# National Geographic



## g2k556 (Apr 21, 2009)

So my friend was ranting on how Nikon is just SOO much better than Canon.  Personally I feel neither is that much better than the other, but my personally preference is Canon. So in his rant he was saying that Nikon is the more popular by a long shot in National Geographic, modeling, etc. and he included Leica and Hasselblad in there as well, but basically the way he was saying it is that Canon's are hardly used because Nikon's are just so much better, then he tells me to get a degree in Photography before I start talking, he can be a little arrogant at times lol, i got him going by making fun of Nikon, just for the fun of it, it's entertaining to get him worked up . but he said the only place you find Canon's are in sports. I'm just wondering if anyone knows how close to the truth his statements are. my top 5 favorite landscape photographers just so happen to use Canon, coincidence, so I'd assume they are more common than he's making them out to be. i would guess that it's a pretty even mix between the two. so if any one could shed some light on the topic that'd be great, even pointing me into the direction of further readings would be much appreciated, thanks.


----------



## bdavison (Apr 21, 2009)

I shoot Nikon.....and I'd tell him to stick his degree and his camera right up the patootie.

This is a overcooked debate, and its ...well...quite useless. WHO CARES. Shoot what you like, when you like and with whatever you like. There's photographers better than me, you and that idiot, and some shoot canon, and some shoot nikon, and some shoot $40,000 Hassleblad 35mp Large Format Digital...whoopty doo.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Apr 21, 2009)

I can't agree more with bd here. And it's simply impossible for him to know what the majority of photojournalists shoot. I personally know about the same amount of nikon photojs as I do canon photojs. 

And you can tell exactly where to stick that degree. Photography is one of the few fields where a portfolio outshines a degree everyday of the week. Many of the top photographers in the world right now don't even have degrees in photography. I finished school with plenty of other kids who got their photo degrees and most of them are either amateur on their best days or don't eve work in the field. 

His throwing out a statement like that makes me think he's probably incredibly insecure about his abilities.


----------



## Jaszek (Apr 21, 2009)

well i was watching a video filmed in Afghanistan and the guy clearly had a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (i couldn't tell if it was IS or no lol). So if I find that clip I'll post the link and you can show it to him


----------



## bdavison (Apr 21, 2009)

Yeah, ...like Ansel Adams.
He learned with a Kodak Brownie and learned darkroom working part-time at a photo finisher.


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 21, 2009)

Hmm, my wife got a Degree in Photography ... I took 1 year of a 2 year certificate course in College ... she admits it was a waste of time, as she was not taught any useful skills, which I was taught in one year.

I know that Camera Manufactures provide free or discounted equipment to high profile photographers (hmm such as athletes) ... so NG photographers appear to have been given some goodies by Nikon.


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 21, 2009)

Oh, I forgot to jab ...

real Photographers with shoot sheet film !!!


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Apr 21, 2009)

IthinkthatthisNikonvCanondebateisasusefulasthePS3vXBOX360debateIalwaysgoonfanboardstorile
peopleupLOLIthinkit'sfunYourfriendisbeingridiculousbecauseCanonmakesafinecamera,asdoesNikon
(whichIhappentouse)soyourfriendisreallybeinghardheaded.I'msurethatifyourfriendhada1dmkIIIhe'dchangehistunerealquick
(lol)--evenaSonyA900isafinecamerafromwhatI'veread.Sometimespeoplehavemoreeducationthantheycanhandle
andliketooverpowerpeoplewithitbutitrarelyworksbecausesmartpeoplecanseerightthroughit.


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 21, 2009)

I think that one word summed it up ?!?


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Apr 21, 2009)

LuckySo-n-So said:


> IthinkthatthisNikonvCanondebateisasusefulasthePS3vXBOX360debateIalwaysgoonfanboardstorile
> peopleupLOLIthinkit'sfunYourfriendisbeingridiculousbecauseCanonmakesafinecamera,asdoesNikon
> (whichIhappentouse)soyourfriendisreallybeinghardheaded.I'msurethatifyourfriendhada1dmkIIIhe'dchangehistunerealquick
> (lol)--evenaSonyA900isafinecamerafromwhatI'veread.Sometimespeoplehavemoreeducationthantheycanhandle
> andliketooverpowerpeoplewithitbutitrarelyworksbecausesmartpeoplecanseerightthroughit.



I think the only way this post could be any harder to read would be if it were all in caps. I got to "Xbox360" and gave up.


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Apr 21, 2009)

A tongue in cheek answer to the OP in a similar literary style.

