Thom Hogan.."from film to digital"

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Thom Hogan wrote:
That's because there are now

interactions on the automatic features that may preclude you from
seeing what is causing an impact. In particular, Nikon is now linking
autofocus sensor used to the matrix pattern in ways they didn't used
to, which causes exposure differences. It's worst on the D80, but
it's also there to a smaller degree on the D3.

This is nothing new, I appreciate its geared to MF users. But does that really have any bearing? On many 35mm camera systems, metering has changed since the old CW MF jobs. This isnt breaking news. Nor is it any big deal (yes some do shot slide..and they will know this)

My point was, and remains, that if you have dozens of things
impacting your results and you're trying to learn how to control
those results, the combinations and permutations that you'll need to
try to get a handle on that gets quite high. If you start with the
basics, lock that in and then add one new aspect at a time, it's far
easier to learn about what impact each camera setting has.

I use MF cameras, and I know many who do also, alongside AF ones. I don't think its going to be much use, bar a few uber stick to the old ways shooters, whom I very much doubt have not touched a modern AF based SLR, nikon or otherwise.

Stop being deliberately mis-leading. I did NOT say that "everyone who
shoots negative film doesn't know how to control exposure." However,
anyone who taught photography in the film era will tell you the same
thing: we tended to require students to shoot slide film at workshops
for a very simple reason: with automated processing and printing
machines and a wide exposure latitude, most students were shooting
not really controlling exposure. More often than not the machines
were producing results they found acceptable. Acceptable is not
optimal. With digital, as with slide film, you need to be optimal,
not acceptable.

I would have to disagree, as b&w print film is IMO the most common medium taught to people. I suggest that most photography courses start in this area, and not slide. Not to say they dont move to it later on.

How about an article on why you feel digital is slide like..would be closer to your subject.

Not being misleading at all, your remarks were somewhat patronising IMO

No, magic is not bad. But a common complaint I hear from people who
are relying upon magic to happen is this: "why are my results
inconsistent?"

Again, you avoid what I said. Its not something that has been going on for a long long time. The auto lab stuff, is more recent..that is my only point here.

DIY your own I say..

I have no problem with that. And given your other comments, that may
even be what you do. But I wasn't talking to you, then, was I?
Essentially you butted in and said "hey none of that applies to me or
Henri." Fine. Continue with what you're doing, I have no problems
with that. The thing is, with the appearance of the D3 and D700, I
get a constant stream of emails from people who are not you and who
do rely on that magic and who aren't optimizing exposure. When I get
a constant stream of a constant question, I tend to write an article
about it.

My point here, is that there is no magic. Go shoot some film, drop it off at a local lab..then come back here.

And here your real intent starts to be obvious. You don't want people
to stop using film.

I dont care what anyone uses, it matters not. I know the pros and cons of both. I am not the one suggesting the final degree of control is greater for digital. If your target audience is MF SLR based, maybe they dont even know what photoshop is..because you will have to accept, software does play a larger part in photography now. On the other hand, the benefits of this, extend to film shooters also, to a degree.

Fine. Start your own Web site, support it with

articles and publications, answer every email that comes across your
desk, teach film workshops, find an fpreview.com and help people in
the forums there. Maybe every once in awhile you and I can have a
Crossfire-type faceoff in between. But taking snipes at me here isn't
very productive, AFAIC.

Observations, not snipes. I disliked the tone of your article. Optimal exposures is another interesting one, but then as a photographer you know exposure is a creative tool. And there is no correct exposure..is there. If you want to do expose to the right..how to keep noise down, fire away.

It might have occurred to you, that the high latitude of print film, is considered an advantage for many, my apologies if I took it the wrong way..but your article came across as a bit shallow latitude is good, because its more skillful.

There would be few complaints from most, if digital did have that room to move. Its the most obvious weak spot in the medium.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

 

[attaway2]

Hi Thom:

Didn't realize the D80 switched matrix weighting when switching autofocus points. Thats a bit too much 'magic' for me. Maybe I'll use centerweighted more of the time.

BTW, I switched from shooting all slide film to digital late last year. But for me, the Nikon EL is still the perfect camera. Centerweighted metering, match needle, autoexposure when you want it, good balance with the old 80-200 4.5.

I've got a beautiful EL outfit on the shelf, ready to go. And there it sits. Guess I've gone over...

--
Stephen Attaway
http://www.stephenattaway.com

 

[PhotoTraveler]

Hah, what a perfect analogy that goes so not the way you planned.

People use chopsticks because they are easier to eat chineese food with than a fork. Only people who never learned how to use sticks think sticks are harder. Just like how those who never learned manual focusing think that manual focusing is hard or inferior to AF (forks).

