DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Impressions FM3A

Futureproof?
Depends in the context of the word. There're several factors that made me chose MF lenses over AF lenses:
-They are build like a tank, therefore will last longer.I assure you that my 20 or 25 years old MF lenses will be still working fine in 20 years while AF lenses will not(they can break more easy, CPU damages occur possibly, etc.)
-Nikon is changing lenses mounts with the last G mount and the introduction of the latest pro digital camera and lenses. Does it makes sense to buy AF lenses that will be obsolete in future digital cameras that accept AI and AIS mount( the ones of the most common MF lenses)?
-MF lenses are easier to maneuver or control while focussing than AF(in manual mode)
-Last,I don't plan to move into AF or digital cameras
happy.gif
.
 
> [Hi Pinoy. Perhaps you should take into consideration what sort of > lense you need. Do you need to get into focus fast? If you do, i > recommend you get a AF, if you are taking photos where you can afford > to take your time to get into focus then i would recommend that you > get an MF. Don't know if its true but i hear MF lenses are sharper > than AF lenses. MF lenses are also more expensive than their AF > counterparts(don't know if that is true also. :-D]
 
Robert

Good for you. There seems to be a mad rush into these new systems. The digital trend amazes me in the amount of money spent on these systems, by industry and consumers.
Yesterday, I met a man with a large Cannon lens and a new 10D. He stated that he has invested $15,000 and sometimes spends hours on his 1g ram memory computer developing his photographs. But I did notice he only spent a short time at the wetlands making photographs.

Gilbert
 
"Don't know if its true but i hear MF lenses are sharper than AF lenses. MF lenses are also more expensive than their AF counterparts(don't know if that is true also."
Teo, in some cases( and I agree that in most if all the factors are in the hands of the shooter and not in the autofocus system of the lens)MF lenses, (not all,there're are bad apples in the barrel) are better than AF lenses. One thing is clear, you can focus better with them, if the result is not up to the par is for other reasons: lens quality, poor lighting, wrong film, poor proccesing, etc.).
MF lenses are not more expensives than AF, all the contrary, right now is the best time to buy MF lenses,with all the digital madness, prices of USED MF have gone down quite fast. I'm a roll...
happy.gif
!!!
True, Gilbert, and you know what will happens in a couple of years?
Those digi-cams will devalue fast and as already happened with computers it will be not cost effective to repair them..and there it goes to the landfill another piece of junk to claim a space in our wasteland.
 
Gilbert

Lack of space and lack of skills keeps most shooters out of the darkroom. It denies this most vital step of image making to film photographers. Digital returns the whole process back. Concept, exposure, interpretation and presentation. It is a huge liberation to those who don't have access to a fume-room. I never feel that lab-made prints are really "mine".

When I am shooting film, the major portion of my exposures are for insurance. When I shoot digital, I know when I have the shots I need.

Even though there is no film and processing costs, I shoot far fewer exposures. A shoot scheduled for an hour with film, can probably be handled in fifteen minutes with digital with somewhat better results. With a review of images on the monitor, a client will sign off on the shoot right on location. If something amiss is spotted, there is no need to arrange a reshoot later. A saving of hassle for me and money for the client.

At least in a commercial situation, the savings on time - running back and forth to the lab, dealing with client perfidy, scanning and so on pay for the equipment quickly.

The moment the chromes are handed to the client, the rest of the process - whether magazine, brochure, catalogue or whatever - becomes purely digital. Even printing presses now image directly upon their rollers.

Now a lot of commercial shooters are saying that they are dumping their medium format equipment for the 11MP Canon 1Ds. Compared to a 6x7 professionally drum-scanned chrome, the Canon is delivering better images.

The digital trend amazes me in the amount of money saved on these systems.

My personal digital camera is the Nikon CP5000. Much lower in price than a dSLR, and has a superb 19mm->58mm equivalent lens. In a year, it has paid for itself a couple of times over just in film and processing costs.

larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
 
"Lack of space and lack of skills keeps most shooters out of the darkroom. It denies this most vital step of image making to film photographers. Digital returns the whole process back. Concept, exposure, interpretation and presentation. It is a huge liberation to those who don't have access to a fume-room. I never feel that lab-made prints are really "mine"."

Larry, and do you really believe that the image "processed" and delivered to you by photons or whatever digital devices operates the digi-cam and convert the light source into an image is "your", and if you print it, it is your actual image printed? Be real.
The only sense that it makes digital in your case is convenience. You work for an insurance company , you need instant or quick photos and you can see the result of them, how they look, most of the time that is an advantage to an insurance company, isn't it?. No pun or offense intented.
Saving money in a digital system?
What about the "photo quality" paper and ink to print those photos? The media(CD,disks,etc.) to save the photos? That is expensive Larry.
Not to mention that you don't know for how long a CD can last and be read, neither the archival quality of the paper used on the printers.
Sure, digital has gone to some extent in image quality, but still can't beat a B&W medium format big enlargemeng, neither the tones in the gray scale rendered in good photo.
 