BTW--to the OP: j/k :cheers:


----------



## g2k556 (Apr 21, 2009)

yea, pretty much how i view the topic. he went to Columbia in Chicago for Animation(flash) and Photography, so I'm thinking that put a big head on him lol. we work at a web firm, he's 28, I'm 18, so I think the age difference might play in there too. we do as seen on tv products websites and sometimes we do photoshoots for the products. he'll take 15 minutes to do what should take 15 seconds...then i ask him what's taking so long, and he tells me i wouldn't know, go take a class then come talk to him. lol. i've done photoshoots with my camera when he wasn't present, it's really not difficult at all lol, get white paper, set product down, focus and shoot, that's basically it. so i'll tell him he's an idiot, but I'll only get entertainment value out of it lol, i guess he's got too thick of a scull to understand


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Apr 21, 2009)

No offense to you intended, but your friend sounds like a total d-bag. Go find another photo friend who's less of a pompous @$$.


----------



## g2k556 (Apr 21, 2009)

he's really only like that when you talk photog with him, a few other things, but overall he's not too bad. i def would not do a photoshoot of any kind with him though...too much headache with his ego...


----------



## blash (Apr 21, 2009)

Sorry guys but my camera-room with the walls covered with paper that has been painted with emulsion and a hole drilled in the far wall from the 19th century just owns your dinky  hand-cameras!!!

You're not a real photographer unless you've shot film at one point or another and at that point... who cares which model camera you use, you'll all get equally nice pictures no matter what model. I'll take a Leica M3 though thanksverymuch


----------



## g2k556 (Apr 21, 2009)

once i get to college i'm sure i'll shoot film there. but right now, it's just not cost effective for me to go out and buy film all of the time. and being a beginner I make lots of mistakes, so it saves money being digital not wasting film. we'll see which i like better once I start film in a few years.


----------



## Joves (Apr 21, 2009)

Your friend is not only arrogant but a moron. Sounds like he didnt learn much in school either.


----------



## bdavison (Apr 21, 2009)

This is a list of the highest prices paid for photographs (in US dollars unless otherwise stated).

Andreas Gursky, _99 Cent II Diptychon_ (2001), $3,346,456, February, 2007, Sotheby's London auction.[1] A second print of _99 Cent II Diptychon_ sold for $2.48 million in November 2006 at a New York gallery, and a third print sold for $2.25 million at Sotheby's in May 2006. [1]
Edward Steichen, _The Pond-Moonlight_ (1904), $2,928,000, February 2006, Sotheby's New York auction.[2]
Alfred Stieglitz, _Georgia O'Keeffe (Hands)_ (1919), $1,470,000, February 2006, Sotheby's New York auction.[2]
Alfred Stieglitz, _Georgia O'Keeffe Nude_ (1919), $1,360,000, February 2006, Sotheby's New York auction.[2]
Richard Prince, _Untitled (Cowboy)_ (1989)[3], $1,248,000, November 2005, Christie's New York auction.[4]
Joseph-Philibert Girault de Prangey, _113.Athènes, T[emple] de J[upiter] olympien pris de l'est_ (1842)[5] $922,488, 2003, auction.
Gustave Le Gray, _The Great Wave, Sete_ (1857)[6] $838,000, 1999.
Robert Mapplethorpe, _Andy Warhol_ (1987)[7] $643,200, 2006.
Ansel Adams, _Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico_ (1948)[8] $609,600, Sotheby's New York auction, 2006.[9]
Andreas Gursky, _Untitled 5_ (1997)[10] $559,724, 6 February 2002.
As far as I know none of which were shot on Canon or Nikon.


----------



## FrankLamont (Apr 22, 2009)

Canon IS more used in sports and such...

But only because back in the 90's their auto-focusing system, at that time new to the world of cameras, was far better than Nikon's. So, pros who needed the fast focus bought Canon and now it's a bit late to change back.

That's why all those white lenses keep floating around. The ones with red rings...


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 22, 2009)

FriedChicken said:


> Canon IS more used in sports and such...
> 
> But only because back in the 90's their auto-focusing system, at that time new to the world of cameras, was far better than Nikon's. So, pros who needed the fast focus bought Canon and now it's a bit late to change back.
> 
> That's why all those white lenses keep floating around. The ones with red rings...


 
Well, that changes too.  In the 90s Canon had a far superior product to Nikon, but at the last Olympics (nothing that says sports louder than that), fully 80% of the cameras used were Nikon D3s (not even just Nikon, but one VERY specific model of Nikon).  The reason was that nothing had a higher ISO - lower noise and hence... better pictures in all those dark environments.

