|
I hope the following isn't too "preachy" but
the subject has lately become rather annoying. This is just a
preface to the main topic which is actually a lot shorter.
You will find endless whining and complaints that
digital cameras are too complicated, not just from "newbies" to
digital photography but from some pros as well. Visit just about any photo
forum or Ken Rockwell's site to find examples. They say that
in the old days
you simply ...
How pure. How simple.
You can do that with digital too. It's called RAW format.
You can mimic the simplicity of RAW with TIFF and JPEG as well
simply by turning off all the imaging options but that requires
a few seconds of effort and some intelligence (although once
done you can forget about it). With RAW you don't have to
bother even with that because imaging options are automatically
ignored. So ...
-
Pop in a memory card (it's probably in
there already).
-
Set shutter speed and aperture (or
shutter/aperture priority in auto-exposure which is exactly the same process as with
a film camera),
-
Then click.
Now, isn't that just like film? What am I
overlooking?
I never use the menus on my D300. If they were
to disappear tomorrow I would probably
never notice. The manual has 400 pages and I have read maybe 20
of them. There might be a bit of preliminary setup required which is
a no-brainer. You could choose an ISO setting (you had to do
that with film too) and maybe a preferred metering mode,
none of which differs from film camera setup. Leave
everything else alone. You are back in the 1970's Happy Days of
simple photography with one big exception - better
results.
People are confusing choice with
necessity. Digital offers the choice of doing in the camera
(or in post-processing)
what used to be done in the darkroom or film lab. Why
do the critics think they have to master all of this?
Some of it is doubtless very useful to many
photographers but if you find it confusing, ignore it
because you obviously do not need it. The sort of photogs
who have a real use for the bells and whistles will know who
they are and will figure it out. Ignore them too.
You say you want JPEGs
so you can post to the Internet? Well, with film the lab will do the
JPEG conversion for you but you will have to wait. With
digital, you can just use the JPEGs from the camera. If
you shoot RAW, the camera automatically creates companion JPEGs
for the RAWs - whether you want them or not. Keep them or ignore
them. It's up to you. Furthermore, it is trivially
simple to set up a batch conversion of RAW to JPEG with whatever optional
processing you want added (let's say auto white-balance) using
Adobe, Paintshop or dozens of other great imaging packages.
Anyone can do it. RAW is automatically handled. A couple of
keyboard clicks and you are done. No waiting for the lab. No
sitting in front of the computer for hours as some might have
you believe.
What about advanced image processing?
If you never had your own
darkroom why are you worried about this now? With
film, image processing was never even possible unless you had your own
darkroom. You
just accepted what you got including poor white balance,
over/under exposure etc. Digital gives you the choice of
fixing things in the camera or once they are in your computer.
No one is forcing you, however, and if you want results "as is"
it is just as easy as with film when you shoot RAW. Why is this
so difficult to get across?
What about flash? I challenge anyone to
demonstrate that flash is easier to use on an old film camera. Snap
an SB-800 onto the D300 and both units instantly talk to each
other, sharing shutter speed, aperture, ISO, subject range etc.
You don't have to do a thing. Anyone with an IQ of 37 or more
can use the system. If you want things simple and fool-proof,
ignore the flash menu. Just relax and take great pictures.
Digital is much faster and easier to use than
film. I wish I had a dollar for every time a great photo
opportunity emerged and - oops! - out of film. Now spend 5
minutes putting in a new roll while Elvis melts into the crowd.
You must first peel off a stiff, metallic wrapper, then find a place to put it
where an environmentalist won't get upset. Then the sprocket holes aren't lined up right and you have to
start all over, having botched the first two frames. Better
remember to rewind before opening the camera or you ruin
everything. With a big flash card you can shoot for days and
even putting in a new one takes only seconds.
Why buy an expensive digi like the D300 if you aren't
going to use all the options?
-
Build quality -
long-term durability. The notion that camera bodies quickly
become obsolete is complete nonsense. The D300 takes fantastic pictures today
and will be doing so a decade from now. Why wouldn't it?
