Why is it...that.

[beaconlightboy]

Why is it that a majority of the books i purchase that are written by master photographers bash digital, and TTL. I recently added 3 more books to my library and all 3 of them talk about how digital just requires more work later, i.e. post production, they don't produce the same quality, and its better to use guide #'s and manual flash, the TTL equipment. I personally feel digital would be a real asset.

what are your thoughts..

[Eoseni]

Bash all they want, film is on the wane for the most part...perhaps except for special applications, hobbyists etc. I like film and still think prints from them look better and denser. But digital is what drives my business. It's immediacy is it's strongest point, making the learning curve light speed compared to film's steam train.

[coreypolis]

all the digital shooters put their info on video on DVD :)

Books are like film and going the way of the dinosaur

[tim]

I use manual exposure and flash at times, sometimes automatic just can't handle the conditions. Only problem is manual is a bit slower, and a lot slower until you get used to it. Most of the time ETTL is great.

[beaconlightboy]

I use manual exposure and flash at times, sometimes automatic just can't handle the conditions. Only problem is manual is a bit slower, and a lot slower until you get used to it. Most of the time ETTL is great.

I use manual exposure on every shot. i very rarely touch AV/ Auto/or TV. its the manual flash i can't bring myself to use.. or force myself to learn i'm not convinced that you can't accomplish the same thing by learning your TTL system well. but that may just be my inexperience.

a lot of people swear by AV, but i don't have much luck with that, i just meter and make the ettl adjustment for fill.

[dlphotography]

they're just jealous ;P

[picturecrazy]

Off camera flash is commonly used with no TTL metering. Either use a light meter or just kind of know what power you need just from experience. For example, I know I use my 430EX at full manual power 1 metre away from the subject at ISO100 F/22.

Maybe they're bashing the fact that all this new 'smart' technology is making photographers either lazy, or clueless as to how all these things work together, relying completely on AI or luck.

Seriously, how many newish (say, 25 years or less experience) photographers can take CONSISTENTLY good photographs using manual exposure, manual focus, manual flash power, using no histogram and no chimping? Back in the day, this is what a PRO photographer should be able to do. I have to admit I myself am probably not at that level, though I've been practicing like mad constantly for 16 years trying to get there.

Nowadays, any joe with digital SLR, program mode, autofocus, and ETTL thinks they can be a professional photographer. Sadly, there are many 'pros' who are this clueless.

Take an old school photographer, hand them a new 1DSmk2 or a 50 year old setup and they'll deliver great stuff either way.

Take one of the new digital age photographers, do the same thing, and they'll probably fall quite short using the 50 year old setup.

There is obvious skill lacking.

Maybe that's the point they're trying to make.

[subtle_spectre]

I have turned to nearly total manual flash and exposure. TTL variants have proven, for me, unreliable. I have made a substantial investment in off-camera lighting, batteries and triggers which provides much better and more controllable results.

[Phil V]

Seriously, how many newish (say, 25 years or less experience) photographers can take CONSISTENTLY good photographs using manual exposure, manual focus, manual flash power, using no histogram and no chimping? Back in the day, this is what a PRO photographer should be able to do. I have to admit I myself am probably not at that level, though I've been practicing like mad constantly for 16 years trying to get there.

Nowadays, any joe with digital SLR, program mode, autofocus, and ETTL thinks they can be a professional photographer. Sadly, there are many 'pros' who are this clueless.

Take an old school photographer, hand them a new 1DSmk2 or a 50 year old setup and they'll deliver great stuff either way.


Being a photographer of 20+ years I'd love to agree. However 'Pro' wedding / event photographers have been blagging it for years. The latitude of print film, combined with a quality lab can get a great set of prints from a lousy set of exposures. On the other hand, stock photographers used hand held or spot meters, and still bracketed their exposures. Studio photographers used polaroid backs (even after using hand held flash metering). etc.... Auto flash was in regular use by all social photographers from the mid 60's and combined with the latitude of print film gave very 'consistent' results (more so than ETTL).

So conversely to your argument, long time wedding photographers have had to learn to be more careful with their exposures or go back to film (and many have done so).