This will change again in the near future, and the battle will see-saw back and forth.

The real answer is... there is no one "better" camera.  Take the one that does what YOU want and run with it.

You friend needs a healthy kick in his reality... and perhaps his gonads as well... to help him pull his head out of his anus.  :lmao:


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 22, 2009)

Sounds like your friend's notions of this kind of thing date to the '70s and '80s. Chances are he had a teacher or professor who pushed this kind of thinking on his students and he ate it up.


----------



## matt-l (Apr 22, 2009)

blash said:


> You're not a real photographer unless you've shot film at one point or another and at that point... who cares which model camera you use, you'll all get equally nice pictures no matter what model. I'll take a Leica M3 though thanksverymuch



Really? So if i have never shot film, i am not classified as a "real" photographer? A bit off topic here but this is not a true statement by any means.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 22, 2009)

matt-l said:


> Really? So if i have never shot film, i am not classified as a "real" photographer? A bit off topic here but this is not a true statement by any means.



Depends on the context.  In 2006 I was helping a friend who was in college that was applying for the single available National Geographic Photojournalist Internship.  They were still only shooting film then.  

Once the assignment was finalized, NG would ship the film to the location to be picked up by the photojournalist upon their arrival.  

So yup, I guess you wouldn't have been a real photographer in 2006 for NG.  I am not familiure with what their current requirements are today.


----------



## JE Kay (Apr 22, 2009)

sigh...... I know someone like this.... he's the most annoying and irritating person to be around. I used to ask him how his FF D2X was working... Oh wait, ya that's right Nikon doesn't make a FF camera do they Mark? (_this was before the D3 and D700 of course_)

I remember meeting a 'top industry' photographer once in TO on a shoot a few years ago, all I saw were PhaseOne systems and things with gigantic digital backs on them that looked like they could track missiles or something. There wasn't a Canon or Nikon anywhere to be seen. 

I got the feeling if I had pulled my F5 out I would have been asked to leave.


----------



## bdavison (Apr 22, 2009)

They wont take film anymore, it has to be digital format.
JPEG format, 1600 pixels in either width or height, and less than 5mb.


----------



## Peanuts (Apr 22, 2009)

The only area of photography where I can actually go out on a limb to say one camera manufacturer provides most of the camera bodies is probably fashion photography where Hassleblads are used. Also for commercial work I would assume Hassleblads are the most 'sought after'. These are both for high end jobs though.

Otherwise, I would say it is a completely useless debate. I can settle it though. I have met two NG photographers - one used Nikon (film) and one used Canon (digital). So you can just take that as a sufficient cross section and call it 50/50 with both the Nikon vs. Canon and the digital vs. film.


----------



## g2k556 (Apr 22, 2009)

well either way he's not going to sway me, i've just bought a 70-400mm f/4L for outdoor sports, so i'm already on the track for collecting L glass. I'm hoping once I get enough experience to be professional, digital will have caught up with film in terms of overall IQ that way I won't have to use film for the highest quality stuff. but who knows, once i get into film I may like it...so i guess it's settled, neither is better or used more than the other, it's a pretty fair match, exactly what i figured.


----------



## craig (Apr 22, 2009)

Reading this thread reminds me of being in grade school. Just a lot of people picking on each other and no fun being had.

Love & Bass


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 23, 2009)

A general statement of one camera system is better than another is ludicrous and childish.

Back in the film only days, Leica was the camera of choice for new photogs when talking 35mm. With the introduction of the F series, Nikon became King o' the Hill. If anyone showed up at an event with a Canon F-1, everybody wondered what was wrong with them. Canon pioneered the digital entry into news with superior sensors and cameras which were cutting edge, innovative and most importantly, built equal to Nikon in toughness. Canon actually created the news revolution/evolution of converting from film to digital. 

Nikon has caught up to Canon with IQ and FF and is getting market share back with news photogs. While I'm sure any pro would have a camera maker preferance ... I know that a news photog will use whatever is handed to them. Adapting between Nikon and Canon really isn't a big deal. 

A poster mentioned NG getting free equipment. Reminded me of the OM-1. Oly gave every significant news group free OM-1s (AP, UPI, New York Times, LA Times, et cetera). They were great, the OM-1 was much smaller than Nikon and much easier lugging around all day. Unfortunately, the OM-1s broke. They couldn't take the punishment of news photography and in about two months they were all gone. In order to maintain a "pro" marketing mentality, Olympus keep shipping free, to AP-NY, a palette of OM-1s and lenses every month ... which was great for AP-NY ... but nobody would buy 'em ... cuz they break.

