First off, it's great to learn that FT has a photography section. I've been on FT a few years and this forum has slipped my attention.

I'm someone who has always loved photography. I still have my Minolta 101 bought some very many years ago as well as a few Rokkor lenses and an X-700 that I used to use as my second camera on trips ( until it gets doused with Gatorade in a near collision with a buck on a trail in Colorado - but that's another story ). I also dabbled in B&W darkroom work until my wife could not stand my tying up the main bathroom for two days at a stretch. But I've not shot film in 4 years now.

I'm just curious as to how folks are changing their view of photography and their working habits/techniques now that digital photography is in full bloom and Photoshop opens up the digital darkroom.

In my "old" days, I'd lug around lots of stuff ( extra bodies, assorted filters, film, lenses, flash, tripod etc. ). But now, I'm spoiled by the ability to run around with my digital Sony DSV-1, a mini tripod, and a screw on WA lens. I'm good to go so long as my extra batteries and memory sticks hold out.

Admittedly, there are those moments when I wish that I had a beefier D-SLR, but I'm still getting decent results with my Sony which meets 90% of my needs. I've shopped the new D-SLR Canons, but the thought of having to carry more stuff keeps me from pulling the trigger ( except when you're someplace like a trail in Arizona or the woods in Ireland and you need extra features or that ability to grab that limited light photo or use a wireless flash to fill the frame).

Given the ability to switch ISO settings, gauge your histogram before shooting and grab as many hi res shots as you want, I'm oddly content with my present arrangement as my challenge becomes one of parsing the photos I take and working some Photoshp magic upon them.

I know that in time, I will pull the trigger on one of the Canons. But for now, my trusty old Sony ( almost 5 years old and 18,000 photos taken by the counter ) serves me well. I occassionally ponder picking up a Pentax W1 for underwater use. I suspect that I'd also succumb to the urge to get another ultra thin pocket camera to supplment the Canon when that day finally arrives. But I'm pretty content at the moment except for when the old photo hound dog inside starts picking up his ears and pondering a move up.

Anybody else facing some of the same digital ying and yang tugs at the heart and wallet?

Barry

First off, it's great to learn that FT has a photography section. I've been on FT a few years and this forum has slipped my attention.


We're a pretty new forum - just opened for business in the last month or so.

I'm someone who has always loved photography. I still have my Minolta 101 bought some very many years ago as well as a few Rokkor lenses and an X-700 that I used to use as my second camera on trips ( until it gets doused with Gatorade in a near collision with a buck on a trail in Colorado - but that's another story ). I also dabbled in B&W darkroom work until my wife could not stand my tying up the main bathroom for two days at a stretch. But I've not shot film in 4 years now.


I haven't been around for quite that long - I learned photography on my dad's old Olympus OM2 back in the 80s. The only automatic bit it had was the meter, so I learned about f/stops and such at a pretty early age. After that camera broke, I ended up with my own 35mm P&S, which is what I used basically through high school and college. I went with my first digital camera in 2002 (Nikon Coolpix 995 - 3.1 MP) and upgraded to a Nikon D70s in early 2006.


I'm just curious as to how folks are changing their view of photography and their working habits/techniques now that digital photography is in full bloom and Photoshop opens up the digital darkroom.

In my "old" days, I'd lug around lots of stuff ( extra bodies, assorted filters, film, lenses, flash, tripod etc. ). But now, I'm spoiled by the ability to run around with my digital Sony DSV-1, a mini tripod, and a screw on WA lens. I'm good to go so long as my extra batteries and memory sticks hold out.

Admittedly, there are those moments when I wish that I had a beefier D-SLR, but I'm still getting decent results with my Sony which meets 90% of my needs. I've shopped the new D-SLR Canons, but the thought of having to carry more stuff keeps me from pulling the trigger ( except when you're someplace like a trail in Arizona or the woods in Ireland and you need extra features or that ability to grab that limited light photo or use a wireless flash to fill the frame).

Given the ability to switch ISO settings, gauge your histogram before shooting and grab as many hi res shots as you want, I'm oddly content with my present arrangement as my challenge becomes one of parsing the photos I take and working some Photoshp magic upon them.