-
High pixel density
low noise sensor. Yes, this is a remarkably good landscape camera.
Options aren't what raise the price of a
digital camera. It's build and sensor.
My main beefs with digital (just to concede the
critics do have a few good points):
-
The cameras and lenses are way too heavy but
that's not a criticism specific to digi. Electronic film
cameras are too heavy as well. The problem has to do with automation, not
digital.
-
Won't work in freezing temperatures (but ditto for
electric film cameras).
-
Too many RAW formats. Not enough standardization,
although we hear it's coming.
-
Dirt on the sensor. It's a constant hazard. You
can have blobs and specks straight out of the box. Once cleaned, my
DSLRs have stayed that way. I am very careful - and lucky. With
film, you get a clean, pristine "sensor" every time you advance a
frame.
The manufacturers could be very helpful with this
complexity issue if they documented their products differently. The
first part of the manual should describe straightforward traditional
photographic technique as if introducing an old film camera. This would
take just a few pages and get everyone off to a comfortable start.
It is just human nature but people are
attracted to novelty ... "features" and gimmicks. This sells cameras more than
substance. Then we get the thing and can't figure out how
to use all that crap we don't really want or need anyway. If we feel
cheated and frustrated we have only ourselves to blame.
That's it. On with the main subject ...
Because if you are still using 35mm film
you might be missing out on finer images - but there are other reasons.
-
Good film and film cameras are increasingly difficult to
find, at least around here. Film is a technology in retreat and major manufacturers are discontinuing
production of materials and equipment. Some cut film has disappeared
entirely. Sure, there's still Velvia and a few other great films but its a
long drive across town to find it and a week or more to get it processed.
You used to find a choice of good films at any drugstore. Quality
commercial processing for color film is also becoming scarce.
These days its not unusual for a roll to come back with images fogged
from using exhausted chemicals. Scratches are not uncommon. When you
complain, the store says the problem is with your camera.
-
With the better equipment such as DSLRs (digital Single
Lens Reflex) from Nikon and Canon, digital exceeds 35mm color
film image quality at any print size. In some circumstances (such as poor
light or low contrast), it is no contest at all. Good digital images
routinely demonstrate a
clarity and depth I seldom see in film images.
-
In the "snapshooter" range many shirt-pocket size digi
units deliver better performance than what we were forced to endure with
compact, point-and-shoot 35mm equipment of the sort that began flooding the
camera stores in the 1980's.
-
The capability for immediate image review encourages
experimentation and feedback. Digital can make you a better
photographer. This may be the single most important advantage of
digital. Instant feedback is recognized as a key factor in support of the
creative process. The painter sees the result the moment his brush touches
canvas, the musician hears a note as soon as he plays it and the novelist
sees the words as he types them. In each case there is an immediate
possibility the result will stimulate a new direction in the effort.
Pity, then, the poor film photographer who, alone amongst artists, must wait
a week or two to find out if he got anything right at all or, indeed,
anything. Film gets in the way of creativity.
-
Digital produces more pleasing results in poor or flat
lighting with more shadow detail and superior color rendition.
-
For similar sensitivities (ISO rating) a DSLR will exhibit
less noise (that's "grain", in film).
-
Variable ISO settings and image properties settings
available on many digital cameras offer a frame-by-frame flexibility in
creative control that with film can be obtained only by physically
exchanging rolls of film - totally impractical with 35 mm - or by using a
bulky cut film camera.
Note that the foregoing material begins with a qualifier: "35 mm film". While
digital at its best is a match (or more) for the best 35 mm film image quality,
neither 35 mm nor digital can provide anything like the presentation resolution
of medium and larger film formats such as 6 X 7 cm, 4 X 5 etc. at
very large sizes (larger than A3 or 13 X 19). For a detailed discussion of image
resolution, click here or choose
the "Resolution" topic from the menu.
Back to top
of page
|