Gary
(ol' fart, former news photog and I have a degree in communications/photo journalism)


----------



## FrankLamont (Apr 23, 2009)

> Well, that changes too. In the 90s Canon had a far superior product to Nikon, but at the last Olympics (nothing that says sports louder than that), fully 80% of the cameras used were Nikon D3s (not even just Nikon, but one VERY specific model of Nikon). The reason was that nothing had a higher ISO - lower noise and hence... better pictures in all those dark environments.
> 
> This will change again in the near future, and the battle will see-saw back and forth.
> 
> ...


Yes, true.

Sometimes I wished I'd gone with Nikon.:lmao: Just for their ISO capabilities...

Oh well.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 23, 2009)

I have some freinds that can be very opinionated, but I got to say, I think I'm a good enough friend not to put up their opinions to be shredded behind their back. The only thing I've gotten out of this thread is a better formed ignore list. ****ing kids.


----------



## blash (Apr 23, 2009)

matt-l said:


> Really? So if i have never shot film, i am not classified as a "real" photographer? A bit off topic here but this is not a true statement by any means.



What I mean by it is that with digital, people just snap off pictures, put them on their computer, done. Besides the fact that film prevents you from making 95% of the shots you bring home complete and utter crap (because the pictures aren't free anymore), film teaches you a new appreciation for photography in the post-process. In order to really understand what "burning" and "dodging" and all those other tools are in Photoshop you really have to have gone and done them in a darkroom at some point or another. Film also teaches you such things as colored filters on B&W prints and how they affect it, instead of going into Photoshop and just playing with the curves wheeeeeee.

In other words, film forces you to get better shots in the field (because a film mentality towards shooting can and will transfer to digital) and teaches you more about post-processing than just going straight to digital does.

You'd understand if you'd ever shot and hand-processed film.


----------



## Overread (Apr 23, 2009)

I think the film mentality when shooting is a very valid argument and I have often said to newer photographers (if they don't have a film camera) to go out and try only taking 36 shots - to really limit themselves as a film camera would have been like.
Its not really the same as shooting film - one would hope that along with checking exposure and composition before pressing the shutter - that they check the histogram after the event- and then use that info to maybe make a better second exposure (if they have the time).

For editing I think it only teaches appreciation for the wonder that photoshop is - I don't think it can broaden your horizons as much - but it probably helps people come to terms which was is possible to edit in film - but its not really going to help them develop their digital editing process that much (since so many things will be different or missing in film editing)


----------



## blash (Apr 23, 2009)

I don't see film editing as having missing something but digital editing as having added something. Better to understand the original tools so that you can understand how to use the facsimiles, and then if you want to add something later that can only be done via digital then OK.

I'm not saying digital is completely inferior to film - no way could I do this with film: Fisheye-Hemi


----------



## tsaraleksi (Apr 23, 2009)

Blash, while there is a lot of truth to what you are saying, I am not sure I agree that film transmits quite as much knowledge as you are saying. I know that when I started photography, I tended to just 'zero' the needle in the circle and shoot, and then correct out the results in the darkroom. You should have seen my contact sheets! Shooting digital gave me a much better conception of 'correct' exposure and the like, which helped in the darkroom. So I think it goes both ways, but I do strenuously agree that having worked with film is a big boon to photographers.


----------



## KmH (Apr 23, 2009)

Hooligan Dan said:


> ......Photography is one of the few fields where a portfolio outshines a degree everyday of the week. Many of the top photographers in the world right now don't even have degrees in photography.


So true. There aren't that many jobs you can show the quality of your work before you're hired.

It would be nice if life was that cut and dried. Clue......It's not.

If your's and the other guy's portfolio are about the same, but he has a degree, I hire him if I need the entire skill set. I hire you if i can cover the skill set another way, because I won't have to pay you as much since you don't have a degree.


----------



## Overread (Apr 23, 2009)

yah degrees are not essentail - but they do and will open doors if used right.
Also they can give you growing time if your new and also give you some good contacts in the right places


----------



## Moon Baby (Apr 23, 2009)

@ OP, punch your friend in the junk and take a picture of his curled up body with your Canon. "It wouldn't have looked better on a Nikon."

There are better things to argue about...Like peeing standing up or sitting down.


----------



## j-digg (Apr 24, 2009)

Also ( Im not a fanboy of Canon or anything even though I own one ) but as I recall.. I've only seen Canon advertisements in NG the past few times Ive looked in them.. Haha, just a funny little observation you could bring up to your buddy.


