[Ferdi]

The question was about convenience, right?

You could of course take your pictures in the exact way you would with a film camera:
- Plan how many pictures you think you might take and bring along enough film/memory cards (You could take small cards so no more than 36 shots fits )
- Take your pictures as normal, always keeping in mind what opportunities you might have that day that you need room for
- Don't look at any shots, don't organize or delete anything
- Take your memory cards to a brick & mortar photoshop and order prints of everything

What would happen?

My guess is that you will in a very short time start looking at pictures, deleting a few, feel a level of guilt over ordering prints of stuff you know is no good. etc.

The things you miss, the things that chafe are your added convenience.....

Just my take on things.

Ferdi

[djklmnop]

The question was about convenience, right?

You could of course take your pictures in the exact way you would with a film camera:
- Plan how many pictures you think you might take and bring along enough film/memory cards (You could take small cards so no more than 36 shots fits )
- Take your pictures as normal, always keeping in mind what opportunities you might have that day that you need room for
- Don't look at any shots, don't organize or delete anything
- Take your memory cards to a brick & mortar photoshop and order prints of everything

What would happen?

My guess is that you will in a very short time start looking at pictures, deleting a few, feel a level of guilt over ordering prints of stuff you know is no good. etc.

The things you miss, the things that chafe are your added convenience.....

Just my take on things.

Ferdi

You are quite right.   It would be idiotic to shoot digital as if it were film.  And that's why digital is so great.  The convenience far outweighs the quality inherit from film; and this works out perfectly because a lot of consumers can't take quality photos to begin with.

If you think about it, Ansel Adams and many view camera shooters would carry sheet films on their expedition.  Meaning only about 10 exposures for that trip.  They come back with amazing photos and no digital preview of what they had shot.  Like audio, not only is it an art, it contains many technical attributes which gives us our results.  We know in audio if we do one thing, it'll result in another.  There is a step-by-step process as well in photography which if the photographer understands, can shoot without assistance of polaroids or digital preview.  But the road is long and hard and digital a lot of time gets the vote because of that.  JohnR has seen some of the stuff we talked about a few years back when we had the chatroom, so he has been exposed to quite a bit of it.  Would love to hear his input on this.

[nathanm]

There's a lot you can do in Photoshop to imitate the traditionally film-like look, but what interests me most about large format is that shallow depth of field and the whole movement\adjustment thing.  I have recently attempted to fake this with "Lens Blur" but it's just not the same.  I would not be too interested in doing my own processing though.  That sounds like way too much headache.

Even though I really haven't a clue what he uses, it's this guy's work that completely knocked me on my ass and got me thinking.  The stuff is so gorgeous it makes me wanna cry.  I suspect there's large format involved here, but I could be wrong.  This is the $50 Camera\Knowledgeable Photographer guy for sure.  Still, that shallow DOF portrait look just blows me away.  It's the photographic equivalent of a Mapleshade recording, I may not give a dang about the subject matter, but damn if it doesn't look beautiful. :

http://www.marktucker.com

[Carlman]

There's a lot you can do in Photoshop to imitate the traditionally film-like look, but what interests me most about large format is that shallow depth of field and the whole movement\adjustment thing.  I have recently attempted to fake this with "Lens Blur" but it's just not the same....

I think you're talking about the scheimpflug method which is pretty easy to do once you get the hang of it... but that's not what Mark appears to be doing... I think he's using sheets of clear plexi or filters with vaseline or other tools to get the in-and-out blurs he's accomplishing.  In fact, he's got a lot of textured stuff going on... very nice stuff, reminds me of Nitin Vadukul's album photography.  He did the cover for 'No More Tears' by Ozzy.  Both of these guys seem to be influenced by some of the same masters in Photography... just can't put my finger on who... been too long since I studied it all.

-C

[nathanm]

There is definite Photoshop work involved, with the overlaid textures on some shots etc., but I don't think the focus blurs per se are a part of post-processing.  I have a feeling that's part of the basic view camera thing.  I've seen that on lots of other shots.  I could be wrong though, I've never used one.  Here's some other examples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianray/376259178/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wesfrazer/273345463/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/orbit1/11035456/

Usually with shallow DOF shots (like flower macros) there's an even plane of blur around the subject, but it looks like with a tilt\shift camera you can get those dual blurs on either edge of the frame as seen in some of Tucker's images.  I dunno, just guessing.

