yeah many cameras offer this mode, never quite done it for me, focus on gettinga good clear color picture then go into photoshop and pull out the color.

 

Definitely! That's the problem. Shoot regular or camera RAW then post process in PhotoShop or your photo software of choice (& affordability.)

 

I don't disagree with you regarding the convenience of digital picture taking over the film process. However, I might argue the costs associated with the consumables part. In film photography, you need to buy film and develop and print. I've found the overall costs are about even with the cost of batteries, memory cards, printer paper and inks. You also spend more time on your computer which if done legally, add the cost of software licences and storage media (memory?) and the upgrade cycle for PCs. In the end, it's two different ways of getting to the same thing...good, well composed pictures. I would encourage all who read this thread to continue to work developing their composition skills and image styles.
Cooper_si, it was good of you to start this thread . Keep up the good effort in picture taking. You've just encouraged me to go pick up my camera and get back into this hobby.

I believe that eventually, I will switch to a digital platform. There is some advancement in technology required still so I'll wait (BTW...I work for Kodak). I currently have a rather large investment of film SLRs & Rangefinders, Lenses, Tripods. I can get a whole set of proofs developed and printed in less than an hour at my local photography store and don't have to sit in front of my PC for hours deleting pictures I don't want.

 

I agree that when you consider the costs involved with shooting digital, there's not that much of a difference between that and film. With digital, the camera gear is more expensive (I'm now using a $5000 camera body instead of a $1000 body), hard drives, CDs, and DVDs for archiving cost money, printer ink costs money, computers and software cost money, etc. I also spend much more time doing post-shooting work on the computer. Those costs, in theory, are passed on to clients but, ufortunately, editorial photography rates have remained pretty static over the years despite inflation and the additional time and work digital requires. The really big expense, if your type of photgraphy requires it, is travel costs. I know this because we're prepping our tax work for our accountant right now. I really wish the hotel people would give me a discount because I shoot mostly digital but they won't do it.

Mark

 

Camera B+W conversion sometimes isn't the best. If I want B&W I usually shoot in color, then play around with Photoshop afterwards.

Another interesting wat to convert in Photoshop is with Image, Adjust, Gradient Map. If you use a black-to-white gradient you can "map" all the colors to black and white, but you also get the ability to add control points and adjust how much black, gray and white is in the image. This took some playing around to get right when I first did it, but it allows you some nice control. For instance if you have an image with truly no object that is pure white, you can easily choose that color for the "white" in the gradient map.

You can also get some psycho effects this way too, for instance if you add a middle point with a gray and then tweak around you can get a B&W image that looks strangely developed.

You can get a similar effect with B&W conversion and levels too, but probably not the same control you have in gradient map.

 

I always shoot in color and stay away from the in-camera options like B&W or sepia-tone because you can ALWAYS fix them later.

As for the pricing between digital and film I disagree. At first the costs are similar, sure, but in the long run digital is far cheaper. Don't get me wrong guys I was a hardcore film girl for many years and was against digital for a while. It's amazing that I can buy the same film camera brand new for $90 where I paid $400 back in the day. But now, after my start up cost I can shoot as many photos as I want, pick which ones to keep rather than having to pay for all of them only to realize I shot with the wrong speed film, and I can edit them before I print. It really can't get any better than that. There's always going to be nostalgia when it comes to film but I'd rather be able to have the freedom to shoot 800 photos in one sitting and not worry about it. As for the cost of printing, it's definitely more expensive to print at home but you can still take your disk to the store and have it printed for (get this) the same price (gasp )

 

That's what I was really getting at, and getting instant feedback, *and* not having to pay for developing every frame before you see what you got. I don't even know what film and processing cost today, but in the first two days I had my Rebel XT I took over 200 pictures (most of them bad). That's like 10 rolls of film, *plus* developing costs. I just don't see a comparison. With the digital camera there may be more startup costs if you need to work with software on your computer, but I think you'll more than make up for that with the flexibility of being able to take a ridiculous number of pictures without having to pay to have them processed.

 

I definitely agree that there are some huge convenience advantages to shooting digital. So much so that, as much as I love film and my film cameras, I find it really difficult to motivate myself to shoot with them very much any more. Being able to change ISO "mid-roll", being able to change white balance for varying conditions, the convenience of not having to scan slides and negatives, of not having to deal as much with film labs (many of whom seem to have gotten increasingly sloppy in their work over the years) and, most of all, the instant feedback. It's great to be able to see if something is working or not when you're in the middle of a shoot.