----------



## g2k556 (Apr 24, 2009)

i haven't shot film before. but i know when i go out and shoot i always try to apply all the knowledge i've gain to get the best shots. then back on my computer i examine them and see what I could have done better. i think my photography has improved greatly since I've gotten my camera around 8 months ago. when i started shooting basketball games, i'd say 80% of my shots where out of focus. by the end of the season I'd improved to having only say 25% out of focus, and I would take far less shots. still a high percentage, but a great improvement. so i think it is possible to improve the same way you would with film, but it just takes more self discipline to achieve it.


----------



## Joves (Apr 24, 2009)

g2k556 said:


> i haven't shot film before. but i know when i go out and shoot i always try to apply all the knowledge i've gain to get the best shots. then back on my computer i examine them and see what I could have done better. i think my photography has improved greatly since I've gotten my camera around 8 months ago. when i started shooting basketball games, i'd say 80% of my shots where out of focus. by the end of the season I'd improved to having only say 25% out of focus, and I would take far less shots. still a high percentage, but a great improvement. so i think it is possible to improve the same way you would with film, but it just takes more self discipline to achieve it.


 Great thing about digital is the cameras now keep the notes for you. In the old days I used to log all of my shots so, I knew what I did and, what I shouldnt do again. I dont think I will ever go back to film.


----------



## blash (Apr 24, 2009)

g2k556 said:


> but i know when i go out and shoot i always try to apply all the knowledge i've gain to get the best shots. then back on my computer i examine them and see what I could have done better.



Well I'm not going to deny that digital is very much a boon to people starting out - not having to log (since you don't even know what to log), getting feedback on the spot - these are all important. But once you understand exposure then you need to move on to film or else your "education" won't be complete.


----------



## g2k556 (Apr 24, 2009)

yea, i plan on doing film in the future for sure. once i get into college for photography i'm sure I'll do film there.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 24, 2009)

blash said:


> Well I'm not going to deny that digital is very much a boon to people starting out - not having to log (since you don't even know what to log), getting feedback on the spot - these are all important. But once you understand exposure then you need to move on to film or else your "education" won't be complete.


 
mmmhh ... I don't buy that ... photography is communications ... one can learn what is required/important/necessary/et al purely with digital in order to communicate effectively.

One acquires photographic skills and experience through shooting and processing ... then doing it all again and again.  It doesn't matter if you shoot film or digital ... doesn't matter if you process in a darkroom or a computer. What does matter is that the photographer understands the elements that comprises/creates an exceptional image and the knowledge of how to adjust the camera and process the image to attain the exceptional photograph.

Gary


----------



## Overread (Apr 25, 2009)

ones education will only be incomplete if ones intention is to learn all about photography in both digital and film. Otherwise there are only certain areas where film has an edge over digital  - large and medium format film is a lot cheaper (I belive) than current digital setups and film still have a wider dynamic range than digital (landscapes etc...).

So if your in a specialist interest area film can still have good bonuses over the digital at this point in time - though I suspect that it won't be long before digital is beating film in all respects - not only because the digital is advancing so quickly, but also because film development is just not moving forward with the same vigour - its just not as profitable as digital.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 25, 2009)

Overread said:


> ...there are only certain areas where film has an edge over digital  -  ...film still have a wider dynamic range than digital (landscapes etc...).



I wonder how long it will take before digital matches the dynamic range of film.  12 stops vs 9 under average conditions is a relatively huge amount.



Overread said:


> ...though I suspect that it won't be long before digital is beating film in all respects - not only because the digital is advancing so quickly,



Well considering all the advancements in the last 1-2 years in the higher ISO cleanliness, that is one place that it is getting hard for film to compete in (not many ISO 6400 films around to my knowledge), and of course the instant gratification of digital just cannot be beat.

I find that people will "defend" their point of view based on their own perceptions, experiences and knowledge.  Now, if that knowledge or experience are incomplete, then so will what they are sharing.  In the end, no one knows it all and all one is doing then, is not sharing knowledge, but opinion.


----------



## Overread (Apr 25, 2009)

I suspect many of these advances might already have been made and its design getting the cost down for mass market production - as well as marketing staggering the release of developments. I recall reading that canon designers really wanted to work on things like dynamic range for the last few camera releases, but marketing pushed for MP!


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 25, 2009)

The Phase 1 back have 12 ev/stops of dynamic range .. so it is probably only a matter of time until this technology reaches us little format peoples.

While yes it is my opinion, I still don't see how using film will make you a better photographer.  Going from digital to film I think is tough on the digital person due to the lack of immediate feedback and the shear physical bulk of film limits how many frames one snaps off.