As far as manual focus is concerned, you really need to try out a proper MF camera to see how easy it is to do accurately. The number of new(ish) photographers who think that MF is some sort of magic art is amazing. But they're not thinking about the vast difference between a Drebel focus screen with f4.5 kit lens compared to a ground glass Hasselblad focussing screen using 2.8 lenses. There's really no comparison.

To the OP, most books are somewhat dated, and the opinions held therein need to be read in context. ETTL with the 10d was unreliable at best, and not so long ago was the 'latest thing'. You'll get better info from working pro's on internet forums.

[sapearl]

Interesting question... and a good one. I am assuming that these "master photographers" have been using film for decades?

Some of their points are valid. I shot weddings with film for 30+ years and only just switched to 100% digital the middle of last year. TTL is WONDERFUL when it works as expected, and when I understand to properly use it. For years I shot auto flash, no ettl with big Metz strobes and was happy with the results. ETTL allows me to get better shots in a greater variety of situations, but it can be fooled and thrown WAY off. And then there's pilot error :rolleyes: ....

Heavily back lit situations will require substantial FEC, white bridal gowns, tables cloths and cakes..... as well as black tuxedos and extremely dark rooms. All can play havoc with ETTL. You need to know when ETTL will work wonders, and when a Manual camera setting is superior.

Why is it that a majority of the books i purchase that are written by master photographers bash digital, and TTL. .......

[sapearl]

I find this to be VERY true. I probably spend easily, 3-4 times more time per wedding now with digital, than when I shot film.

Back then I would shoot a job, drop my 10-15 rolls of 220 into a UPS box to the lab, they'd do all the proofing and ship 'em back in a couple of days. Done! I did nothing with the film.

Now, I download at least TWICE that many images onto my PC, process all the RAW files over a period of hours, back up the media, renumber things, etc..... and then ftp it to the lab for proof printing. I now spend a great deal of time "handling" and processing the film. Way more control and flexibility and ability to fix things, but way more work.

Better quality? Well, this has been debated ad nauseum, and the answer is conditional. Nothing can still beat large format film, and even some of the larger medium format negatives. But nothing can beat the convenience, fast turnaround and flexibility of digital.

I switched from MF Hasselblad with Zeiss lenses to a 5D dSLR. Not too many things compare with those Hassy's, but........ film cost, negative processing and scanning and clunky workflow were all killing me. Not to mention client perception that I was not as flexible as the guy with the dSLR. Plus I had no MF zooms or autofocus. Images from the 5D and Hassy are close, but in my situation the conveniences of the dSLR outweighed sticking with MF film. - Stu

.......digital just requires more work later, i.e. post production, they don't produce the same quality, and its better to use guide #'s and manual flash, the TTL equipment. I personally feel digital would be a real asset.

what are your thoughts..

[sapearl]

With you on this one Lloyd!

Why waste your time learning the basic principals of photography when you can shoot an exposure that is sorta' "close" and then FIX it in photoshop :rolleyes: . That's part of the problem today.

....Take one of the new digital age photographers, do the same thing, and they'll probably fall quite short using the 50 year old setup.

There is obvious skill lacking......

[sirsloop]

I agree that every auto-exposure system can be tricked.. even flash technology as advanced as ETTL II. Its as easy as missing a reflective surface (window/mirror) behind you in frame when shooting a photo... boom underexposed. How about the huge white wedding dress... boom underexposed. Using manual setting still has their place... that or getting familiar with what tricks the system and compensating for it manually (thats the practice/experience part).

The film killer is going to be running costs. Going out and shooting 1000 photos at a wedding film costs A LOT compared to the addition to your electric bill you get from charging your DSLR batteries up :)

[sapearl]

Absolutely.... when I stopped shooting it, 15 rolls of 220 was running me $200+. Processing and a 5x5 proof print was 50 cents, scanning the neg was another .50... you see where this was going :cry: .

In contrast I took advantage of those Black Friday deals and purchased 2GB Sandisk cards for $39 each.

I also agree very much with Phil that a number of books are dated, with the "latest and greatest" being old tech when compared to today's standards.

I.....The film killer is going to be running costs. Going out and shooting 1000 photos at a wedding film costs A LOT compared to the addition to your electric bill you get from charging your DSLR batteries up :)

[E-K]

Why waste your time learning the basic principals of photography when you can shoot an exposure that is sorta' "close" and then FIX it in photoshop :rolleyes: . That's part of the problem today.