[AphileEarlyAdopter]

There is definite Photoshop work involved, with the overlaid textures on some shots etc., but I don't think the focus blurs per se are a part of post-processing.  I have a feeling that's part of the basic view camera thing.  I've seen that on lots of other shots.  I could be wrong though, I've never used one.  Here's some other examples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianray/376259178/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wesfrazer/273345463/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/orbit1/11035456/

Usually with shallow DOF shots (like flower macros) there's an even plane of blur around the subject, but it looks like with a tilt\shift camera you can get those dual blurs on either edge of the frame as seen in some of Tucker's images.  I dunno, just guessing.

I think so too..background blur or bokeh is done by using a shallow DOF, or low f-stops (< f4). In a view camera, the blurs happen at a higher f-stop (because the image size is bigger, just the opposite of what happens in a point-and-shoot digital camera with a tiny image sensor, ie. even f/4 is like f/8 or f/12 in a SLR ).
But this photographer is using this bokeh in a 'creative' way not just for aesthetics or isolating the subject.  Surely, Photoshop is involved in those 'canvas' effects.

[SET Man]

Hey!

   First as a photographer myself it is hard for me to say which is better. I'm currently using both. Depend on what I'm shooting and what I will do with it.

   I have to admit that it had been a while since I bought a roll of film. But if I were to be stuck in a war or jungle or somewhere remote than you better get me a Leica M6... well M3 is even better with 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lens and 100 rolls of Kodak Tri-X and 100 of Kodachrome!

  Film still have a special spot in my heart especially B&W photography. Do you know what is like to hold an 8X10 B&W print from a 4 X 5 film.... that just made all the hours of setting up darkroom and print wroth it. I just wish I had more time to do this though 

  Anyway, it had been a long while since I've been out about the town with my film cam. I think I will get a roll of Kodachrome, put it in my '67 Minolta SR-T 101 with 55mm 1.7f MC Rokkor and take a stroll along NYC this coming Sunday.

Take care,
Buddy

[nathanm]

AFAIK there is only ONE lab left in America that processes Kodachrome.

[djklmnop]

There is definite Photoshop work involved, with the overlaid textures on some shots etc., but I don't think the focus blurs per se are a part of post-processing.  I have a feeling that's part of the basic view camera thing.  I've seen that on lots of other shots.  I could be wrong though, I've never used one.  Here's some other examples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianray/376259178/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wesfrazer/273345463/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/orbit1/11035456/

Usually with shallow DOF shots (like flower macros) there's an even plane of blur around the subject, but it looks like with a tilt\shift camera you can get those dual blurs on either edge of the frame as seen in some of Tucker's images.  I dunno, just guessing.

Actually, most of his photos are shot with a medium format camera.  It would be impossible the capture those shots on 4x5 as focus is so tight through bellows extension.  Thats why when you go to studios that use view cameras, they have you put a string to your nose to determine focus.  It's a bitch to refocus then close the lens, then insert the film, then cock the shutter, then shoot.

If you look closely at his film's edge, you can tell they were shot with a Hasselblad, film holder's V notch.  Hasselblad's lens' are amazingly nice and makes the out-of-focus appearance nicer (bokeh).  Reminds me of audio. You get what you pay for

But seriously, film is still VERY high in quality despite what the manufacturers want you to believe.  The most important component in these shots is that he uses Color Negatives which holds a hell of a lot larger range-of-light than digital.

If you want to obtain the same results as he did, do some research into hyperfocal distance.. You can put your subject at the end of your hyperfocal distance and get the same effect.. providing there is no further foreground to be in focus.

Andy

[boead]

Hey!

   First as a photographer myself it is hard for me to say which is better. I'm currently using both. Depend on what I'm shooting and what I will do with it.

Are you a professional photographer?


What digital rig do you use?

[nathanm]

Actually, most of his photos are shot with a medium format camera.  It would be impossible the capture those shots on 4x5 as focus is so tight through bellows extension.  Thats why when you go to studios that use view cameras, they have you put a string to your nose to determine focus.  It's a bitch to refocus then close the lens, then insert the film, then cock the shutter, then shoot.