The image doesn't care whether the medium is film or digital ... the same critical elements which makes the exceptional film image are the same for the digital image.  Whether you convert raw to jpeg in the camera or convert raw jpeg on your conputer or convert exposed film to negatives at Walmart or convert in a developing tank ... Whether you dodge and burn-in with your hands under an enlarger or do so with little brushs in Photoshop ... the final exceptional image will have the same qualities.  It really doesn't matter how you get there ... all that matters is that you get there.

Gary

PS- I'm sure there are exceptions ... or maybe I'm totally wrong ... but generally I think my opinion is more right than wrong.  This should probably be a new thread ... but I am curious what others think.  This is not a film vs. Digital ... but a learning curve type of thing.  With kids, walking before crawling is detrimental the development of the child ... is it similar with photography?  Is film a necessary step for the highly skilled, pro-level, exceptional image capturing photographer?  My opinion is no ... but I really don't know.

G


----------



## blash (Apr 25, 2009)

Seefutlung said:


> mmmhh ... I don't buy that ... photography is communications ... one can learn what is required/important/necessary/et al purely with digital in order to communicate effectively.
> 
> One acquires photographic skills and experience through shooting and processing ... then doing it all again and again.  It doesn't matter if you shoot film or digital ... doesn't matter if you process in a darkroom or a computer. What does matter is that the photographer understands the elements that comprises/creates an exceptional image and the knowledge of how to adjust the camera and process the image to attain the exceptional photograph.
> 
> Gary





Seefutlung said:


> The Phase 1 back have 12 ev/stops of dynamic range .. so it is probably only a matter of time until this technology reaches us little format peoples.
> 
> While yes it is my opinion, I still don't see how using film will make you a better photographer.  Going from digital to film I think is tough on the digital person due to the lack of immediate feedback and the shear physical bulk of film limits how many frames one snaps off.
> 
> ...



1) If you think that photography is only communications then you have a very limited view of photography. Photography, to me, is about soul and expression. It's not so much the final product that matters but rather the process of making it. Without this process, the final product bears no significance or meaning to me.

2) That lack of immediate feedback and restriction of 36 frames (I personally prefer 24 shot rolls) is a large part of what film will teach you, that you shouldn't be stopping and looking at the camera back and you should be more careful in what you shoot. For the digital man, that's how you give yourself better opportunities in the field and that's how you bring home more keepers.

3) The image does care whether it's in film or digital, because the image (made from both a digital and a film camera mounted to a tripod) will not produce the same image. Different films react differently - colors, not just the presence of grain but grain structure... these aren't things that you get with digital (because noise isn't grain, not even close). But what would this teach the enterprising young digital photographer? It teaches the digital photographer that he is limited by what his camera will put out, no matter how high-end that camera is, and to therefore subconsciously look for subject matter and lighting that will complement his camera instead of resulting in output that looks like crap even with the exposure set correctly. Photoshop's tried to make conversions to digital images to make them look like they've come from Velvia but it's never quite succeeded.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 25, 2009)

blash said:


> 1) If you think that photography is only communications then you have a very limited view of photography. Photography, to me, is about soul and expression. It's not so much the final product that matters but rather the process of making it. Without this process, the final product bears no significance or meaning to me.
> 
> 2) That lack of immediate feedback and restriction of 36 frames (I personally prefer 24 shot rolls) is a large part of what film will teach you, that you shouldn't be stopping and looking at the camera back and you should be more careful in what you shoot. For the digital man, that's how you give yourself better opportunities in the field and that's how you bring home more keepers.
> 
> 3) The image does care whether it's in film or digital, because the image (made from both a digital and a film camera mounted to a tripod) will not produce the same image. Different films react differently - colors, not just the presence of grain but grain structure... these aren't things that you get with digital (because noise isn't grain, not even close). But what would this teach the enterprising young digital photographer? It teaches the digital photographer that he is limited by what his camera will put out, no matter how high-end that camera is, and to therefore subconsciously look for subject matter and lighting that will complement his camera instead of resulting in output that looks like crap even with the exposure set correctly. Photoshop's tried to make conversions to digital images to make them look like they've come from Velvia but it's never quite succeeded.


 
Okay, if photography is more than communications ... then what else is it? As to soul and expression ... well to me those also fall into the realm of photography/communications (though not totally inclusive to communications). Similar to painting and music which also are forms of communications and which also incorporate soul and expression as part of their message. Rarely, for me, does the process add to the final image. It is all about the image ... not how you get there. In general, how you got there may add to the esteem of the photographer, but (again my opinion), does not add to the image, (except in the case of some extreme art imagery).

