Camera Shop Chewing Out

[Matatazela]

I took my lens to a camera shop to get it repaired after dropping it.

While there, I was discussing the wonders of the 350D with another customer. I mentione the B&W mode and the built in colour filters in the paramters menu and he went off at me about how you cannot shoot true black and white on anything but film. In fact, according to him, you can't even shoot decent colour with a digital!

He then hauled out an old Leica and proceeded to discuss various things with the salesman, occasionally looking at me and sort of sniggering.

I felt like he was justifying his icon (lets face it - Leicas are serious icons!) and that he was clinging to something. If only he realised that I shoot about 20 - 30 arbitrary photos a day, just to see what the effect will be, and I can delete them if I am not happy with them, and all at no cost. Some I print, and some I even print big, because they are beautiful. I am no purist, and I believe that helps you to be less of a pain in the derriere...

[Matatazela]

The above pic is of my family, in B&W and I think that digital does the job just fine, thank you.

[tim]

It's a nice photo, try for a little more depth of field next time.

Film people are clinging to their ways. They have some good points, so do digital buffs. So long as you're both happy who cares?

[grego]

No need to use the b&w. Just use color and change to black and white in PS. So you have two options, rather than one.

[T.O.]

"Film people are clinging to their ways. They have some good points, so do digital buffs. So long as you're both happy who cares?"

Tim, may I copy/paste this sentences to other forums?
:)
My thoughts exactly...

I also agree that it is always better to shoot colour and then convert in B&W...
regards,
T.O.

[Music to my eyes]

Just goes to show how limited his experience is.
So many dedicated film users end up "converting" to digital, and realize what a growth step it is. Of course, film has it's use and place still. I'm one of those too.
But digital has really opened things up a lot in terms of practicality and instantaneous viewing.
Often strong reactions like those come from a place of insecurity and defensiveness....
One day the next big leap in imaging technology will come along......and those with current style digicams will cling to what they know and refuse to adopt the emerging technologies........ extolling the virtues of their known technologies.
Imagine, once upon a time, only large format film and cameras were for serious photography, not this puny little 35mm toy.......like his Leica ;) There you go - my 2c.
Nice family pic, by the way.

[Rigrider]

My 2 Cents: I've yet to find someone who has nothing good to say about digital, that has ever even taken the time to truley shoot and play with digital!!!! I'm sure they're out there but they're few and far between. At the end of the day, if the image is great, then the image is great. Who CARES how it was proccessed...for that matter, who CARES what settings you used. A great image is a great image no matter what!

L8r,

[Matatazela]

I may as well add that I live in a small town with a 1 Hour consumer lab that does not really have the equipment or ability to produce truly professional results. That means that you can bring whatever film and camera you wish, and you will still get mediocre results. Digital has thrown me over the wall and I have already shot some images that I think are better than any film I had processed in a lab! Yep, the days of film as king are over! There is a new monarch in town and my feeling is that it will take photography to a higher level of excellence. photographers will be able to practice and experiment more for less money , a critically limiting factor, especially to a student.

[Bosscat]

Yep, the days of film as king are over!

Of course it is.

Digital allows anyone with photoshop knowledge to erase their mistakes and think they are a photography wizard.

Try shooting slides sometime. You can't erase your errors.

[guitarman]

Of course it is.

Digital allows anyone with photoshop knowledge to erase their mistakes and think they are a photography wizard.

Try shooting slides sometime. You can't erase your errors.

What the hecks wrong with erasing your errors. Like a previous poster said "As long as your happy, who cares".

[Matatazela]

I know all about slides... at least how difficult it is to get them exposed just right. Things like silhouettes (supposedly relatively simple) had me beaten, and all I could really get right was people, up close and posed, with the flash on automatic to help me out.

When I think about that, then Digital is King!!!!

[Curtis N]

he went off at me about how you cannot shoot true black and white on anything but film. In fact, according to him, you can't even shoot decent colour with a digital!...Try a few of the "other" photography forums on the internet... There's one in every crowd. They don't even make me angry anymore. They just bore me.

[Matatazela]

...They don't even make me angry anymore. They just bore me.

Yep, that is what I felt after the initial dismay and upset.

[MattL]

Lol I had a guy today try and explain how you cant get depth of field on digital. He said the guy at the store even said so.

I just sorta said oh, really? oh ok.

[chtgrubbs]

Some people who buy high dollar, high status gear like Leica and Hasselblad can get very emotionally invested in their equipment or their craft which they may have spent decades learning. When new technology comes along they may feel threatened and act negatively. Me, I love digital, but I also love coating my own paper for platinum/palladium prints!

[Timm]

Both film and digital have their respective places and advocates.

For years I shot 35mm on Minolta with the only gizmo being the lightmeter. As I started to take less and less photos I bought a small APS compact which I could carry around with me in a pocket.