I figured as much.  There are some giveaway shots that suggest medium format, like the one with all the thumbnails next to the Nashville fellow with slicked back hair.  Also, he's pictured holding what looks like a medium format camera in the Germany section.  I just wasn't sure if they were all medium or not.  That's a dang nice lens for sure, whatever it is.

But seriously, film is still VERY high in quality despite what the manufacturers want you to believe.  The most important component in these shots is that he uses Color Negatives which holds a hell of a lot larger range-of-light than digital.

Yep, no question about that!  When I used to work more with scanned film there was a far greater degree of adjustment you could make using levels and curves in Photoshop.  The histograms were so much "fuller" and they responded much more linearly than digital shots.  When messing with color in digital shots there isn't as much room to work, things start to clip much sooner.  You can kinda see the "warts" of the medium.  But like anything, it's not necessarily the tool that gets you the results.

[tonyptony]

I'm of two minds about this. I've been a dedicated amateur photographer since the mid 70s, and have been shooting primarily digital for the last 4 years. To the questions of convenience, the answer is yes, but I think a lot of what makes digital photography satisfying for someone is based on their expectations and desire to become proficient at the "digital darkroom".

The best digital camera in the world won't take perfect photos by magic, just like the best film SLRs could not. I'm referring specifically to knowing about (in the past) film exposure latitude, color reproduction characteristics, etc, and (in today's world) sensor clipping, color accuracy, etc and how to take all that into account when making an image. One of the big things (IMO) that one has to suffer with in the digital world is the color management problem in the PC environment. Trying to get perfect color management (through to the printed output on a high quality printer) without spending a ton of money of profiling software and colorimeters is pretty much impossible. Of course a lot of this would go away if I used Kodak.com to print my stuff (maybe), but I like the total process of making a hard copy image. That's one area that is way more frustrating in the digital world, compared to film.

[SET Man]

AFAIK there is only ONE lab left in America that processes Kodachrome.

Hey!

   Yes, I know that. But I usually use the Kodak Mailer anyway.

   Just want to grab some shot with the Kodachrome of NYC before Kodak somehow decide to stop making it.... but it is unlikely.

   Ahhh... the legendary Kodachrome and Tri-X. I just can't imagine the world without Kodachrome and Tri-X. 

   It is unlikely that film will be faded away anytime soon. Maybe after I die.

   Did you know that Paul Simon wrote a song about the Kodachrome called "Kodachrome" ? I like that song... somewhat reminded me of my last term of High school and early college years

Take care,
Buddy

[nathanm]

I only shot one roll of Kodachrome 64 in college.  Even then I had to send it out of state, can't remember where.  My pictures sucked, but man what color!  I actually thought all the world was a sunny day, oh yeah.  I always wondered if Paul Simon was somehow sponsored to write that tune by Kodak.  Heh!  Probably not, but usually you don't hear many pop songs with such a specific product endorsement in them.  Two of 'em, even!  I've heard that Diana Krall is penning a heartfelt ballad to the Foveon sensor for her next record, so the tradition continues even today.

[SET Man]

Hey!

   First as a photographer myself it is hard for me to say which is better. I'm currently using both. Depend on what I'm shooting and what I will do with it.

Are you a professional photographer?


What digital rig do you use?

Hey!

   To answer your questions...

1. No, I don't think I could call myself pro since only about 50% of my monthly income is from photography. So, I guess semi-pro fit better. Mostly I'm working as a photographer's assistance right now with this great guy for many years now of who is also my mentor

2. The short answer will be.... it doesn't matter. But let's just say I don't get respect carry this thing around. But of cause I don't care and my boss doesn't care that I'm using this. We usually use black tape to tape over the brand and model number of our cams anyway when we go on the jobs.

Take care,
Buddy

[SET Man]

I've heard that Diana Krall is penning a heartfelt ballad to the Foveon sensor for her next record, so the tradition continues even today.

Hey!

  Are you serious?

  Anyway, I do have couple of boxes of Kokachorme slides of NYC around early to mid 90's. It it a great slide film. And the dyes use in processing are know to last... I've heard that most early Kodachrome slides still look great today even after 50+ years

  And of cause the color is great to look at! You could only get color like that from Kodachrome.

  Well, that's it! Talking about Kodachrome with you I'm definitely going out about around NYC this Sunday with a roll of Kodachrome.

Take care,
Buddy