If lack of immediate feedback is important, (personally, I think not), that can be easily accomplished by turning off the LCD. Shooting a limited number of shots can again be easily accomplished through self discipline and/or a small memory card. These items are not only regulated to film.

As to grain and grain structure ... that seems to be more of a personal bias ... I've never heard anyone say while viewing a film image "... OMG look at that grain structure...", but then I am a bit sheltered. Honestly, I've never seen "grain" or "noise" make an image exceptional. I've never seen an image raised from good to great due to the presence of exceptional grain or exceptional grain structure. While grain may be superior to noise in how it affects the final image ... it is hard for me to imagine grain making an image acceptable while the identical image being rendered unacceptable due to an equal level of noise. Again, I guess that may be more of a personal preferance than an actual photographic rating rule.

While true there are many different films, delivering a variety of effects ... so too does photoshop ... plus in photoshop the creative can develop a look/effect individually unique which is not easily possible with film.

Gary


----------



## bhop (Apr 26, 2009)

Seefutlung said:


> Okay, if photography is more than communications ... then what else is it? As to soul and expression ... well to me those also fall into the realm of photography/communications (though not totally inclusive to communications). Similar to painting and music which also are forms of communications and which also incorporate soul and expression as part of their message. Rarely, for me, does the process add to the final image. It is all about the image ... not how you get there. In general, how you got there may add to the esteem of the photographer, but (again my opinion), does not add to the image, (except in the case of some extreme art imagery).
> 
> If lack of immediate feedback is important, (personally, I think not), that can be easily accomplishedby turning off the LCD. Shooting a limited number of shots can again be easily accomplished through self discipline and/or a small memory card. These items are not only regulated to film.
> 
> ...



I agree.


----------



## bdavison (Apr 26, 2009)

Each part of photography serves a purpose, both film and digital. What it really comes down to is "what sells". And they both do.


For instance, there was a photo called "The pond-moonlight" which was one of the most expensive photos ever sold. The reason it fetched such a high price, was not the composition, or the lighting, or the final picture....it was because it was a color print....made 3 years before color film was available in 1907. The photographer Edward Stiechen, took it using photo-sensitive gums applied to create the illusion of color.

So indeed, sometimes its not the photo itself, but the method of attaining it that creates the demand.

In today's market, there is less emphasis on how the picture was attained, and more on what is in it. So unless you have some really wizard method with your production, its unlikely that you will get a mass cry for "encore" solely on your method.

Each photographer has his own methods for getting "that" shot. Film photographers enjoy the complications of trying new elixers in a darkroom, and Digital photographers enjoy the complications of Photoshop scripts.

But in the end....its the sell of the photo that matters.


----------



## blash (Apr 26, 2009)

Seefutlung said:


> Okay, if photography is more than communications ... then what else is it? As to soul and expression ... well to me those also fall into the realm of photography/communications (though not totally inclusive to communications). Similar to painting and music which also are forms of communications and which also incorporate soul and expression as part of their message. Rarely, for me, does the process add to the final image. It is all about the image ... not how you get there. In general, how you got there may add to the esteem of the photographer, but (again my opinion), does not add to the image, (except in the case of some extreme art imagery).
> 
> If lack of immediate feedback is important, (personally, I think not), that can be easily accomplished by turning off the LCD. Shooting a limited number of shots can again be easily accomplished through self discipline and/or a small memory card. These items are not only regulated to film.
> 
> ...



If someone speaks in a forest and no one was around to hear him, did he ever speak at all? With the vast number of digital photographs sitting dormant on people's hard drives and film photographs sitting in binders/shoe boxes etc., and they're not bad pictures. I think that we can take pictures but not have anyone around to appreciate them - photography for photography's sake, and for the sake of personal satisfaction. I do not deny that there are some forms of photography that are communicative, usually in photojournalism that evoke feelings of pity or war, but to say that all photography is communicative is false. A lot of photography deals with describing an emotion that the photographer felt when he took the shot (i.e. photographic film noir) but not necessarily to imbue it in the viewer.

Then I challenge you to do it. Duct-tape the screen-protector over your LCD and buy a 64MB or 32MB card.

Grain (not noise) adds to the image by adding to the character of the image. You have to realize that noise isn't visually the same thing as grain - noise dirties an image while grain can add a sense of context. While this isn't the best example:







Take a look at the bokeh in the large photo, along the areas where the arches meet the shadows and tell me truly that looks like noise. The grain structure here enhances the abstract part of the arches, giving them an almost curve into the photo rather than a totally clean photo where it would simply fade in (think a sphere versus a bell curve). Again, not the best example, I have better ones (just not scanned in) but hopefully you can start to see what I'm talking about here.

