to pay for film, then pay for processing. Then I sit at home, crouched over light table with a garbage can next to me, picking out all the keepers from my boxes of slides. Then, I head up to the computer and start scanning. And scanning. And scanning some more. Takes forever. Once they're all scanned, I need to start working in Photoshop to get all the images tweaked to my liking. I scan 14-bit on a Coolscan V, 4000 dpi. Each scan takes up about 120MB of hard drive space. And then I have to go in and edit each scan, removing dust specks where necessary, tweaking the levels where necessary, etc. And all this takes a ridiculous amount of time. It's very frustrating and I don't wish it on anyone.

Saying that shooting digital means that you have a lot of post-processing to do and that film is a final product is not correct. If you don't want to as much post-processing, you can just shoot JPG instead of RAW, and the camera will do a lot of processing for you. But you will be losing many of the benefits of shooting with the RAW format.

For serious high-altitude mountaineering, I would think a fully manual 35mm camera would be perfect. Such as something like the Nikon FM2n mentioned above. I'm sure Canon probably has something similar.

I should also mention that I only print images I scan myself up to 12x18, maybe 16x24. Usually for 16x24 or larger, I get a drum scan made. That's about $40, minimum, per image. I do this to pull all information possible out of the slide. With a RAW file from a digital camera, you've got all the information the camera captured, no scanning necessary. That's a lot of time and expense you've saved. (I'm in the process of scanning nearly all my slides. At that point, the actual slide will just be a backup. I will scan every slide at home. Drum scans will only be done when needed, and that cost is taken out of my profit the first time I make a large print of the image. Fortunately, I only need to do this once).

Brent, you won't get any disagreement that scanning a slide and then post-scan cleanup and processing to match the slide is a lot of computer time. And you won't get any disagreement that paying somebody else to do it for you can be a lot of money, in direct proportion to (a) the quality of the work and (b) the volume of images.

My only point is that film, by its nature of being a hard copy, out-of-camera (and developer :-), of how you want the final image to look, enables getting out from behind the computer, for those who can afford to pay somebody else to do it (ie, for those whose volume of images fits within their expendable income - obviously this works for some people in some situations, and not others). In contrast, with digital, you yourself are never going to be able to get away from that computer under any volume or income circumstances, without losing greater interpretive control over the final image than the film shooter gives away when he hires out his computer work. In this sense, I'll stand on the statement that film is a final product.

Scott

Control? You have no control over film other than over exposure, under exposure or a proper exposure. The dynamic range of film is over two stops less that with the 5D before any computer work. If you want the film to control your photography then that’s ok I guess.

I'll bet that I spent more time looking at film on a light table than I ever did processing RAW files. BTW, I never process a RAW file until I'm ready to use the image. For those that think that we process every image that we take is misinformed.

Scott - The only way I would consider film as "final" is if it was being projected. For any other use, we're talking about it being printed, either as a print or in a publication, or used digitally in a web site or other use. All of those will require computer time, unless you just give the slide to someone and tell them to do their best. But for me, just because the image is on a slide, doesn't mean I don't want to tweak it a little. I won't have as much control as I would if I was starting with a RAW file, but I almost always do a couple tweaks to any image before it is used for anything.

I guess my point was, if you want to consider that what comes out of the camera is final, then feel free to shoot JPG instead of RAW. The image will be process per your camera's settings, and you can just load to your computer, and keep shooting, no real computer time necessary. Same as shooting slides, and leaving that slide as the final product.

Or, if you want more control over your images, and are willing to spend the computer time, shoot RAW, or shoot film and start scanning. Same deal. But scanning and editing those scans is going to take a lot longer than RAW conversion (once you're comfortable with the RAW conversion process).

Even if he decided to give up the RAW benefits and stick to shooting JPG, there will be many benefits to digital over film. For example: changing memory cards a lot less often than changing film, no film purchasing, no film processing costs, instant access to your images, being able to view and edit in the field and reshoot if necessary, fewer hassles with airport security. I could go on, I suppose.

I just don't understand why anyone would but a 35mm camera these days, when the benefits to digital are just so great. The only reason I am shooting 35mm right now is because I have a pro-level camera, and no money to upgrade at this time. I can easily afford a few rolls of film once in a while much more than I can afford to drop well over $1000 on the DSLR I've got my eye on (D200) and a new lens or two. With two young'uns at home, shooting time is pretty rare these days, so I'm not in a huge hurry to upgrade.