My first digital camera was a 3.2Mpixel Sony after the APS froze to death on holiday in NYC, and it was bought for P&S capability. About the same time I bought an EOS300 for serious shooting as the eyes are going and manual focus is getting harder! http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif

A friend borrowed the Sony and after seeing some shots blown up to A3 and displayed in frames on her walls I realised that digital was fully as capable as film, and it came with the advantage of not having to finish the film before getting the prints.

So what if you alter the image in PS, or delete it from the camera immediately after shooting, these actions are just the modern versions of darkroom skills & editorial comment and equally valid - were Ansel Adams, Lee Miller, Mann Ray or David Bailey happy with EVERY shot they took?

[Bosscat]

So what if you alter the image in PS

To me what I see every month in Popular photography's " The Fix " is morally corrupt.

To remove items that detract from a shot by digital manipulation, because someone is too lazy or unknowledgeable to take the time to properly use the three basics of photography is just plain wrong.

So far from what I have seen with the results of my 20D compared to slides is not very impressive to say the least.

Everyone should shoot a few rolls of slide film and then you'll probably learn that it is the crutch of photoshop that has allowed you to make some good images and not your photgraphy skills.

[SidW]

To me what I see every month in Popular photography's " The Fix " is morally corrupt.

I KNOW I'm far from being a photographer. I am using this forum to learn, and Digicams and Photoshop make it a little bit easier.
If that makes me morally corrupt then so be it.

BUT I'm having a lot of fun doing it.:) :)

Sid

[GoneFission]

This starts to tie in with this thread: What is photography? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86748)

Photography is an art form. As such, it is a means a person uses to convey an emotion to another person. Some manipulate air (music), some manipulate the reflection of light (painting), while others manipulate the recording of light (photography).

The digital age has revolutionized all of these art forms: digitized/synthized music and oversampling means that one person can become an entire band, digital drawing software allows an artist to quickly and easily realize his vision and modify it at will, and the digital camera has exposed millions of people to the joy of photography, thanks in part to the ease of use, flexibility, and low cost it can allow.

Does a live jazz band sound better than an MP3?
Does oil on canvas look better than a jpg?
Does a slide look better than a jpg?

How did you answer these questions? If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, congratulations, you're no different than someone who answered "no." How can one judge art based solely upon the medium?

Can an MP3 ever sound exactly like a live band, including producing the same feelings experienced during a live performance? No.
Can a jpg ever look exactly like an oil painting, including the subtle textures and shadows? No.
Can a jpg ever look exactly like a black and white slide, including the same grain, contrast, and texture? No.

Does this mean that in all three cases the former example is better than the latter? Absolutely not! It can be, but there certainly could be cases where the contrary is true. A statement such as "film is better than digital" is just plain false. That is far beyond subjectivity - that is prejudice. Time to overcome your prejudices and evaluate the merits of each song, each painting, or each photograph, one at a time.

Regarding the manipulation of photographs:

There seem to be two main camps regarding post-processing (PP) in the "digital darkroom": 1) PP should only be used to do what could be done in a wet darkroom and 2) PP should be used to its full capabilities to produce the result the photographer wants.

Why should we limit ourselves to only what can be accomplished with a less advanced technology? Should computers be restricted to performing calculations no faster than can be done with a slide rule? Should cars be able to travel no faster than a horse? Should looking up information on the internet require a membership card, and should google be converted to a card file using the Dewey decimal system?

I, for one, embrace Photoshop and the capability it provides me to take the vision in my head and turn it into a medium I can share with others. It is merely a tool, no different than the camera itself. Often I can produce my vision straight from the camera, but sometimes I can't. Are the colors a little off? I'll change them. Is that tree in the way? I'll remove it. I see little difference between altering a photo in post-processing and arranging the subjects prior to taking the photograph.

Art's ability to stir emotions is independent of the medium, or the method used to produce it.

Postscript:
Obviously throughout this post I have been considering the case of photography as art. Photography as a medium of record, however, is a completely different case. Here it certainly would be "morally corrupt," as one poster put it, to change much of anything in the photograph, as the point is to record "reality."

[Poco]

Everyone should shoot a few rolls of slide film and then you'll probably learn that it is the crutch of photoshop that has allowed you to make some good images and not your photgraphy skills.

Everyone should finger paint a mountain lake scene on cave wall and you'll probably learn that it is the crutch of slide film photography that has allowed you to make some good images. :D

[Rob612]

Everyone should shoot a few rolls of slide film and then you'll probably learn that it is the crutch of photoshop that has allowed you to make some good images and not your photgraphy skills.

I have in my library about 12,000 (yes, that twelve thousands) film slides, mostly Kodachrome (for a good 65%) and Ektachrome (never liked Fuji when I was shooting slides).

Of those 12K, as it is normal, very few are good to excellent (even because Im never satisfied), but I keep them all because I like to learn from my mistakes. The same I do with digital, it only takes less space :)

Today I'm 100% converted to digital, and one of the thing that I really like is being able to remove some of the errors than any human being can make. Plain and simple.

