Sometimes I think we have it easy with digital
Discussion
A couple of nights ago I had the pleasure of sitting in on a presentation given by an amateur wildlife photographer regarding the birds and wildlife of the Falkland islands. The format used was projected slides and the images were never less than very good, in many cases superb. At the conclusion, the photographer was asked questions about his methods and explained that the entire set had been taken on 100 ASA slide film. The modern equivalent of being forced to use only ISO 100. This prompted me to ask about what shutter speeds he had been forced to use, bearing in mind the images clearly had a selection of different apertures. In some cases, he explained, the exposures were not thousandths of seconds, or hundredths, but tenths and technique and patience were his key to getting sharp images free from motion blur. The irony for me was thinking about how I get pissed off if I have to increase ISO beyond 1000 or can't achieve a shutter speed better than 1/500 sec in AV! We do have things much easier with digital.
Did he tell you how many hundreds of films he used or the money he spent on developing them to get that very good to outstanding set of slides?
I do agree though. Digital has made photography a lot easier. Or not necessarily easier but totally removed any need for learning certain skills or techniques. There is no need for educated guesswork as you can just check it and adjust settings on the fly.
I do agree though. Digital has made photography a lot easier. Or not necessarily easier but totally removed any need for learning certain skills or techniques. There is no need for educated guesswork as you can just check it and adjust settings on the fly.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Wednesday 17th April 12:09
The young Simpo started off on Kodachrome 64. Just as today people strive for 'quality', in those days the slower you went, the better the 'quality'. But lenses were generally much faster as they didn't have any AF gubbins in them. Typical shutter speeds IIRC were 1/60th - 1/250th; the film box had a guide inside as to which settings to use for basic light conditions. 1/125th at f5.6 for 'hazy bright' seems to ring a bell.
Interesting. I'm fairly new to still photography and have been playing with both a film and a digital SLR. I have to say, there's something about the film one I prefer. The DSLR seems to just be a case of set all the settings correct and bang, you get the picture you want (discounting all the more creative stuff some of you more advanced guys are doing here) whereas the SLR seems to require more...I dunno...skill? Technique? Not sure that's the right word but hopefully you know what I mean.
I think I like the philosophy of having a camera that simply can't take some shots and that makes you work within the limitations of the equipment, spending your time focusing on composition rather than adjusting settings.
Anyway, I'm no hot shot photography but simply the musings of an enthusiastic beginner.
I think I like the philosophy of having a camera that simply can't take some shots and that makes you work within the limitations of the equipment, spending your time focusing on composition rather than adjusting settings.
Anyway, I'm no hot shot photography but simply the musings of an enthusiastic beginner.
MysteryLemon said:
Did he tell you how many hundreds of films he used or the money he spent on developing them to get that very good to outstanding set of slides?
It was mentioned and his reply was 'lots' which led onto someone else pointing out that developing costs would likely outweigh the cost of a decent digital camera!Simpo Two said:
The young Simpo started off on Kodachrome 64. Just as today people strive for 'quality', in those days the slower you went, the better the 'quality'. But lenses were generally much faster as they didn't have any AF gubbins in them. Typical shutter speeds IIRC were 1/60th - 1/250th; the film box had a guide inside as to which settings to use for basic light conditions. 1/125th at f5.6 for 'hazy bright' seems to ring a bell.
I can remember lenses being pretty fast focussing but I also seem to remember, at least with the gear I had which was initially a Pentax MV1 in the late 70s and then a Canon T70 (which I've still got), I thought these had AF but that was entirely part of the camera rather than the lens. I could be wrong, it's 25 years since I last used the T70!I "learned" photography (at a very basic level) when it was all film. I remember the emphasis being on bracketing - making sure you took alternatives of the same shot with the exposure increased slightly and decreased slightly - on the basis that one of them would be perfect. Of course you can do that now - just delete the shot immediately if it looks pants and try an alternative.
Digital has made it so much easier for everyone to take half decent pictures. The skill of framing and composing the shot is still one only someone with an eye can manage, I would venture? Unfortunately, digital also led to every Tom, Dick and Harry putting every pic they ever take up on the internet.