It's also really nice to try to go after low-probability shots without worrying about the cost of burning up film on something that may or may not work and, if you finally do get what you want, you know when to stop. For instance, I like to shoot pan shots of racing cars at really slow shutter speeds, for instance, where maybe one shot in twenty or thirty might be worth keeping. I used to hate to shoot a whole roll of film for (maybe) one good shot, plus I'd needlessly shoot more after having gotten something good since there was no way of knowing when to stop.

Mark

 

Well I'm glad I didn't offend anyone with my post. Maybe I read things wrong but it did seem like everyone was saying it was even between the two. I honestly was shocked that anyone could feel that way. I'm the happiest camper alive when it comes to digital photography and it's easy access. My skills have improved 100 fold in the last year since I got my newest digital camera and started learning photoshop. I get so many people that are amazed when I show them what I do and then tell them it's all done with the canon powershot s70 (it's a point and shoot!) but it's not the tool it's how you use it. I wish I had some of my older photography to show but it's back in a staorage unit in North Carolina. It's amazing to see how my talent has changed...plus I wouldn't mind going back to some of them and post editing (now that I finally have that option, yay).

 

I agree with Stoopidgirl! It's funny I took two photography classes back in college. We shot only with B&W film, developer our own film and even developed our own prints. I loved going out and shooting roll after roll of film, but I could never afford to just be free with and take as many as I wanted. Then the cost of developing and making prints, and the hours involved, etc. It was more work than art for me. I loved taking pictures, but I just didn't have the time and money for everything that followed.

Then I didn't really mess around with photography much for about a decade. Suddently I found myself wanting to get a good camera. I started with a 6 megapixel DSLR and moved up to a better 8 megapixel DSLR this last year. I've taken over 10,000 photos in the last 18 months for various events, friends, car stuff, etc. Sure, probably only about a dozen of them are "really cool" shots. But I was able to do neat stuff. For instance, a friend of mine and I shot all the photos for someone's wedding as a favor to them since they had a tight budget.

I've seen some awesome photos come from point and shoot cameras. I would have gone with a point and shoot had it not been for the need to use telephoto lenses for wildlife. I became so obsessed with getting shots from far away that I invested in a 400mm telephone lens just for that purpose.

What I find is the most powerful in the digital world is being able to adjust camera settings dynamically, shooting in RAW format (just like have a negative basically) and being able to make minor corrections in the digital darkroom if needed. I like the fact that I can switch from ISO100 and ISO3200 instantly! I also like that I can so easily shoot the same image with different settings and quickly compare them in the field and know for sure if I got the shot I wanted.

I also like being able to take numerous photos and learn what works and what doesn't. For instance, when I was trying to get a picture of a woodpecker I used two different lenses, and tried probably a dozen different angles and lighting combinations. Had I done that with film it would have been a costly experiement. Done in digital, I was able to rapidly learn what worked and what doesn't. After about 40 photos, I ended up with 5 that I really liked.

 

Photography is one of those things that improves greatly with experience and practice. I know people who make it a point to shoot every single day in order to stay in practice. Since I do mostly motorsports, I tend to shoot quite a bit less during the off-season and, when the next season starts, it shows. I'm always pretty unhappy with the work I do at my first race of the season and it's because my ability to shoot has deteriorated from a lack of practice in general and with that genre in particular.

Digital photography lends itself to lots and lots of practice and also risk-taking and experimentation. Those are good things. What it shouldn't do is be a way to cover up sloppy technique. I know no one here is like this but we've all seen people who aren't careful because they think they can fix it later in Photoshop or they can shoot ten jillion shots and get a couple right purely by luck. That's not the way to produce quality work and it also hinders one's growth as a photographer. Like what StoopidGirl says, trying to do a better job each time is a good part of what makes it fun for me.

Mark

 

Hoopi-AMEN to that!

Mark-I practice a lot....in fact I'm over due for some more.

 

Photography is one of those things you do really have to practice as I am learning. Got a long way to go but I'm slowly getting better.

Love your pics stoopidGirl And have been a fan of Hafids work for ages now.

One good podcast I have found which is teaching me heeps is www.tipsfromthetopfloor.com - you can subscribe on the site or in i-tunes

Paul

 

Hey Si

Here's my edit of yours simply using the burn tool in moderation

Hope that helps dude