I know that in time, I will pull the trigger on one of the Canons. But for now, my trusty old Sony ( almost 5 years old and 18,000 photos taken by the counter ) serves me well. I occassionally ponder picking up a Pentax W1 for underwater use. I suspect that I'd also succumb to the urge to get another ultra thin pocket camera to supplment the Canon when that day finally arrives. But I'm pretty content at the moment except for when the old photo hound dog inside starts picking up his ears and pondering a move up.


I got the itch to upgrade to a DSLR a couple years ago, and the introduction of the 18-200VR lens from Nikon was the catalyst for it - an 11X walkaround lens. I was feeling limited by the shutter lag of my 995, noise performance, inability to go wider than 35mm or closer than ~135mm, etc.

I think the thing that having a "decent" DSLR + lens lets you do is focus more on technique without worrying so much about the limitations of a P&S. There aren't too many things I *can't* do with my current setup (the 18-200, a fast normal prime, and a macro lens) - now, it's more about finding the right locations, the right light, the right composition (I primarily shoot landscape).

Digital is an enabler of that for me because the cost to experiment is nearly zero. I bought a couple of used shoe-mount flashes and cheap umbrellas, stands, etc to teach myself portrait lighting. I'm not going to have any incremental film cost while I work my way through things, though. When I'm out shooting stuff outside, I can play around with a bunch of subtle variations of framing, exposure settings, etc - as long as I've got the memory cards, I'm fine (and I normally carry 5GB, which would give me enough for about 900 RAW images.

As far as Photoshop goes, it's a great tool to make good images even better. You can even make a bad image passable, but what I've learned is that it's generally always easier to get it right in the camera. Most of my 'keeper' shots look great out of the camera - PS just lets me get that last little bit to make the image 'pop'. It's not necessarily hard to fix images, but it's easier to get them right in the camera, and that's where having the solid technical chops comes in.

I just appreciate being able to take a gazillion shots in "iffy" situations not having to worry about the cost of film and developing. If a shot doesn't come out right, it never deters me from trying something again next time. Plus, the near-instant gratification is great.:D No film sits in the camera for weeks/months.

. . . I was feeling limited by the shutter lag of my 995, noise performance, inability to go wider than 35mm or closer than ~135mm, etc.

I think the thing that having a "decent" DSLR + lens lets you do is focus more on technique without worrying so much about the limitations of a P&S. There aren't too many things I *can't* do with my current setup . . .

Yes, shutter lag & noise is an issue, especially with the early digitals. The only way to truely solve that issue is to move up a platform. It sounds as if DSLRs, with a larger chip fare much better in regards to noise, even at higher ISOs.

The thing that amazes me is how much lighter lenses are today. Of course this is because of the new composite materials they utilize instead of glass. But some of the cameras with longer lenses I've picked up in the stores to play with feel like a toy. Of course, they're not, but it's quite an advancement from the lenses I was used to lugging around.



. . . now, it's more about finding the right locations, the right light, the right composition . . . the cost to experiment is nearly zero . . . As far as Photoshop goes, it's a great tool to make good images even better. . . . but what I've learned is that it's generally always easier to get it right in the camera.

Exactly. Photography is in the simplest sense all about light and composition. The rest is icing on the cake. That's the other beauty of digital. You can check your histogram in the field and come closer to the right exposure. Get the exposure right and Photoshop is simply a tool to bring out more dimensions in your image.

After compositing, I necessarily continue to focus first upon technical issues while keeping in the back of my mind what Photoshop can do for me in the digital darkroom ( such as removing a distracting wire or a branch or being sure to hold detail in shadow that I can resurrect with curves in Photoshop ).

I'm enjoying working with my old Sony knowing that while I continue to stall and put off that D-SLR purchase, technology will march ahead and prices might drop a bit as well. Given some of the carry-on limitations to places like the UK, I'm also looking at camera bags with great utility and storage devices other than lugging a PC around. In truth, good solutions exist right now. But I know that with time, more solutions will emerge.

However, the more adept I become with Photoshop, the more aware I become of what I'm missing without a D-SLR. My boss is in a similar position as I am. The two of us joke about which one of us can hold out the longest. I just got back from a 4 day hiking trip with my wife in Sedona/Flagstaff environs. I get some fantastic photos. But I also note some of the shortcomings of my present camera. I think I'll be good until the fall when we return to Flagstaff.

