Print PDF
Favorite
Email
As a semi-pro photographer who has flown on over 50 flights and has visited more than 15 countries and over 20states, I know that photography is difficult enough without having to manage equipment, and looking like a tourist will make you miss out on the local culture, making you miss out on even more great pictures.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 1Choose a camera
When choosing a camera consider it's main function. Will it be for professional shots that will be sold in a gallery? If so choose a film SLR (or digital if you must). Are you snapping a few shots for friends and family to look at? Buy a slim point and shoot digital. Will you be taking lots of pictures, but don't want to sacrifice quality. Use a larger point and shoot.
This short paragraph won't be enough to decide for you. Do some research before dropping $200 on a camera.
I'm doing general family pictures as well as artistic shots I'm trying to sell.
I use a Minolta XG-A film SLR with a 135mm CPC telephoto lens and a 50mm Minolta lens. I also carry a Canon Powershot A75.
This short paragraph won't be enough to decide for you. Do some research before dropping $200 on a camera.
I'm doing general family pictures as well as artistic shots I'm trying to sell.
I use a Minolta XG-A film SLR with a 135mm CPC telephoto lens and a 50mm Minolta lens. I also carry a Canon Powershot A75.
| « Previous Step | Download PDFView All Steps | Next Step » |
There are some digital vs. film arguments. I'd like to address a couple points. At this point, film is still capable of producing a higher-quality image. That said, the RESOLUTION of quality 35mm film of ISO 400 or lower is about 6-8 mp. Sure, you can scan it at a higher res, but all you're going to get is a bigger file. High end slide film is probably more in the 8-10 mp range. That said, film has a much more broad dynamic range and is much more forgiving of the user choosing poor exposures. 120 print film at 6x6 cm is going to be in the 25 mp ballpark. You get the idea. You can always use something like Genuine Fractals (better than simply stepping the image in Photoshop or GIMP) to resample the image to a higher resolution. The problem is the actual analog nature of film (Extra depth to the images, continuous tonal range, far superior dynamic range). So, get something around 10mp and you'll be matching or exceeding the resolution. Start doing HDR if you find you're not getting the dynamic range you want/need. Point and shoot digital cameras aren't even coming close to film at this point, regardless of the resolution. There are a few exceptions, but they are very, very few. Most P&S cameras are crap. I have one for when I don't care enough to carry a real camera. The images are intelligible, but I got better tonal range out of the 110 cameras I had 20+ years ago than I do out of my little Olympus 7mp indestructible thing. The 110 didn't shoot video though. Or double as an alarm clock.
Next is the durability issue. The average consumer digital SLR goes for 25,000-50,000 frames. Pro ones are 100,000 and higher. 50,000 frames is a LOT. That's more 35mm film than I've ever shot in my entire life and I've done probably 200,000 out of a DSLR over the past five years. A typical wedding 10 years ago would have been shot on 10-20 rolls of 24 exposure film - 250-500 frames. When I shoot a wedding with a second photographer, it's not unusual with digital to hit 3,000-5,000 for the day. A $200 Canon or Nikon film camera is roughly built the same as a $500-800 DSLR. Apples to apples. My Nikon D2H is built like the old F5. It's got about 110,000 frames and counting. Digitals cost more on the outset to get comparable quality, but when I worked at a camera store a few years ago, we still had the F5 priced at over $2,000. It's digital counterparts are typically $3,000-6,000. I'd say that's reasonable.
Print longevity and quality is another factor. Dye inks are more vibrant than pigment. Pigment inks typically last longer. Where does silver-halide come in? Epson's archival inks on EPSON archival paper (it's important to match the papers and inks that are actually engineered to work with one another!) go for about 100 years on a wall, 200 years in storage on average. Some are only good for 30-50 years on display and others go beyond 300 years in storage. Check with the Wilhelm people and read their independent test results. Fuji Crystal Archive color, silver, wet-process paper is rated for about 60 years, about double what the comparable Kodak is rated for (b. Epson for the win. Fuji and Kodak both have pro papers that last longer, but the cold truth is that all photos are temporary. You've got to go to the really, really old print techniques if you want prints that will last lifetimes. Stuff like platinum printing. And, none of you are talking about that. You can do those from digital too, by the way, if you happen to have a good process to make a negative from a digital file. I've done it as a project, not as anything too serious - fun stuff.
Archivability . . . Yup. With digi, you've got to upgrade with the times, but there are also lots of film types that aren't readable or developable anymore without going to a low-quality, one-size-fits-all solution like a flatbed scanner that does transparencies. You can't take those disc films and do much with them. Or, 110, etc. A lot of pro labs don't even have a darkroom anymore. They do digital because that's what people ask for. So, just keep changing with the times. Film is susceptible to damage too.