The same can be said of film, replacing photoshop with lab (or your own darkroom as the case may be).

e-k

[Phil V]

With you on this one Lloyd!

Why waste your time learning the basic principals of photography when you can shoot an exposure that is sorta' "close" and then FIX it in photoshop :rolleyes: . That's part of the problem today.

Like I said in my post, print film is much more forgiving than digital. This is one of the big myths from digital knockers (I know you're not one, but hey).

However there is the issue of newbie photographers using Photoshop to make their OK photo's into something else. They spend 2 hrs on the PC creating 'shallow DoF' then running romantic filters that hide the boring/inconsistent lighting. Then they post them on forums and get loads of good feedback, so they THINK that's what we're all doing with our pictures, when we'd got it right in-camera in 1/60sec. So now they've shot 400 pics at a wedding, found 3 that are 'salvageable' using photoshop and are being lauded as great WP's. And we wonder why there's so many newbies entering the market thinking they know it all?

[picturecrazy]

you make a good point, Phil.

I suppose when you machine gun 3000 pictures, you're bound to have at least 3 that are really nice no matter how lousy you are.

I *LOVE* digital, but I still think film veterans have an edge over most digi-trained from day one. That being said, I think digital is by far a MUCH better way to learn and train on. Boy do I wish I learned on digital. I spent a fortune on failed shots, and lost countless hours of time in the darkroom developing a rolls of completely useless shots. painful, slow learning.

But it's also easy for the digital advantage that speeds your learning to later cripple and slow it down after you've moved past the basics.

[sapearl]

As much as I really like a LOT of things about digital, this is one of the big things that really gripes me. In some ways, I think that digital is almost even less forgiving than the old transparency (slide) film.

Phil, I'm sure you probably feel the same way I do about large white dresses, or large white expanses next to darker colors: a lot of PS time to bring things into a really nice exposure and density balance. We both know that sure, you had to be careful with certain film issues, but that terrific latitude gave you FAR fewer headaches to a good final print. You are sooooo right about the myth. ;)

[quote=Phil V;2551732]Like I said in my post, print film is much more forgiving than digital. This is one of the big myths from digital knockers (I know you're not one, but hey).......quote]

[beaconlightboy]

Great opinions all, i personally shoot about 400-500 pics a wedding, and i end up with about 20 really great shots, and about 200 shots for the album. I don't really see the need to take over 500 shots at a wedding. Personally i would rather take 50 perfect shots and call it quits. I mean who in their right mind needs 300 pictures! I think brides have this misconception that more is better, but you.,. or should i say "I" cant take 200 perfect shots at any wedding. things happen to fast. Heck just posing a large bridal party can take 5 minutes a shot or more.

[Phil V]

I mean who in their right mind needs 300 pictures! I think brides have this misconception that more is better, but you.,. or should i say "I" cant take 200 perfect shots at any wedding. things happen to fast. Heck just posing a large bridal party can take 5 minutes a shot or more.

This all depends on technique, shooting style etc. Yes posing a large group can take 5 minutees, but what % of your shots are these large (or even small) posed groups.

I try to keep the group shots to a minimum, but when it comes to getting the couple together for posed pics it runs more like a fashion shoot, with a shots per minute count. Then there's candids at times like the 1st dance, again with 2 shooters that can be 20 shots or so from the dance, more if we're trying different flash techniques.

The 1st cut from a wedding, we have 300-400 each, that's 600-800 photo's, no they're not all 'great' and haven't been set up immaculately. But then that's not my aim. However there'll be plenty of 'great' ones and few of them will have been posed at all.

Noone needs 300+ pictures, but seeing as I'm there shooting all day, there's no point in throwing away hundreds of perfectly good pics. (1500 though - I couldn't do).

[sapearl]

When I first came to this board, I was shooting about 225 - 300 MF frames of film, and could barely spell digital. Now I are one :rolleyes: . It was inconceivable to me that shooters were delivering 1500+ proofs per wedding. I can't imagine processing that many, let alone inflicting such a huge quantity on the B&G and expecting them to respond in a timely fashion with their order.

But I must recant, and go back on an earlier statement. Digital certainly does make it easier to shoot more, and in my case deliver better variety.