Barry

I bought myself a Canon TLB SLR 30+ years years ago. Did B&W for years because color was too expensive. With B&W you get lovely subtle shading, shadow, and texture.

I made the jump to a DSLR 2 years ago after experimenting with a digital Minolta (not DSLR) for a few years.

SLR is just better than point and shoot. I like to be able to "see" what the camera sees. It is a control thing. Our brains focus better than the camera can.

Another advantage of SLR in general is the ability to change lenses. In the past two years, I've acquired four lenses starting with the 10 to 22 ultra wide angle zoom to the 100-400 zoom. The wide angle is excellent for capturing inside museum and outside panoramas. The super zoom is great for wildlife and close in action. The midrange lenses work well for family gatherings and ad-hoc quick click scenarios.

None of the point and shoot cameras have the zoom range that can be achieved with changeable lenses.

On the other hand, I'm sitting in the DFW Admirals club. Which camera do I have with me? A Canon S500 point and shoot. The big camera is just way too much to travel with al the time.

I chose this point and shoot for three reasons. It is a point and shoot. It uses the same memory chip as the D20. I was able to get an underwater housing for it.

In general, the big difference between digital and film is the dynamic range. Digital just doesn't do shading, shadow, and texture as well as film.

Maybe the next generation of cameras... :)

I just shoot alot, and I mean ALOT!
When I shot Nikon F3, I was shooting like 2 rolls per day. Now I shoot like at least 500 pictures per day on a vacation.

It changed my philosophy a whole lot. I'm now a "law of averages" photographer. Spray and pray, baby! Spray and pray!

winkydink and kkjay77 have good points.

The cost of picture taking with digital is so low. I burn loads and loads of virtual film rolls.

Depending on the pictures, I can get between 300 and 400 8 mpel JPEG images on a single 1 GB SD card. I carry three of these with me.

Last Texas State Park I was in (Meridian), I took hundreds of pictures of vultures. Got 1 really nice one. I could never do that with film.

Another new thing for me: I've got really bad timing. I really like wildlife pictures. I put the camera in machine gun mode (rapid fire shutter) and let her rip. The D20 (and many other DSLR) will shoot 3 pictures per second on a sustained basis. Until you run out of memory. At least one of the photos will get the animal in just the right way. Also works well for children.

I have found that my pictures have gotten worse. With a film camera, before I snapped the shutter I used to think about what I was about to take. Stop, look at the exposure, depth of field, steady myself, all that good stuff. Now, even if I'm shooting with a long lense I find I get lazy and just snap hoping that with a large number of pictures some will be good. I've been trying to get back to the way it was.

Digital is an enabler of that for me because the cost to experiment is nearly zero.
...
As far as Photoshop goes, it's a great tool to make good images even better. You can even make a bad image passable, but what I've learned is that it's generally always easier to get it right in the camera.Agreed. A marginal cost of essentially zero to take a picture is great. It's also very nice to be able to review images in the LCD immediately after taking them.

I have found that my pictures have gotten worse. With a film camera, before I snapped the shutter I used to think about what I was about to take. Stop, look at the exposure, depth of field, steady myself, all that good stuff. Now, even if I'm shooting with a long lense I find I get lazy and just snap hoping that with a large number of pictures some will be good. I've been trying to get back to the way it was.A tripod can be very helpful in this regard.

The D20 (and many other DSLR) will shoot 3 pictures per second on a sustained basis. Until you run out of memory. At least one of the photos will get the animal in just the right way. Also works well for children.

I'm so temped to buy 1D Mk III wih 10FPS continous burst and hope one of several hundred will come out allright too! :D

But then again, I might buy Leica M8 and start to think about exposure, focus, etc again.

. . . I'm so temped to buy 1D Mk III wih 10FPS continous burst and hope one of several hundred will come out allright too! . . .

Yeah, sometimes digital makes things too easy and that's when we get sloppy. Nothing can substitute for technique since photography is always about light and composition. You gotta check histograms in camera prior to shooting to get the exposure right and hope that burst might catch an especially good shot. I utilize burst exposure bracketing on occassion when I'm shooting in a mixed light environment to try to cover the gamut of exposures, hoping that I get at least one frame I can work with in Photoshop and manipulate curves to fix my problem areas.