Different films aren't about different "effects" persay but different feels. If you take a crappy image, it stays a crappy image and nobody tries to clean it up. Photoshop, on the other hand... you can apply the Monet filter as many times as you want to a crap image, and in the end everybody can see through the filters you applied and see that the image was crap to begin with.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 26, 2009)

"If someone speaks in a forest and no one was around to hear him, did he ever speak at all?"

Of course he spoke ... but communications was certainly limited ... Conversely, Obama electronically addressing millions across all seas and land masses ... is that hyper speaking ... an unread book is still a tool for communications and potentially contains all the necessary elements for communications waiting for the moment for a person to flip a page. So to the latent photograph ... regardless if the communicative tool is dormant or active, it is all about communications. But what is your point?

"With the vast number of digital photographs sitting dormant on people's hard drives and film photographs sitting in binders/shoe boxes etc., and they're not bad pictures. I think that we can take pictures but not have anyone around to appreciate them - photography for photography's sake, and for the sake of personal satisfaction."

No arguement there.

"I do not deny that there are some forms of photography that are communicative, usually in photojournalism that evoke feelings of pity or war, but to say that all photography is communicative is false."

Wrong ... all photography is communications ... either kenetic or potential ... every image communicates something. If you ever run across an image which doesn't communicate ... then I risk to say it is something else other than a photograph. While photo journalist use images to report history ... others use photoghraphy to communicate emotion while others use photography to communicate a purety of beauty or a symphony of color ... an entire spectrum of communications ... and tomorrow photography will communicate in a way we have yet seen or discovered.

"A lot of photography deals with describing an emotion that the photographer felt when he took the shot (i.e. photographic film noir) but not necessarily to imbue it in the viewer."

If a person had absolutely zero considerations to transfer some communicative device, no matter how minute ... then why try a photograph? The mere fact that one took a photo implies a need to communicate.

"Then I challenge you to do it. Duct-tape the screen-protector over your LCD and buy a 64MB or 32MB card."

Challange me to what? Again, what's the point?

Well ... I think you want me to shoot digital as if I shooting film ... then see what I get. Unfortunately, I'm a sucker for a challange ... so supposing what I just stated is the root of the challenge this is what I'll do:

1) I'll turn off my LCD; and
2) When I was shooting film I tried not to exceed four rolls of 36 (for obvious development reasons). 4x36= 144 I get 52 and 59 shots per GB so I will limit myself to 144 files. Two GB at 52 and One GB at 59 = 163 ... so to start the 'challange' I'll waste 19 files to match the 144. 

I live in SoCal ... so pick an event or a venue ... (I'll be happy to suggest some ...) 

"Grain (not noise) adds to the image by adding to the character of the image." 

Sez who?  Oh baloney ... the image below does not become enriched (IMO) by the heavy grain ... a bit of contrast would improve this image much more than the distracting grain ...  

"You have to realize that noise isn't visually the same thing as grain - noise dirties an image while grain can add a sense of context."

*sigh*  Generally speaking, heavy grain and heavy noise is a distraction.  (There are exceptions of course ... but we are speaking in gerneral term here.)  Generally, an image with little drama and impact cannot asborb heavy grain or noise and be successful ... the greater the drama and impact of an image, typically, the greater its abilility to asborb grain/noise and be successful.  

I am not saying that grain and noise are visually identical ... but I am saying that both, generally, are distracting elements of an image. 

"While this isn't the best example:






Take a look at the bokeh in the large photo, along the areas where the arches meet the shadows and tell me truly that looks like noise. The grain structure here enhances the abstract part of the arches, giving them an almost curve into the photo rather than a totally clean photo where it would simply fade in (think a sphere versus a bell curve). Again, not the best example, I have better ones (just not scanned in) but hopefully you can start to see what I'm talking about here."

Different films aren't about different "effects" persay but different feels. If you take a crappy image, it stays a crappy image and nobody tries to clean it up. Photoshop, on the other hand... you can apply the Monet filter as many times as you want to a crap image, and in the end everybody can see through the filters you applied and see that the image was crap to begin with."

There is a huge difference between a photographer and a digital artist. I consider myself a photographer and I limit myself those photoshop tools and methodologies that were/are available to me in a wet darkroom.

Some noise in this shot:




ISO 1600 (slight noise reduction in DPP only)

Lots of noise here:




ISO 1600 (no noise reduction)

and here:




No Noise Reduction

one more 1600 w/ no noise reduction





Gary


----------