I shoot just a little bit more for the group setups, and like Phil has pointed out, the B&g alone can end up like a fashion shoot - "you're there anyway, so it's easy to shoot more."

But I am now also shooting more candids of the crowd at the reception. With only a slight increase in material cost (lab proofs) I am able to provide additional photos of friends and family that I previously did not furnish. However, I still edit as I shoot, cull my work mercilessly WHILE I am shooting, as well as afterwards at home.

In the end I provide them with about 450 shots for their album selections. My clients are comfortable with this number, and some even comment that it may be too much; but no complaints. - Stu

.....Noone needs 300+ pictures, but seeing as I'm there shooting all day, there's no point in throwing away hundreds of perfectly good pics. (1500 though - I couldn't do).

[picturecrazy]

However, I still edit as I shoot, cull my work mercilessly WHILE I am shooting, as well as afterwards at home.


I used to do that too, until I was warned that it could help contribute to data corruption.
I didn't care anyhow... and then it happened... I lost a whole lot of photos from corruption. yikes. Now I don't delete ANY during the day.
Still don't know 100% if that's why it corrupted, but now I'm freaked out enough to not risk it again.

[sapearl]

How is that? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

At slow moments during the wedding day I will periodically review what I've shot, time permitting. I slowly scroll the frames. If I see something that totally OOF, has bad composition or is too duplicative, I will individually delete it.

Wherein lies the danger of data corruption? I just want to make sure I'm not missing some critical point here.

I used to do that too, until I was warned that it could help contribute to data corruption.
I didn't care anyhow... and then it happened... I lost a whole lot of photos from corruption. yikes. Now I don't delete ANY during the day.
Still don't know 100% if that's why it corrupted, but now I'm freaked out enough to not risk it again.

[sapearl]

If you're in a hurry and mistakenly hit "DELETE ALL" on the back of the camera, then I can see how that would lead to "data corruption." :(

I....... and then it happened... I lost a whole lot of photos from corruption. .....

[tim]

I used to do that too, until I was warned that it could help contribute to data corruption.

Usually said by people who heard someone else say it, who read it somewhere. I believe it's false, because I often delete images on the camera, never had any corruption.

[sapearl]

You're essentially deleting files out of memory, same as what you do on a PC or MAC. You have to be careful with all of the above. Sounds like an urban legend to me.

[E-K]

Usually said by people who heard someone else say it, who read it somewhere. I believe it's false, because I often delete images on the camera, never had any corruption.

The only time I had this happen was due to a bad CF card. It seemed like some memory on the low end was physically linked to some memory on the high end. So if I deleted a picture on the low end (which was corrupted when the one was stored to the high address) and took another picture, this would corrupt the picture in the high address :(

With a good CF card though I've never had the camera corrupt anything by deleting pictures.

e-k

[sapearl]

This is one reason why I reformat all my cards right before a job.

Among other things, reformatting will lay down fresh magnetic boundary sectors on media. I figure that should keep all the little bits & bytes in their proper places.

[picturecrazy]

Usually said by people who heard someone else say it, who read it somewhere. I believe it's false, because I often delete images on the camera, never had any corruption.

yeah, that's what I figured at first. But after losing a bunch of photos, I'm paranoid. That card is still fine and I did multiple CF tests on it. It's worked flawlessly since, so it seems like there was certainly some kind of malfunction on data transfer.

When you constantly delete photos, the files will eventually get fragmented all over the card instead of being contiguous when you don't delete... perhaps this is why problems have a greater chance to occur? I have no idea, I'm no CF expert.

[oldshooter]

Why do all the Master Photographers bash digital in books? :confused:

It is my understanding that some of the “Master Shooters” went into digital before it was really better, and regretted that decision. This was a few years back, so the books you are reading were likely published then.

Comparing highlight detail of film vs digital, in Bright Sunlight, which can happen at a typical wedding, is one example where film has a range that digital can’t easily match.
The typical medium format Hasselblad negative allows for mistakes in over-exposure in circumstances like this, where as digital, much like slide film leaves very little leeway.

