[GeneV]

This crowd may be happier with an LX5, G11 or P7000 though. The fact is there are a majority of people that like digital in part due to instant gratification. There are still quite a few people that like film. There are a lot of us that like both. Many of my low yield shots, i.e. macro is about 99% digital these days. Even when I do a low yield film shot, I almost always scout it with a digital shot. As a result, my film "keeper" ratio has gone up.

What I'm trying to say is that the formats are very complimentary.

If I'm shooting 120 film, there is always a DSLR along. It is the best flash meter, light meter and polaroid back the 645 or folding camera ever had as a companion.

[tuco]

If I'm shooting 120 film, there is always a DSLR along. It is the best flash meter, light meter and polaroid back the 645 or folding camera ever had as a companion.

Use the force, Luke.

[stevebrot]

Use the force, Luke.

"The Force is weak in this one..."

[lxdude]

I took 1000 photo on my last vacation and I keep 150

That's nothing to be bragging about.

[GeneV]

Use the force, Luke.

I feel the force even more faintly indoors.

[GeneV]

Not related
Great for you but I use a DSLR not to see the photo immediatly but to take a lot of phote and choose the one I want + I Can decide myself what kind of ajustment I make

I took 1000 photo on my last vacation and I keep 150

That's the statistical method of photography. Snap away and count on the fact that a small percentage of them will come out.

I have caught myself in this mode on vacation as well with similar keeper ratios. Go back to the hotel, and I realize not only did I only snag a small percentage of keepers, but my camera was in front of my face so much that I did not experience the place. I keep a film body or camera along now-- even if it is a little Olympus XA or the like--just to remind me of what it is like to see an exposure as valuable. Keeper ratios are far better.

[ChrisPlatt]

...my camera was in front of my face so much that I did not experience the place...

I was still a teenager when I realized I was doing this very thing, and stopped.
I'd rather have given up photography entirely than to have continued that way.
Fortunately there is a middle ground.
I love my pocket cameras.

Chris

[stevebrot]

I was still a teenager when I realized I was doing this very thing,

I thought it was an excellent strategy to avoid having a date for various social events...(was yearbook photographer)


Steve

[grhazelton]

A hybrid work flow is a real possibility for those of us with film equipment. I use an Epson V700 and scan at usually 4000 dpi. This will produce a thoroughly satisfactory 13x19 in print, assuming careful technique. Plus this lets me use a 19mm wide angle on my LX, along with a 50mm f1.2, neither of which are affordable (for me!), or in the case of the f1.2, available in equivalent focal lengths for my K10d.

B&W processing is not really that difficult, and bypasses the typically horrid kiosk processing, if even available, or the high cost of custom labs. APUG is a wonderful forum for "analog" photography and hybrid newbies. The equipment cost for BW negative only processing is perhaps $50; there're a lot of second hand tanks available. Go to The Dark Side and try a little Wet Work!

Additionally there are things that the LX will do which the K10d cannot. Very long metered exposures, in which the off the film metering of the LX is unsurpassed. Yes, you don't get the quick feedback of digital, but you can't get the shot as well with digital.

Epson now has a couple of scanners which are cheaper than the V700 but have good specs, so more of us could go that hybrid route.

[stevebrot]

APUG is a wonderful forum for "analog" photography and hybrid newbies.

Do yourself a favor and not mention scanners on APUG. The flames are hot and quick in coming. There is a companion site, hybridphoto.com that is devoted to figital workflow.


Steve

[Blue]

Do yourself a favor and not mention scanners on APUG. The flames are hot and quick in coming. There is a companion site, hybridphoto.com that is devoted to figital workflow.


Steve

How the hell to the post images over there? I have been a member there for a long time but have next to never posted. Maybe I need to go start a fire and throw some stale gasoline on it.

[stevebrot]

How the hell to the post images over there?...

Oh, they use scanners...it is sort of a secret vice...


Steve

[grhazelton]

Sorry 'bout that!

I'd forgot about hybridphoto.com. I suppose the APUG crowd would really go off the rails if I inquired about printing a monochrome negative on my R1800 and then contact printing it on silver-gelatin paper! True Believers are often humor-impaired.

[valarie]

[IMG]http://[/IMG]

Ziggy,
I want to second Buffy's comments as well as John Poirier's. I am an enthusiastic film shooter and am heavily invested in a hybrid (film+scan) work flow*. Even so, I would be the last to say that scans from any of my negatives (35mm, 6x7, or 4x5) are the same as images from a competent digital sensor for the same format. Even though I can render a true 21+ Megapixel image from a 35mm negative, the characteristics of that image will be significantly different from the negative on which it is based and from a RAW FF digital image of the same subject. Those differences are due to the nature of the both the film and digital sensor media as well as the capabilities of the scanner/camera and the operator.

I may ignite a storm of criticism, but I think it is safe to make the following generalities:

• Film and digital are different. It is best not to do direct comparison, but to consider the strengths of each as a capture medium.
• Certain film characteristics such as grain and certain aspects of local contrast and "luminosity" are difficult to replicate with pure digital capture
• Based on my personal scans from fine-grained 35mm negatives, I believe them to have equivalent actual resolution to my APS-C K10D, though probably not better despite twice the digital resolution (21 vs. 10 Megapixels).
• Scans are not the same as optical prints from the same negatives
• Scan quality is HIGHLY dependent on the scanner technology in combination with operator skill
• While a B&W negative may have enormous dynamic range and tonal information, a scan of that negative will only reflect a limited subset of the available data
• Despite the limitations noted in the point above, I believe that a well-made scan of a B&W negative may be capable of superior tonality when compared to a monochrome conversion of a straight digital capture of the same subject.
• Even the best scans may be degraded in the printing process

Steve

*I could have easily purchased a nice FF dSLR kit for what I have recently invested in film cameras and scanners.

All true. I was the videographer for nikon for the promotional event to introduce the D1. Betacam was king for television. After the shoot, a lot of high end photographers that were invited were VERY interested. The first thing I noticed was the white balance button. I told the salesman, this is just video technology isint it? He said Shhhhhhh. There is a reason major motion Pictures are still shot in 35mm film. Digital looks to real, and tends to be harsh and unbecoming. Film has an aspect to it that is different, and DPs can use that unreal aspect to make the actors look better than real. Actors HATE high def witch is the video equal to a DSLR. Digital and analog just looks different. I also use an LX with slide film and have a high resolution CD made at the developers. I am lucky to live in NYC and have a great little shop that does this (L&I). Do I need a scanner? Yes. Do I want a Pentax DSLR? You bet! I tried to attach an example of E100s, LX and tripod mounted 200mm A-star 2.8 to enlarge the UN, F11-sp-250. 15mb scan.

[tranq78]

I was still a teenager when I realized I was doing this very thing, and stopped.
I'd rather have given up photography entirely than to have continued that way.
Fortunately there is a middle ground.
I love my pocket cameras.

Chris

Agreed.

I was in a Canadian national park a couple years ago. Got up one morning but it was very overcast and grey, so I didn't take any pics. On the drive back to town the clouds parted briefly just as the alpenglow hit the top of the mountains. I quickly stopped the car, rushed to set up my tripod and shot about 4-5 frames of Velvia in my trusty MZ-S. The light went away after a minute.

2 non-Pentax users watched me curiously. After the great light disappeared they then went to their trucks and pulled out d-SLRs. One guy then proceeded to take literally hundreds of landscape photos, all handheld (so were they HDR's?!); all in dreary, bad light; and all standing in one area. I know he took lots of pics because I could hear his camera's motordrive going non-stop for 45 minutes afterwards as I selectively took several more pics of great Fall colors of the trees (which neither he nor his friend ever pointed their camera towards).

What are you going to do with a hundred identical digital pics that are just snapshots? I'd rather take just 1 good photograph.