I used to print Ciba in the good old days and some mistakes could be corrected even then. Not as much as with digital, perhaps.

Plus, I like the full control of the whole process from the click to the print.

A good pic is a good pic for its composition, subject, lighting etc... all around, the creative part. The tech stuff is important, but the eye is what really makes the pic. Give the most expensive chemical or digital equipment to a crappy photographer, and you'll still have crappy pics. Give a disposable camera to HCB (just to name one) and you will see astounding results.

[Timm]

To remove items that detract from a shot by digital manipulation, because someone is too lazy or unknowledgeable to take the time to properly use the three basics of photography is just plain wrong. So is it ok to mask things on an enlarger in a darkroom to remove them or manipulate the contrast/saturation/exposure? If so, how does this differ from PS'ing levels/curves? If we can't remove things digitally should we add chainsaws and wrecking balls to our kitbags to aid in the compostion? http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

I am using this forum to learn, and Digicams and Photoshop make it a little bit easier. This to me is the main advantage of digital - it permits people to experiment without recourse to vats of chemicals or piles of cash for developing, the EXIF data tells you what worked/what didn't and at a time when you can take another shot rather than a week later when the prints come back...

If that makes me morally corrupt then so be it.

BUT I'm having a lot of fun doing it.:) :) ... and for those of us for whom photography is a hobby - fun is, along with beautiful images to share, one of the main objectives.

Personally, I keep every shot to learn from, the digital alterations I do (if any) are solely cropping and exposure compensation if needed - both things I did in the darkroom at college. Does this approach make the images less worthy than say those of Fischli and Weiss (http://artnet.com/Galleries/Artists_detail.asp?G=&gid=706&which=&aid=649910&ViewArtistBy=online&rta=http://www.artnet.com), HCB, Adams et. al.?

The number of 'keepers' I'm getting is going up everytime I shoot, but I'm also not afraid to experiment as, if it doesn't work, all it has cost me is the time taken to press the shutter release and review the image on the LCD.

What I was trying to convey in my first post was that one persons perception of photography is equally valid as anothers differing perception - at the end of the day the aim of hobbyist photographers is to capture images we are proud of, whilst improving our individual skills along the way.

[Tom W]

Of course it is.

Digital allows anyone with photoshop knowledge to erase their mistakes and think they are a photography wizard.

Try shooting slides sometime. You can't erase your errors.

Ansel Adams spent a good deal of time dodging and burning in his darkroom. I would expect that he'd be doing the same and more with photoshop, not to erase mistakes but to extract the best image possible from the original exposure.

Yes, slide film is less forgiving (downright unforgiving for the most part), that is a given. And it's a great way to learn about and perfect one's exposure skills. But I'm not sure that it is the best way to derive the best image, given its limited latitude.

[Tom W]

To me what I see every month in Popular photography's " The Fix " is morally corrupt.

To remove items that detract from a shot by digital manipulation, because someone is too lazy or unknowledgeable to take the time to properly use the three basics of photography is just plain wrong.

Is cropping because the lens you had was the wrong focal length for the shot you wanted morally corrupt? Do you think that a wedding photographer is morally corrupt because he removed, through photoshop or the darkroom, that big honkin' zit from the bride's nose? Is it morally corrupt to edit out the "no parking" sign from an otherwise excellent image of an old stone building?

What is the purpose of photography? If the image is shot for a news/documentation purpose, then I would argue that it should be as close to authentic fidelity as possible. If the purpose is commercial, then editing is often a necessity, as I made mention of in the last paragraph. For artistic purposes, there aren't many rules as long as it in known that the image is a representation of the photographer's intentions.

So far from what I have seen with the results of my 20D compared to slides is not very impressive to say the least.

Everyone should shoot a few rolls of slide film and then you'll probably learn that it is the crutch of photoshop that has allowed you to make some good images and not your photgraphy skills.

You're always welcome to go back to your slide film and rely on the lab's determination of how it should be developed. I shot slides in the early '80's, and learned a great deal from it. But I have no slide projector, and those images sit in countless labeled boxes on a shelf in the basement, awaiting the day when they may be viewed again.

[Curtis N]

I shot slides in the early '80's, and learned a great deal from it. But I have no slide projector, and those images sit in countless labeled boxes on a shelf in the basement, awaiting the day when they may be viewed again.That's really a shame if they're good pictures. Maybe it's time to get a good slide scanner? I've seen a lot of Kodachrome shots that really have that "WOW" factor when viewed on a monitor.

[Tom W]

That's really a shame if they're good pictures. Maybe it's time to get a good slide scanner? I've seen a lot of Kodachrome shots that really have that "WOW" factor when viewed on a monitor.

I've considered a slide scanner, and may someday get one. I've also managed to collect thousands of 4X6 prints over the years, so whatever I get would need to be able to scan negatives as well. Haven't spent much time looking into that possibility yet.