But then, why do some people "have to" eat with two sticks in a
chinese restaurant, even if they can eat more effectively with one
fork?

-Andy

 

[Andy OZR]

People use chopsticks because they are easier to eat chineese food
with than a fork.

Sorry, but I disagree. Only those who have a lifetime experience, like the chinese people, willl use chopsticks very effectively. The ordinary westerner hardly use them daily, and just don't have enough practice to use them effectively.

Just like how those who never learned
manual focusing think that manual focusing is hard or inferior to AF
(forks).

I have learned to focus manually, and it is "inferior" when it comes to speed and practicality. But it is useful if the AF should malfunction.

But then, these are my opinions.

-Andy

 

[PhotoTraveler]

What are you basing that on? I taught myself how to use sticks in college very quickly and have never gone back because it's much easier. Give it a try someday or a few days maybe. Not much chinese food is made to be stabbed by a fork.

And if your only going to look at rice, well, if the rice your eating can't be eaten with chopsticks easily, it's bad rice or badly prepared rice.

I don't know very many people who would take a fork over sticks for such food (aside from those who switch to fork to shovel in rice quickly at the end of the meal) and those who use forks over sticks usualy are quiet honest about having never really given sticks a try.

 

[Thom Hogan]

But does that really have any bearing?
I don't think its going to be much use

You and I disagree. I happen to have been teaching those folk for some time now, and I'll continue to assert that I keep finding people making the transition who are making incorrect assumptions about digital based upon missing a change in how exposure is handled by the camera. This really came to a head with the D80.

I would have to disagree, as b&w print film is IMO the most common
medium taught to people.

First, your response is totally non-sequitor to my comment. You're not disagreeing with my point, you're making an entirely new point. Second, the numbers don't back up your "opinion." If they did, then Kodak and Fujifilm, et.al., would have been selling way more B&W print film than any other type. It's true that many formal photography programs used to start with B&W print in Photography 101 type courses, but you might want to take a close look at what's happening now. At five local colleges they've completely removed the darkrooms, making it impossible to teach that class. Third, the number of people who took formal classes is a minority of those taking photographs. The majority of the folk that have been asking me the question to which my article is one response do not have such formal training.

I suggest that most photography courses
start in this area, and not slide.

Go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say "courses," I said "workshops." Again, you're off on a non-sequitor. I haven't taught at the university since 1980. I have taught workshops many times since. I can say with some confidence that these tend to be two different groups, with different abilities and expectations.

Optimal exposures is another interesting one, but then as a
photographer you know exposure is a creative tool.

Yes, and an "optimal exposure" is situational. Nothing in what I said implied that there is only ONE exposure.

latitude is good, because its more skillful.

Latitude is actually preferred, but ONLY if you know that you've got it, you know how much you've got, and you know how to use it. My point was and remains that there are quite a few people out there who are using that latitude without knowing it, and when they move to a system that has little or no latitude, they are surprised by the results they get.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (18 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

 

[rgmoore]

Thom is talking about folks coming from older MF film cameras. The
first "real" AF pro nikon body (that I remember) was the F3 with a
servo EE widget that worked with only a few lens (that do not work on
any other body) so the cameras listed are all pre AF.

It's a complete aside, but the special F3AF lenses aren't strictly limited to the F3AF. Nikon kept a compatibility mode for those lenses in its first generation of true AF cameras, so they'll work on the F4 and the 2020.
--

As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams

 

[The Davinator]

The primary 35mm use I see from people now is B&W. The local labs I deal with still see a lot of B&W film & chemistry go through their hands. Color 35mm is down by a huge amount.

For other formats, MF sales reduction levelled off a bit as there is a lot of used MF gear on the market from pros who ditched it because of workflow, some cost issues, time and convenience. This includes myself as I never use MF for wedding or portraiture any longer. For the print sizes I sell, they were not really seeing much of a difference between high end digital and MF film.

For large format like 4x5, 8x10, and other cut sheet sizes, sales have been increasing lately as many amateurs have been introduced to the quality that can be obtained and the low cost of entry. This is especially the case in B&W. New view camera sales have been increasing as well as new models coming to market. Film manufacturers are actually listening to buyers and arranging specialty sheet sizes like 7x17, 5x8, etc.

I would tend to agree with Hogan that the D3 as well as the Canon and Pentax higher quality cameras have eroded 35mm down to a near niche…..at least in North America. The funny thing I’ve been finding though is the increased amount of interest my clients have had with the use of B&W film. A lot of people have been doing reading on the web, and have found an interest in having their photographer use some film for there weddings or portraits..