I'm parsing through some 800 plus photos taken during a recent 4 day Arizona hiking trip. I can also tell when my attention was drifting when I get to sets of images in which I did not concentrate on the technical aspects like I should have. It's sometimes hard to stay mentally focused after snapping so many shots.

Barry

I am terrible, terrible, at getting pictures a little skewed. I don't have an especially steady hand, and a number of film photos I've taken have been ruined as a result.

With a high-res DSLR with image stabilisation, this is infinitely better for me. I've always known the images I want, this just means there are far fewer ruined by my own limitations!

I also find I'm freer to experiment. Photography can be an expensive hobby, and I was often rather reticent to take photos I didn't think would turn out. These days, though, I'm happy to do so, and there's some great results, at minimal extra cost.

Finally, other than UV and polarisers, I don't feel the need to play around with filters - I used to be a real Cokin fan, and have a great selection of fake rain, sunsets, streaks, stars, the lot. No need now, it's a lot easier, just Photoshop it.

I don't think my "philosophy" of imaging has changed - the design concepts that make a good image have not changed.

But I do shoot a lot more, experimenting with different compositions and can get rapid feedback at almost no incremental cost. That has greatly accelerated the learning process.

I was actually a bit sad when I read that Kodak was no longer making papers a while ago -- a sign of the times.

To me this just illustrates a very salient fact--as an amateur, you have, on an increasing basis, no choice but to shoot digital. Anything else, and it just becomes too difficult or cost prohibitive. So my big philosophical leap has been really just to realize that you have to let go of the old and embrace the new.

I was also one who saw the comings and goings of 126, 110, and APS format film, and was also sad when each of these other formats died, too--you just see how these things come and go. Digital is here, and I can't see that it will change much from it's present form for quite a while.

Digital encouraged me to take pictures again and for the reasons below, allowed new formats.

To me this just illustrates a very salient fact--as an amateur, you have, on an increasing basis, no choice but to shoot digital.

I suppose it depends on your budget. The digital revolution has made extraordinarily good quality medium format equipment affordable to this amateur for the first time. A Hasselblad and a few lenses is now easily within reach, and film and processing is quite economical. B+W especially since many are giving away their home darkrooms.

I'm in the group that takes lots more pictures with the digital, and it has made picture taking a bit easier for us. Hubby and I have an old Nikon N50 which he uses to shoot B&W, and a D50 which I use for color shoots. Keeps us from having to worry about whether there's color or B&W in the camera. :)

I just received a digital camera as a gift. Still need to read the manual, but my friend showed me how to do a couple of things w/ it. I think the only difference for me is that I can see immediately if a picture turned out ok, vs having to wait to have the film developed.

I still get prints made of the digital images, and actually just put a bunch into a photo album. I also have those photos uploaded to www.fotki.com so if others want to see them they can, but I'm not big on sitting in front of a computer to look at images I've taken. Prefer grabbing a photo album, a glass of wine, some music & trip down memory lane that way.

Actually FTers like that I have the digital camera now because before, after Dos, I'd post that I had to take the film in to have it developed & a CD burned, and then uploaded to the site, so my photos wouldn't appear 'til long after the event. Now, like w/ the recent Freddies, I can upload right away.

Cheers.

With digital.. its Shoot first and then ask questions :p

I'm working on changing my philosophy. :)
I think film SLR was a much better way to go... but
its expensive.

Digital changed my life. I was constantly frustrated with the delayed results when shooting with film. As an amateur, I often wouldn't realize a lighting, aperture, white-balance or other error until after developing - and sometimes end up with a mess of off-color blurs instead of the shots I was expecting to see. With digital, I love having the immediate result to determine if adjustments need to be made, or if I somehow selected the wrong setting by mistake.

Shooting long exposure/low light scenes was something I struggled with when using film. Having experimented enough on digital now to estimate times and settings, I'm actually curious to try my hand at film again. My digital cameras are like training wheels in that way I suppose.

Additionally, I know exactly where to find every digital photo I've ever taken. No idea where that last roll of film ended up!