| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/14/2008 07:15:49 PM · #1 |
For lazy readers: Is Digital SLR regarded as professional as Film SLR is? :)
I was wondering about the honest truth of it. I certainly don't believe this and I'm sure it is a very subjective subject. I've heard a lot of critics of digital saying all types of bad things about digital, most or all of which are not remotely true in the past five years at least. However it is obviously there is a group of individuals whom believe that digital is a crippled medium and its users lazy and amateur.
I know I've heard that digital doesn't have the IR response, clarity, nor the dynamic range of film. However it seems almost impossible to find solid numbers of exactly how film performs in matching terms.
There are obviously going to be some differences between an analog medium such as film and a digital medium such as ccd and cmos. It doesn't mean those differences are bad, just, different.
My question is, if I were to show up at something like the newspaper, natgeo, etc. with my D300 or even a D3, am I going to get laughed out of the building for not using film, or is digital now every bit as professional as 35mm film?
When someone gets a photo published in natgeo, they never list the camera and lenses used, so they could be a really great Japanese cutting edge cell-phone for all I know, or they could be medium format film. I know there is no limit to how professional photography can go, so I limited my question to 35mm digital vs 35mm film.
Thanks all!
|
|
|
|
05/14/2008 07:28:44 PM · #2 |
I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that the majority of professional photographers use digital nowadays.
At least for some types of photography. :)
Message edited by author 2008-05-14 19:29:53. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 07:29:52 PM · #3 |
To the general public, it's the size of the body/lens.... I had people ask if my 10-22 can see a long way cause of the god awful hood on the thing.... when the answer yeah but I have to watch to keep my toes out of the picture.
I think some bodies/film still have a place in some situations but digi is faster, so it's not going to be the newspaper types. Nat Geo, I suspect still use a lot of film because of the nature [okay, so a little pun intended] of some of the locations... although no doubt it's changing there as well.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2008 07:37:10 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by togtog:
I know I've heard that digital doesn't have the IR response, clarity, nor the dynamic range of film. |
I can't comment on the others, but it's simply not true that film has digital beat in terms of dynamic range. Slide has even less range, and yet was (is?) considered 'more professional' than film. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 08:01:16 PM · #5 |
The only crippling affect there is, is the one you cause yourself.
Also, the views between digital and/or film are all subjective. So there is no answer and there is no damn spoon already.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2008 08:38:18 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by togtog:
My question is, if I were to show up at something like the newspaper, natgeo, etc. with my D300 or even a D3, am I going to get laughed out of the building for not using film, or is digital now every bit as professional as 35mm film? |
My son Isaac took this photo of a San Francisco Chronicle photographer taking my photo with a digital Nikon (I think it was a Nikon) back in July, 2002. I'm pretty sure most photojournalism these days is done with digital equipment.
 |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 08:41:27 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by togtog:
My question is, if I were to show up at something like the newspaper, natgeo, etc. with my D300 or even a D3, am I going to get laughed out of the building for not using film, or is digital now every bit as professional as 35mm film?
|
I think you'd be laughed at if you showed up with a film camera. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 08:58:52 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think you'd be laughed at if you showed up with a film camera. |
Ditto. I do my share of photojournalism work, and I haven't seen a single person using a film camera for a good five years. I think anyone who is making claims nowadays that film is superior in quality is simply someone who is afraid of change, and frankly doesn't know what they're talking about.
Digital is especially prevalent in photojournalism because of the immediacy of it. The big news organizations want stuff as close to instantly as possible, and they're certainly not going to get that from someone who is waiting for their negatives to dry.
Back when the first DSLRs were being introduced, I'd hear some of the guys at big news organizations claiming that film was still the way to go for quality or whatever reasons, but none of those guys would ever go back to film nowadays. I know quite a few guys from places like AP, Reuters, etc., and I promise none of them would be caught with film. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 09:07:49 PM · #9 |
What format do places that do professional portraits use, are those usually medium format or is that just the old koots who haven't caught up with the times.
And thanks guys, I was feeling de-egofied at having a digital slr xD I feel much better now. NatGeo here I come, I will show them my large collection of photos of socks, that is sure to get me in the door! |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 09:12:46 PM · #10 |
Publications like National Geographic, Architectural Digest and other high end magazines still use film, at least that's what I knew up to a year ago. I did have an image published in Architectural Digest in the last year that was taken digitally.
All the major newspapers and news magazines went digital several years ago. They not only eliminated the cost of film, processing, printing, color separations, scanning, etc., they are now able to extend deadlines, transmit from the field, digitally archive and several other added benefits. For news papers it was a no brainer to go digital once the resolution reached about 3 MP. The earliest pro level digital cameras I saw were barely over 1 MP and cost $15,000+. When the US invaded Haiti back in the early 90s was the first time I saw the AP use digital cameras on a major news story. The cameras were big, bulky and slow. But even then the benefits were apparent.
The Superbowl in 2004 (I think, may have been 2005) was the first Superbowl where no one shot film on deadline.
Digital is here to stay. I heard Kodak was getting out of the film business. If that's not a sign of the times I don't what is.
Message edited by author 2008-05-14 21:14:55. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 09:13:51 PM · #11 |
"90% -The projected number of professional photos that will be taken with digital cameras by 2009" -BBJ
Message edited by author 2008-05-14 21:15:14. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 09:28:35 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Publications like National Geographic, Architectural Digest and other high end magazines still use film, at least that's what I knew up to a year ago. I did have an image published in Architectural Digest in the last year that was taken digitally.
All the major newspapers and news magazines went digital several years ago. They not only eliminated the cost of film, processing, printing, color separations, scanning, etc., they are now able to extend deadlines, transmit from the field, digitally archive and several other added benefits. For news papers it was a no brainer to go digital once the resolution reached about 3 MP. The earliest pro level digital cameras I saw were barely over 1 MP and cost $15,000+. When the US invaded Haiti back in the early 90s was the first time I saw the AP use digital cameras on a major news story. The cameras were big, bulky and slow. But even then the benefits were apparent.
The Superbowl in 2004 (I think, may have been 2005) was the first Superbowl where no one shot film on deadline.
Digital is here to stay. I heard Kodak was getting out of the film business. If that's not a sign of the times I don't what is. |
I think Nat'l Geo is only using film occasionally when it's absolutely necessary. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 09:47:18 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Publications like National Geographic, Architectural Digest and other high end magazines still use film, at least that's what I knew up to a year ago. I did have an image published in Architectural Digest in the last year that was taken digitally.
All the major newspapers and news magazines went digital several years ago. They not only eliminated the cost of film, processing, printing, color separations, scanning, etc., they are now able to extend deadlines, transmit from the field, digitally archive and several other added benefits. For news papers it was a no brainer to go digital once the resolution reached about 3 MP. The earliest pro level digital cameras I saw were barely over 1 MP and cost $15,000+. When the US invaded Haiti back in the early 90s was the first time I saw the AP use digital cameras on a major news story. The cameras were big, bulky and slow. But even then the benefits were apparent.
The Superbowl in 2004 (I think, may have been 2005) was the first Superbowl where no one shot film on deadline.
Digital is here to stay. I heard Kodak was getting out of the film business. If that's not a sign of the times I don't what is. |
I think Nat'l Geo is only using film occasionally when it's absolutely necessary. |
Makes sense, I watched a National Geographic channel documentary a few months ago about one of their photographers and he spoke about digital and film, but he was still using Kodachrome. What I don't know is when the documentary was filmed. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 09:51:39 PM · #14 |
Film is dead...Long live film!
|
|
|
|
05/14/2008 09:58:55 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Makes sense, I watched a National Geographic channel documentary a few months ago about one of their photographers and he spoke about digital and film, but he was still using Kodachrome. What I don't know is when the documentary was filmed. |
If the documentary was 'At Close Range' about Joel Sartore, then yes, he still uses film. However, the photo editor at Nat Geo was ribbing him for being one of the few photographers who hasn't switched to digital yet.
Message edited by author 2008-05-14 21:59:59. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 10:10:53 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by togtog:
What format do places that do professional portraits use, are those usually medium format or is that just the old koots who haven't caught up with the times. |
Either Canon 1Ds or a medium format with a digital back like a Hasselblad or Mamiya. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 10:20:00 PM · #17 |
Our baby got chosen to model some babyclothes here in Japan for a pretty high end company.
At the photoshoot they used film exclusively (a Pentax)
(They also took a polaroid before shooting each 'scene', in order to paste it on a board where they had the magazine template printed out |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 11:03:42 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Publications like National Geographic, Architectural Digest and other high end magazines still use film, at least that's what I knew up to a year ago. I did have an image published in Architectural Digest in the last year that was taken digitally.
All the major newspapers and news magazines went digital several years ago. They not only eliminated the cost of film, processing, printing, color separations, scanning, etc., they are now able to extend deadlines, transmit from the field, digitally archive and several other added benefits. For news papers it was a no brainer to go digital once the resolution reached about 3 MP. The earliest pro level digital cameras I saw were barely over 1 MP and cost $15,000+. When the US invaded Haiti back in the early 90s was the first time I saw the AP use digital cameras on a major news story. The cameras were big, bulky and slow. But even then the benefits were apparent.
The Superbowl in 2004 (I think, may have been 2005) was the first Superbowl where no one shot film on deadline.