So far this year, I’ve used my Bessa R2a rangefinder and a 35mm Leica lens for half a dozen weddings for the B&W shots as well as a lot of candids. I push HP5 to 800 in HC110, Dil B. The tonality is gorgeous, the grain is sharp and tight, and the latitude of the film is huge! My clients love the look….and that is all that matters to me. The “film is dead” mantra from ill-informed web-experts on the forums without any photos of their own hardly are a concern to them, or me!

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Sorry, but I disagree. Only those who have a lifetime experience, like the chinese > people, willl use chopsticks very effectively. The ordinary westerner hardly use > them daily, and just don't have enough practice to use them effectively.

That's wrong chinese food is harder to eat with a fork, much harder. once you get a good action with sticks you never forget it- the right tool for the right job I say

Just like how those who never learned
manual focusing think that manual focusing is hard or inferior to AF
(forks).

I have learned to focus manually, and it is "inferior" when it comes
to speed and practicality. But it is useful if the AF should
malfunction.

But then, these are my opinions.

Sure but I use manual more than AF because some photographic situations still call for manual.

Try extreme Macro with critical focus points or very low light work say EV -1-2 most AF cameras won't function that well or are slower than under normal conditions, my 20D locks and won't fire in some low light situations so I use manual.

AF is no panacea, the correct tool for any job is the one that gives best results.
YMMV
Mark

--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

 

[Andy OZR]

I don't need to discuss this further, definitely not in a forum dedicated to photography. I have already presented my views.

-Andy

 

[Tony 123]

My grand parents were telling me: don’t you use that calculator, you will never learn maths. Heck, there’s a lot more to maths than basic arithmetic.

It is the same with manual film cameras and modern DSLRs. A modern DSLR is a mini computer in your hands. There’s a lot more to it than being able to manually focus your lens. Moreover, people do focus their lenses manually on DLSRs when they need to. Or use super fast AF on professional Nikon DSLRs when fast and accurate AF is required.

 

[Andy OZR]

Sure but I use manual more than AF because some photographic
situations still call for manual.
Try extreme Macro with critical focus points or very low light work

Even I use MF under such conditions, but the shots that I was referring to was not macro photography.

-Andy

 

[photog7320]

latitude is good, because its more skillful.

Latitude is actually preferred, but ONLY if you know that you've got
it, you know how much you've got, and you know how to use it. My
point was and remains that there are quite a few people out there who
are using that latitude without knowing it, and when they move to a
system that has little or no latitude, they are surprised by the
results they get.

Wow...that sums up pretty much every argument I've ever had with Barry regarding latitude and exposure. I think he needs one of your workshops!

 

[The Davinator]

latitude is good, because its more skillful.

Latitude is actually preferred, but ONLY if you know that you've got
it, you know how much you've got, and you know how to use it. My
point was and remains that there are quite a few people out there who
are using that latitude without knowing it, and when they move to a
system that has little or no latitude, they are surprised by the
results they get.

Wow...that sums up pretty much every argument I've ever had with
Barry regarding latitude and exposure. I think he needs one of your
workshops!

Maybe you should. What system do YOU think he's referring to when he mentions "Little or no latitude?" I'll give you a hint.....it's not film. And THIS has been Barry's point!

Next time when you're trying to be witty, make certain you understand what is being discussed.

 

[rgmoore]

Maybe you should. What system do YOU think he's referring to when he
mentions "Little or no latitude?" I'll give you a hint.....it's not
film. And THIS has been Barry's point!

Actually, digital has excellent latitude. It's just that digital has good latitude for underexposure while negative film has good latitude for overexposure. People who are used to shooting negative film and depend on its highlight latitude are in for a rude shock when they switch to digital. Of course that was Thom's point. Part of learning digital is getting to know its strengths and weaknesses and how those differ from the film you're used to.
--

As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams

 

[photog7320]

Wow...that sums up pretty much every argument I've ever had with
Barry regarding latitude and exposure. I think he needs one of your
workshops!

Maybe you should. What system do YOU think he's referring to when he
mentions "Little or no latitude?" I'll give you a hint.....it's not
film. And THIS has been Barry's point!

And my point has been that 8.5-11 stops of total dynamic range is hardly a problem for people who know how to expose the medium, which I believe is what Thom is trying to teach.

Barry's problem is that he refuses to learn or move beyond evaluative metering, auto exposure, and the local lab. It's a laugh watching Barry lecture a man who has a long history with film development and printing when Barry hasn't ever been inside a wet darkroom.

Next time when you're trying to be witty, make certain you understand
what is being discussed.

Next time when you're trying to be the forum expert, make certain you understand what is being discussed.

 

[photog7320]

Maybe you should. What system do YOU think he's referring to when he
mentions "Little or no latitude?" I'll give you a hint.....it's not
film. And THIS has been Barry's point!

Actually, digital has excellent latitude. It's just that digital has
good latitude for underexposure while negative film has good latitude
for overexposure. People who are used to shooting negative film and
depend on its highlight latitude are in for a rude shock when they
switch to digital. Of course that was Thom's point. Part of
learning digital is getting to know its strengths and weaknesses and
how those differ from the film you're used to.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Actually, digital has excellent latitude. It's just that digital has
good latitude for underexposure while negative film has good latitude
for overexposure. People who are used to shooting negative film and
depend on its highlight latitude are in for a rude shock when they
switch to digital. Of course that was Thom's point. Part of
learning digital is getting to know its strengths and weaknesses and
how those differ from the film you're used to.

Nobody denies the point you make (however, fim emulsions do vary..some will take pushing rather well, and some not so well) We all know that digital has good shadow latitude, and lousy highlight (no comment on fuji, not used one)

My point is, which is of more use in general? I would argue its the great highlight range myself. And, it doesn't take long to spot how digital reacts to exposure, I bet most will pick it up fairly fast.

But suggesting, that somehow, this makes a more skilled photographer, is a mistake IMHO. It's a limitation of the medium, but it was presented as some kind of trophy to aim for.

Many neg film shooters are using the stuff, for the latitude reasons, and why not? You can use slide too, if you want too. Another point, I suspect most have used slide, and neg film..and know the two are not the same. So how hard is the move to digital? Probably not as dramatic as some suggest.

This is the kind of shot that hurts digital..and you just get it with neg film (and this is just bog standard ISO 200 fuji stuff, there are better DR neg films out there)



If you attempt that with your small sensor digicam, it will just die..ta ta to the sky..white out.

A DSLR will do a bit better, forget the D80 on matrix though, that would murder it without a doubt. So you are forced to pull back your exposure, play about with the shadows (and noise, and colour problems), peering at your LCD checking the histogram.

Meanwhile, neg film shooter, just takes the shot ;-)

Here is another one, gasp..indoors and you have details outside! Not just white



The last point, when the highlights go on print film, they do so with some dignity! Far more subtle, and without that nasty cyan shift you get on digital as well. There are many valid reasons for not wanting the hassle of digital, and limited DR, in some situations.

Digital is great for some things, these types of shot, it sucks..

Why make life harder than it has to be??

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Barry's problem is that he refuses to learn or move beyond evaluative
metering, auto exposure, and the local lab. It's a laugh watching
Barry lecture a man who has a long history with film development and
printing when Barry hasn't ever been inside a wet darkroom.

You obviously have a limited experience, you know full well I shoot minolta, and they have "honeycomb"metering ;-) Get it right please!

I am not here to suggest I am Ansel Adams in a darkroom, far from it, but you know nothing at all of my history. The ist film shot I ever developed, was in school, in 1986, and that was def a wet darkroom ;-)

Stop making digs, and stupid remarks..you should know better.

Next time when you're trying to be witty, make certain you understand
what is being discussed.

As I started the thread, I think I know what its about.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)

 

[The Davinator]

I wouldn’t worry about Daniel….we all can tell he is one of the trolls twisting topics around. It’s amusing really. I learned a long while ago that people who have an almost cult like worship of anything digital really hate it when you prove that film can maintain a longer tonal range than digital….they really hate it.

I think we all know where digital’s strength is….in the shadows. That said, I have no problems pulling details in the shadows from a decent scan. The difference is, I can pull it from the highlights as well…..something that they will just forget to mention in their discussion. I’ve met these people a lot over the last number of years and it’s always the same…..when they look at prints, they can’t believe how much more the film can hold than they ever imagined.

Ignore Daniel. He’s just another web expert.

I'm preparing the files for a little project I thought would be fun. I'm setting up a comparison of a shot taken from my front yard. It was done with a 15mp Pentax and a 4x5 View Camera. I may include a file from a 6mp and 10mp camera along with 35mm. The file will be setup on a 13x19, 300 dpi size showing a crop of what each would look like at 20x30. I will probably borrow a back from a buddy of mine with a 33mp Phase One.

I'll put it up on my revamped web site. Might have to do a $1 or $2 for the download....but anyone who is really interested....not those who claim to know everything but have never compared....but thos who are REALLY interested....well, they can download and print it themselves.