I agree with the poster that commented that learning photography with digital is a blessing in a way. Instant feedback, whether you are talking about lighting a product, or a face, is so much better with digital. Comparing any size Polaroid, 2 ¼ or 4*5 inch, to the instant gratification on a 20 inch monitor proves the point. I have had many Art Directors spend most of the shoot in front of my Sony monitor. Shooting digital with commercial clients is such a pleasure, and getting approval for set ups is so much easier via email, online galleries and so on.

My long standing Editorial magazine clients began to tease me a couple of years ago, so I had to switch to digital in that area as well. The distinct high ISO advantage of digital over film really makes digital a pleasure to shoot.

I hadn’t thought much about deleting too images causing fragmentation of CF cards, but it is possible. I read some where that it is better to reformat CF cards instead of deleting images. Any one know why?

[sapearl]

That's where the FORMAT comes in very handy - it completely obliterates all the discontinuous file fragments; wipes the slate clean.

........When you constantly delete photos, the files will eventually get fragmented all over the card instead of being contiguous when you don't delete... .......

[sapearl]

Absolutely - I was one of those old Hassy shooters, and know EXACTLY what you are talking about.:(

Portra 400 film was VERY forgiving when it came to nearly blown highlights. By comparison digital in it's current state is merciless, and I have to be even more vigilant now of strong lighting. All the photoshop fixing in the world won't bring back highlight pixels that were never there in the first place.

.....Comparing highlight detail of film vs digital, in Bright Sunlight, which can happen at a typical wedding, is one example where film has a range that digital can’t easily match.
The typical medium format Hasselblad negative allows for mistakes in over-exposure in circumstances like this, where as digital, much like slide film leaves very little leeway. .............

[Eoseni]

Digital is so unforgiving that if you become good at it (exposure wise), then you CAN be proud indeed. Film was so forgiving that most of us could think we were great at it but in truth may not be. The labs corrected our mis-exposures.

[picturecrazy]

I never really used a lab. *I* was the one in the darkroom breathing all those nasty smelling chemicals... LOL
I hadn't really taken notice of mis-exposures... just looked at the neg and thought "how bright or how dark do I want this?" Take a guess and blast the photo paper with light and look at how it comes out.... oops.. too bright, I'll try that again. (As you can tell I wasn't very good at this)

But now with histograms it's so easy to tell how much you were off. I suppose I just never took notice before on how off I was on film.

[sapearl]

Here's an example of what I'll call "Highlight Vigilance" and demonstrates my gripe with digital.

The following 29 person group was taken at a recent wedding, 5D RAW file, ISO 400, 1/40 sec, f/7.1, 24-105L f/4 (zoomed to 24mm at f/7.1). The camera was set for M, the 580ex on Auto-ETTL, aimed straight forward with it's own diffuser over the lens. I was on a 20" stool, with a large bright window to my back that I knew would cause some problems.

The histogram was actually a bit to the left, suggesting I should use some FEC+. But I knew from experience that with that huge white bridal dress right in the front row, that could be a mistake.

As it is, the bride's gown is throwing back a lot of light. The faces are even a bit bright too, since the dark suits are playing minor havoc with the ETTL. My point is that in situations like this, digital is VERY sensitive. You just wouldn't have issues like this with film. The upside is that because I have a solid RAW file, I can play with the image to get it just the way I want. But multiply that time by "X" number of files, and you are talking a substantial time committment.

This is just a proof that I tweaked a little in RAW with curves, brightness, shadows and exposure, so if they choose it for the album, a bit of dodge and burn will be in order. Again, digital has given us great flexibility and the ability to instantly check our results, but there is a time investment in PP. Btw - I took 4 pictures of this group; in two the babies were looking away, so the proof book will have two shots from which to choose. - Stu

[oldshooter]

The whole idea when shooting color negative film was to get it within acceptable useage range, some where between a density of 70 and 90, as I recall was ideal from Pro Lab. I think ten units were like one stop of exposure.

When we used a manual camera, like a Hasselblad with a Norman 200B, a manual flash, we made charts for the side of the flash for each film speed and had the f stops in 5 feet distances marked off. Everything was manual, but you had absolute control.

I think that the increasing use of Camera RAW, and the ability to set custom white balances, and exposure latitude advantages, made digital much more flexable. And even the so called 'Master Photographers' a PPA title mentioned earlier, have come to see some of it's advantages rather than just digitals flaws.