Digital is here to stay. I heard Kodak was getting out of the film business. If that's not a sign of the times I don't what is. |
I think Nat'l Geo is only using film occasionally when it's absolutely necessary. |
Makes sense, I watched a National Geographic channel documentary a few months ago about one of their photographers and he spoke about digital and film, but he was still using Kodachrome. What I don't know is when the documentary was filmed. |
I remember their first digital story was one on fighter jets. All of the images had to be cleared by the military and digital made it possible to do that easily and quickly. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 11:26:12 PM · #19 |
They are still shooting film. Here is a link to the National Geographic Photography FAQ page.
//www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html#b
Message edited by author 2008-05-14 23:26:44. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 11:43:42 PM · #20 |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:11:10 AM · #21 |
At the Aperture World Tour event in Seattle (April 28th), a portion of the session was handed over to an award winning photographer from the Oregonian (I cannot remember his name). He demonstrated his process/workflow, and showed how essential digital imagery and speed of review, selection, editing, and delivery to his paper are for his work. He ftp's images from his laptop in the field, often from a local coffee shop, or even the location if he has wireless access there. Interestingly, he noted that the paper wants minimally post-processed images--just minor crops and levels, etc. And of course, being a news organization, a lot of advanced editing is out of the question: he "lamented" that he could not clone out power lines in the background, etc.
So I would say if you showed up at a newspaper or magazine with a film camera, they would look at you funny. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:12:29 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Makes sense, I watched a National Geographic channel documentary a few months ago about one of their photographers and he spoke about digital and film, but he was still using Kodachrome. What I don't know is when the documentary was filmed. |
If the documentary was 'At Close Range' about Joel Sartore, then yes, he still uses film. However, the photo editor at Nat Geo was ribbing him for being one of the few photographers who hasn't switched to digital yet. |
All right, I loaded up the movie on NetFlix (highly recommended, btw. The movie, not NetFlix).
Conversation between Kathy Moran, Senior Editor of National Geographic and Joel Sartore, photographer, 16 minutes into the documentary...
JS: How heavy do I shoot compared to other photographers. I mean, what's the average number of rolls you see shot on a story.
KM: These days, just about none.
JS: Yeah, yeah. I know. I'm the last one to shoot film.
KM: You're the dinosaur.
JS: But like, when people were shooting film, as of last year...
ETA: The movie was released in 2006, so I imagine the conversation took place in late 2005 or early 2006.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 00:16:18. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 01:30:07 AM · #23 |
So, digital might not have pushed everything out but certainly there is no reason to laugh if you see a photographer running around with a digital SLR, that makes me happy. I know they may not be as friendly in harsh environments, i.e. photographer in the hot jungle dodging monkeys throwing rocks, however they are filling in the gaps and are already nine tenths the way home.
Btw to the comment about the size of a camera, the other day my brothers wife saw my camera for the first time, from a distance and her first reaction was "Oh my! Now that is a camera, look at that thing!". :)
I really do love my SLR more than I thought I would, I even considered not getting it at one point but now, I cannot be seperated from it. I just got worried that maybe I was a fool to like it so much, to spend so much when there is film SLRs for less.
Thank you everyone for reassuring me. :) |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 01:38:56 AM · #24 |
Film or digital - what a great question. I have three really great friends that are professional photographers, are highly honored and have achieved amazing national and international status - two shoot film only and the thrid only shoots digital. In fact one travels the country putting on workshops and tries to talk photographers back into film.
From a very subjective list I found of the top living american photograhers, I went looking to see what they shoot:
Elliot Erwitt film
James Nachtwey film and digital
Edward Burtynsky film and digital
Ray McSavaney film and digital
Roy DeCarava
Sally Mann film
Nicholas Nixon film
Kim Kirkpatrick
Duane Michals film
Jill Freedman
I also found these quotes from on-line interviews:
In a question and answer session at his exhibition opening in Bradford last night, Elliot Erwitt said the following:
“Digital manipulation kills photography, It’s enemy number 1.”
Asked about tips for starting out, he said, “Start rich..... The field is very crowded and you should be aware that it’s not likely you will succeed.”
“Digital is so simple. An image without effort.”
“To get a good picture, you have to have lots of bad ones.”
“Luck is the most important factor.”
“Commercial work is always shot in colour, personal always in B&W. Colour is descriptive, B&W is interpretive.”
“I shoot B&W because it looks better.”
“Assignments are easy, (compared to personal work), they follow a logical procedure with a known end requirement”.
“I like photography that captures the human condition.”
-------------------------
Sally Mann’s devotion to doing everything herself enhances her almost mythical persona. Nor does she have any inclination for the new digital technology: “Digital images don’t smell,” she says.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 05:54:49 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by togtog:
to spend so much when there is film SLRs for less. |
Bear in mind that with film, the hardware is only part of the cost - you have to add in film and developing costs to get a true comparison.
One of the major reasons we got our first digital SLR in 2004 was that it worked out cheaper than just the film and development for an upcoming (admittedly, very long!) trip. It would be interesting to sit down and do the sums, but I suspect that we're still better off despite having gone through a few more digital bodies since then! |
|