Robert:

Sharper. Well, Leica invented auto focus and sold the rights to Honeywell, and they continued to make MF lenses, as I read because the human eye is better.

Yesterday, Leica announced that they made some money; perhaps they would have a lot more if Honeywell wasn't receiving the royalties for auto focus.

I wonder how great film would be if the photo industry invested the same amount of current technology R&D time and money that they have invested in digital.

Larry

Digital has a lot to offer in documentation as did Polaroid, and certainly less expensive than Polaroid, but it is sure hard to manipulate a Polaroid photograph. Which reduces the chance of Legal challenges.

Gilbert
 
Gilbert, read what I posted,I do not mentioned sharpness:
"Sure, digital has gone to some extent in image quality, but still can't beat a B&W medium format big enlargemeng, neither the tones in the gray scale rendered in good photo."
 
Robert

If I have conceived of the image, carried through with the exposure either on film or digital, processed it either in the fume-room or image processing program, and am presenting it for your viewing, why would it not be my picture?

If the print or screen image as presented matches the image I visualized on location, it is most clearly "my" image. This is the very essence of photography.

Perhaps I am not understanding your point.

A bit of background~

I closed my last fume-room in the mid-1980s, and I must say that my interest in personal photography dwindled. In fact, I pretty much dropped out of photography for the better part of a decade. After a couple of exhibitions, mostly of earlier work, demand picked up and commercial and magazine shooting recommenced, but still I did realtively little highly personal work.

This began to change when I was able to get scans of my work, first through Kodak PhotoCDs, then my own scanner, though the digital darkroom was a bit crude in the early '90s. It was great for learning and that would serve me well. Now I have over a decade of image processing, and do considerable writing on the subject.

The breakthrough came with the Nikon CP990 about three years ago. Working with large scans, I had no confidence that real work could be done with a mere 3.34MP. I was very wrong. I have not shot a frame of 35mm since that date though I continue to shoot medium format but have begun to wonder why. The final magazine shoots of my career were designated for digital delivery by the publisher. They were shot with the CP990 for a large format, glossy Britsh magazine and ran full page width. They reproduced as well as any other magazine shoot.

Now having moved up to the 5MP CP5000, I make great 13" x 19" 329mm x 483mm prints of outstanding quality on a top of the line Epson photo printer.

My run-of-the-mill print is on par with the portfolio prints made in the fume-room.

Using the top quality paper, printing costs are considerably less than in the fume-room. A portfolio print back then was at least a full day's meticulous work and a box of paper and attendant chemistry. With a calibrated monitor, the first print is always a keeper. Also, I print selectively, so cost is a minor consideration. My monitor screen is roughly equivalent to 11" x14".

Kodak gold blank CDs are about $0.70 Canadian, with a long life expectancy. All digital images are backed up to CDs. There is a complete set on this machine and a second set on the workstation. On the other hand, I have only one set of colour film negatives and they are fading year by year. I wish I could back them up.

DVD burners have just edged under $200CDN, though high-end burners are still in the $500 - $700 range. They will hit critical mass - probably in the next 12 months - at which point I will go that route. At this point, all my digital images will fit on four DVDs, so that will be an extra layer of redundancy.

As per longevity, the media probably will see a far longer life than I. When compared to the personal value of the originals, spending seventy cents a month is too minimal to be considered.

The newish workstation was quite expensive, but it does far more than photography. It does heavy duty rendering of animation, video editing sound editing and other forms of multi-media content-creation. It is networked to this elderly machine, that does e-mail and music production.

It would have been purchased regardless of whether I was using film or digital. It is well suited to Photoshop, but that is a bonus.

The paper and ink I use has a time to noticeable fading of 15 years in one case and a quarter of a century in the other. Triple that to find the point where the print needs restoration. Again, I will probably fade before my pictures.

If I decide to go after the art print market, I will go for a printer using pigment inks and archival papers with a century until noticeable fading. Epson makes them in 13", 24" and 44" widths using either roll paper or cut sheets. Not a problem.

About B&W. It is simply not a factor in my work.

When I began as a kid, it was only B&W but for most of the later part of my career, I shot all B&W jobs on colour negative, printing on Panalure panchromatic paper.

Often it was decided AFTER the shoot that the picture really should have been colour. Amazing the look on an editor's face when I said "No problem, do you want a print or a chrome?"

The medium is not the message. It is not film or digital at issue. The quality of the work you see is a matter of the photographer's skills. Either film or digital can produce images of transcendent quality or abysmal quality.

larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
 
Back
Top