Tripods are like little magic fairies. They'll make nearly all your photographs better. If you can bring one, bring one. Use it often. Flash sync speeds on modern cameras are usually around 1/250th of a second. That's slow enough that a tripod makes a difference. It also can help you pace your work better and take more care in composing your shots. Even if I'm moving fast, I'll fold my legs in and use it as I would a monopod. Not ideal, but it's better than hand-holding on it's own. Carbon fiber will help you cut down on some weight and they absorb vibrations instead of magnify, which aluminum does (same design ideas as for a bicycle - long riders on a budget prefer steel frames because of the flex vs. lighter, more rigid materials like aluminum and the ones who can afford it go with something like carbon fiber because it's much lighter than steel but still has some flex to absorb more road shocks, etc.). You can get one small enough that it will easily fit in your carry-on bag and even flying internationally, it's usually not going to be an issue.
The best answer to any of this stuff is to do your own research, conduct your own experiments and arrive at your own conclusions. Don't believe everything you read, especially from some old codger like me. If you like digital because you just like it, that's fine. Just do your homework and make informed choices about cameras, lenses, media cards (premium brands cost more for good reason), archival media, non-damaging editing programs, etc. Talk to people and find out what's working for them - but talk to people who actually know something and aren't just forming words and spitting them out. Most people are going to try to convince you that they've made great decisions when all they are trying to do is to validate their own decisions by convincing someone else to make the same one. If three people buy a piece of crap but are convinced it's marvelous, it's still a piece of crap. The crowd isn't always right.
I'm just a guy with a little experience. About 20 years in photography, lived all over the US and a couple times in Europe. Been in a couple other North American countries, South America, Africa, Asia . . . Been in something like 40 of the 50 states. I use a Nikon D200, Nikon D2H, prime lenses, a few speedlights, Kiev (Hasselblad knockoff) 6x6 system, Graflex 4x5, pinhole, Holga, etc. I've worked in photo labs, done darkroom work, maintain a solid digital darkroom with Apple, Adobe and Epson products, etc. Not to get into a pissing competition with anyone, but just to validate (as much as can be done for a stranger) my claims. I hope this helps. I'm available for long conversations about the evolutions of photography and why Anne Geddes should be banned from ever holding a camera again :o)
regarding that film vs digital argument below, i can honestly say...it's all a matter of opinion. I shoot both. I have a Canon EOS 40D and a Canon Elan IIE which i use to shoot b&w film (especially because it's fun to develop).
There ARE cameras that have higher resolution than film negatives...hasselblad just came out with a 50mp camera with a sensor thats freakin' huge!
I'd say unless you had a very good scanner, digital compostions will be of higher quality than the film negatives will be on a computer. Regarding resolution and the size of the prints, they have full frame digital slrs than can get as big as a 35mm film slr prints can and i'd say depending on the printer, then it could be just as good or even better than the film.
The sharper the image, the better it'll look blown up. There is definitely less grain on digital prints than the film prints.
but honestly, i love shooting both.
I can agree with you that shooting film can be better at times. It makes you think more because you don't just go shooting away then erase it if you don't like it. Plus, having to wait to see the prints forces you to want to make a great composition rather than shooting away then doing post processing like a lot of digital photographers do. Eh, but in the end it's all a matter of opinion.
I love my Canon 40D and i honestly think it does a way better job than my film slr and the film that it shoots. It's definitely not about the camera especially when it comes to film photography because all film is the same. The different cameras let you control things differently, but in the end it's all the same film. Digital slrs have a bunch of different sensors and thats key when it comes to the quality of the image. the better the sensor, the better the image. the better the film, the better the image.
Analogue definitely can be more fun to shoot than digital especially when you develop the photos. Dang, the developement process is fun. I'm taking a photography class at a local community college this summer just so i can use the darkroom for free (I just wished they had darkrooms at my high school :-( )!!!
Digital and Analogue shooting are both awesome. In the end, the quality of the print, to me, is going to depend on the photographer. sure the sensors and the film will effect the outcome, but a real photographer will know how to use that to their advantage to make the best possible compositions possible with that camera...i mean i've seen wonderful works of art made with camera phones!!
sorry for making this long, but photography is awesome. Film and Digital are equal to me. Both depend on the person behind the camera. You can argue the longevity of each, quality, or whatever, but in the end it's up to the photographer to preserve the picture and to take it.
So again, use a tripod for goodness sakes. Blurry images are not great images. And shoot with whatever kind of camera you want, analogue or digital. If you know how to use it, then that's all you need :-). Just shoot with whatever you enjoy most because really, photography shouldnt be a competition but it should be about doing something you love. Do it sucka.
Have fun capturing light,
- Alvincredible
GOOD WORK,SON !
Now that I won the BBQ contest and got the t-shirt in XL for you, can you get the Spanish phrasebook for me????? (Mexican version, of course!!!)