Which for me (and I'm not being elitist, I'm only really an average photographer who has occasionally taken some good shots) has spoiled the whole photography experience. People are saturated with photographs now - who the heck would want to look at mine? So I rarely bother anymore. Am I the only one?
Digital has made it so much easier for everyone to take half decent pictures. The skill of framing and composing the shot is still one only someone with an eye can manage, I would venture? Unfortunately, digital also led to every Tom, Dick and Harry putting every pic they ever take up on the internet.
Which for me (and I'm not being elitist, I'm only really an average photographer who has occasionally taken some good shots) has spoiled the whole photography experience. People are saturated with photographs now - who the heck would want to look at mine? So I rarely bother anymore. Am I the only one?
Well I remember when I got my first DSLR thinking that it made film cameras a bit like GATSO cameras, in that by the time you get the result, you've forgotten what you did to make it happen. Unless you were much better organised than me and wrote down your settings for various shots to improve by trial and error. This was how I found I learned much more quickly with digital, i.e. take the shot and look at it, if it's not correct sort out what's wrong and take another etc. So much better than take one and hope for the best when the prints come back a week later.
2slo said:
I can remember lenses being pretty fast focussing but I also seem to remember, at least with the gear I had which was initially a Pentax MV1 in the late 70s and then a Canon T70 (which I've still got), I thought these had AF but that was entirely part of the camera rather than the lens. I could be wrong, it's 25 years since I last used the T70!
FD mount lenses. All manual for focus but easier than using the same lenses today with the fresnel focus split screen in the viewfinder.Lots of prime lenses of course so they could be quite fast in light transmission terms although not always the case. Different focus techniques required - and so different flexibility with the sort of shots one might take. Basically, for a moving subject, you would probably need to pre-focus and only shoot when you could be reasonably certain that the subject was the correct distance away.
With high skill (or less high skill but a lot of practice) you could get some follow focus to work from time to time but, in my experience, it was very hit and miss most of the time. Working that way daily probably provided a much better set of results for the Pros.
Lenses, apart for the huge long teles, were generally much smaller and somewhat lighter than they are today, especially the medium zooms.
2slo said:
LongQ said:
FD mount lenses. All manual for focus but easier than using the same lenses today with the fresnel focus split screen in the viewfinder.
Yes, I remember that split viewfinder and manually focussing now I think about it. Since I passed thirty my memory isn't what it was 
I am of course basing my information on what my great great great grandfather
LongQ said:
A Gentleman should never admit (in public) to passing 30 ...
I am of course basing my information on what my great great great grandfathertold me wrote in his blog diary.
I've heard a few definitions of 'A Gentleman'. How about, someone who gets out of the bath to have a wee or even, one who supports his weight on his own arms I am of course basing my information on what my great great great grandfather
Ari said:
A gentleman is someone that knows how to play the bagpipes...
...but doesn't.
Banjo, I thought....but doesn't.
Is proficiency at a musical instrument a requirement for gentleman status? Hopefully it can be gained in other ways, eg by dint of residing in a vast country house full of Chippendale and marble?
IMO there's no difference, sure today dslrs can use 1600 asa without problem, but you still need to focus/compose/expose the shot correctly.
IMO the biggest improvement is in Software & some ZOOM lenses, [not every zoom is usuable there are still plenty of expensive White dogs out there] older film cameras had truly abysmal zoom lenses, which mean't if you wanted decent images you'd use a prime lens - BUT today how often do you see a person taking photo's using PRIME lenses, not often at all, unless the prime is a superb White Canon 'L' that is
Todays' ZOOMERS simply waste their time 'Adjusting' their photo's in PS or similar
IMO the biggest improvement is in Software & some ZOOM lenses, [not every zoom is usuable there are still plenty of expensive White dogs out there] older film cameras had truly abysmal zoom lenses, which mean't if you wanted decent images you'd use a prime lens - BUT today how often do you see a person taking photo's using PRIME lenses, not often at all, unless the prime is a superb White Canon 'L' that is
Todays' ZOOMERS simply waste their time 'Adjusting' their photo's in PS or similar
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff