How many----?

[Bob W8IMO]

After reading a couple posts in a computer forum I have a question.....   How true is this statement?

> You will find that many professional photographers still use film for
> most things (6x6 format is still *the* choice for quality hi res
> imaging), and only use digital for things that will not need high
> resolution.

Bob

[karl shah-jenner]

Bob:

After reading a couple posts in a computer forum I have a question.....
How true is this statement?

> You will find that many professional photographers still use film for
> most things (6x6 format is still *the* choice for quality hi res
> imaging), and only use digital for things that will not need high
> resolution.


Different fields of photography have different needs - and here in my part
of the world (Perth, Western Australia) you'd find:

For all but the most specialized medical photography, digital has taken
over completely.

Wedding photographers seem torn between film and digital, as customers have
strong preferences for one over the other OR they want to hedge their bets
and have film for longevity and digital for convenience (but they dont want
to pay for scanning film - so since it's viewed as 'cheaper' to shoot digi,
they ask for that as well) - and both 35mm and 120 have their place.

In real estate (marketing) photography it's all digital, and largely done
by unskilled casual shooters

The high end advertising stuff is almost non existant now, the work being
done on the East coast of the country, overseas or pilfered from image
stock.

Aerial is completely digital.

Not sure what the millitary is using, but I remember seeing a *lot* of 120
film cameras going out to auction some time back.

the various government departments, mining companies and other large
industries don't seem to employ photographers either in-house or contracted
any more, most of the work is done with digital cameras in the hands of
general employees with shooting skills ranging from non existent to pretty
damned good.

A lot of the catalogue work for company productions that I know of is done
in-house (in many cases, the whole production up to the print stage) by
general employees, semi skilled in the use of cameras, or using images
pilfered from manufacturers sites.

k

[herschel-9]

6x7 (Film) is excellent for modern food photography because of the shallow depth of field due to the larger format . You just can't get  those shots with the medium format digital backs and certainly not with "35mm" DSLRs


karl shah-jenner wrote:

Bob:

After reading a couple posts in a computer forum I have a question.....
How true is this statement?

  

You will find that many professional photographers still use film for
most things (6x6 format is still *the* choice for quality hi res
imaging), and only use digital for things that will not need high
resolution.
    

Different fields of photography have different needs - and here in my part
of the world (Perth, Western Australia) you'd find:

For all but the most specialized medical photography, digital has taken
over completely.

Wedding photographers seem torn between film and digital, as customers have
strong preferences for one over the other OR they want to hedge their bets
and have film for longevity and digital for convenience (but they dont want
to pay for scanning film - so since it's viewed as 'cheaper' to shoot digi,
they ask for that as well) - and both 35mm and 120 have their place.

In real estate (marketing) photography it's all digital, and largely done
by unskilled casual shooters

The high end advertising stuff is almost non existant now, the work being
done on the East coast of the country, overseas or pilfered from image
stock.

Aerial is completely digital.

Not sure what the millitary is using, but I remember seeing a *lot* of 120
film cameras going out to auction some time back.

the various government departments, mining companies and other large
industries don't seem to employ photographers either in-house or contracted
any more, most of the work is done with digital cameras in the hands of
general employees with shooting skills ranging from non existent to pretty
damned good.

A lot of the catalogue work for company productions that I know of is done
in-house (in many cases, the whole production up to the print stage) by
general employees, semi skilled in the use of cameras, or using images
pilfered from manufacturers sites.

k




  

[Tina Manley-3]

Bob wrote:

After reading a couple posts in a computer forum I have a question.....   How true is this statement?

> You will find that many professional photographers still use film for
> most things

This professional photographer does not know a single professional photographer who still uses film.

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

[Tina Manley-3]

Herschel wrote:
> 6x7 (Film) is excellent for modern food photography because of the
> shallow depth of field due to the larger format . You just can't get  
> those shots with the medium format digital backs and certainly not
> with "35mm" DSLRs
But you can get them with a digital rangefinder - Leica M9 - and Leica
lenses wide open.

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

[Emily L. Ferguson-2]

This professional photographer has met 2 photographers still using
film to shoot sailing in the last 3 years.  She's also met one
photographer using Nikon equipment in the same time.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@...
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/

[karl shah-jenner]

Tina writes:

Herschel wrote:
> 6x7 (Film) is excellent for modern food photography because of the
> shallow depth of field due to the larger format . You just can't get
> those shots with the medium format digital backs and certainly not
> with "35mm" DSLRs

| But you can get them with a digital rangefinder - Leica M9 - and Leica
| lenses wide open.



I had a Canon f0.95 lens on one of my 35mm cameras, and even with that
shallow a DoF there was no comparison - the larger formats beat the
stuffing out of it for shallow DoF and out of focus backgrounds



I'm with Herschel on this - a shallow DoF is a beauiful thing, and
something which keeps steering me back to film.  I have in 35mm, a 400:4.5
and a 135:2 to play with .. and no digital body to take advantage of these
beauties

and some nice MF and lenses (pining for the 135:f1.8 4x5 Seiko lens I once
got to use)  including a stuning Bausch & Lomb 500mm:5.6 tele (yes, TELE)
8x10 lens

so film it is for some things

..just not professionally (no one is prepared to pay)

k

[Tina Manley-3]

karl shah-jenner wrote:
> | But you can get them with a digital rangefinder - Leica M9 - and Leica
> | lenses wide open.
>
>
>
> I had a Canon f0.95 lens on one of my 35mm cameras, and even with that
> shallow a DoF there was no comparison - the larger formats beat the
> stuffing out of it for shallow DoF and out of focus backgrounds
>  
Canon lenses have absolutely no relation to Leica lenses.  There is no
comparison.

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

[Jorj]

I was hoping someone could give me your opinion about this gray card and the company that makes it (if you have heard of Robin Myers Imaging).
Here is the link to the DGC-150 Digital Gray Card that I purchased at Henry's ( http://store.rmimaging.com/digitalgraycard-150.aspx ).

I am still finding it difficult to understand if this is a gimmick or if it is true. I did note it says it is not for film cameras and will not work with an external light meter.

Thank you for any advice you can provide.

Regards
Jorj Takacs


Jorj Takacs

Takacs Studios Inc.
185 Chatham St.
Brantford, ON
519-754-0324
1-800-832-7198
http://www.groupmedia.com
http://www.tsidigitals.com

[karl shah-jenner]

DigitalJorj Takacs :



I was hoping someone could give me your opinion about this gray card and
the company that makes it (if you have heard of Robin Myers Imaging).
Here is the link to the DGC-150 Digital Gray Card that I purchased at
Henry's ( http://store.rmimaging.com/digitalgraycard-150.aspx ).

I am still finding it difficult to understand if this is a gimmick or if it
is true. I did note it says it is not for film cameras and will not work
with an external light meter.

Thank you for any advice you can provide.





this sounds odd to me, that it couldnt be used for film!


If you want a grey cardand have access to a laser printer, in photoshop
make up a swatch and fill it with a color R=127 G=127 B =127. Print it on a
laser printer and it matches an 18% gray card.

[karl shah-jenner]

Canon lenses have absolutely no relation to Leica lenses.  There is no
comparison.


With all due respect Tina, that's rubbish

f0.95 Canon f0.95 Leica = same DoF


Aside from that mathematical fact, I was comparing lens focal lengths,
formats, DoF's and CoCs not brands (you have heard the story that Leica
purchased and had rebadged under contract a Sigma zoom lens?)



And push come to shove and gloating over lenses - I sit here with not one
but two a 40-400 : 5.6 Taylor Hobson Thorium Element lenses .. this company
won a technical oscar for their zooms - you can hire them for cine (with
much higher technical requirements than still photography)  for a little
over $500 per day from panavision
http://www.panavision.co.nz/Main/printrent.asp?cat=all  - mine are for
still work.


so no, I don't just use Canons.  I also use Angenieux's as well as Tokinas
and Industars - whichever lens is best for the job

Did I mention my Bausch and Lomb 500mm TELE?

karl

[Hans Klemmer]

Hi Bob,

Here around Chicago I still use film in my 4x5 when shooting architecture. For the majority of my digital work I have a Mamiya 645 coupled with a Leaf Aptus back. Both give excellent resolution.

Hans

On Oct 22, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Bob wrote:

After reading a couple posts in a computer forum I have a question.....   How true is this statement?

> You will find that many professional photographers still use film for
> most things (6x6 format is still *the* choice for quality hi res
> imaging), and only use digital for things that will not need high
> resolution.

Bob

“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do.  So throw off the bowlines.  Sail away from the safe harbor.  Catch the trade winds in your sails.  Explore.  Dream.  Discover.”  ~ Mark Twain

 

[Trevor Cunningham-2]

Along the lines of a greycard, although not for exposure, an IR
converted DSLR requires frequent WB calibration to get "The" effect just
right. The most common approach to this is to fill the frame with grass
receiving direct sunlight and set a custom WB. In a desert, this is
proving to be a challenge. I was wondering if there was a color (red?)
that I could print out to dial in the camera. I suppose this would
depend on the particular scene and what I wish to do with it. Also, I
know vegetation's "heat" has organic origins and I wonder if they can be
simulated through color somehow. Any thoughts?

karl shah-jenner wrote:

> DigitalJorj Takacs :
>
>
>
> I was hoping someone could give me your opinion about this gray card and
> the company that makes it (if you have heard of Robin Myers Imaging).
> Here is the link to the DGC-150 Digital Gray Card that I purchased at
> Henry's ( http://store.rmimaging.com/digitalgraycard-150.aspx ).
>
> I am still finding it difficult to understand if this is a gimmick or if it
> is true. I did note it says it is not for film cameras and will not work
> with an external light meter.
>
> Thank you for any advice you can provide.
>
>
>
>
>
> this sounds odd to me, that it couldnt be used for film!
>
>
> If you want a grey cardand have access to a laser printer, in photoshop
> make up a swatch and fill it with a color R=127 G=127 B =127. Print it on a
> laser printer and it matches an 18% gray card.
>
>
>  

[herschel-9]

Depth of field is related to image magnification.

The way I teach it is at, say 1:1 magnification, any lens on any format, film or digital, will give you the same depth of field. (At the same aperture)

The reason subjects shot on 6x7cm have less DOF than 24X36mm (35mm) is because when you fill the frame with the subject, the 6x7cm image will have greater magnification by around 2X hence shallower DOF.

It's an often misunderstood thing but really very simple. It's all about magnification. Not about optics. Of course optics do affect the way the out-of-focus areas look but that's another matter.

h



karl shah-jenner wrote:

Canon lenses have absolutely no relation to Leica lenses.  There is no
comparison.


With all due respect Tina, that's rubbish

f0.95 Canon f0.95 Leica = same DoF


Aside from that mathematical fact, I was comparing lens focal lengths,
formats, DoF's and CoCs not brands (you have heard the story that Leica
purchased and had rebadged under contract a Sigma zoom lens?)



And push come to shove and gloating over lenses - I sit here with not one
but two a 40-400 : 5.6 Taylor Hobson Thorium Element lenses .. this company
won a technical oscar for their zooms - you can hire them for cine (with
much higher technical requirements than still photography)  for a little
over $500 per day from panavision
http://www.panavision.co.nz/Main/printrent.asp?cat=all  - mine are for
still work.


so no, I don't just use Canons.  I also use Angenieux's as well as Tokinas
and Industars - whichever lens is best for the job

Did I mention my Bausch and Lomb 500mm TELE?

karl



  

[Jorj]

Thank you for the responses so far, but this gray card i lighter than  
the normal gray card.  And, they say it's just for "digital" cameras.
It thought that gray cards represented an average scene, what  
difference does it make if your metering with a film camera or a  
digital camera.  Average is average!

Jorj

On 23-Oct-09, at 1:16 AM, Trevor Cunningham wrote:

> Along the lines of a greycard, although not for exposure, an IR  
> converted DSLR requires frequent WB calibration to get "The" effect  
> just right. The most common approach to this is to fill the frame  
> with grass receiving direct sunlight and set a custom WB. In a  
> desert, this is proving to be a challenge. I was wondering if there  
> was a color (red?) that I could print out to dial in the camera. I  
> suppose this would depend on the particular scene and what I wish to  
> do with it. Also, I know vegetation's "heat" has organic origins and  
> I wonder if they can be simulated through color somehow. Any thoughts?
>
> karl shah-jenner wrote:
>> DigitalJorj Takacs :
>>
>>
>>
>> I was hoping someone could give me your opinion about this gray  
>> card and
>> the company that makes it (if you have heard of Robin Myers Imaging).
>> Here is the link to the DGC-150 Digital Gray Card that I purchased at
>> Henry's ( http://store.rmimaging.com/digitalgraycard-150.aspx ).
>>
>> I am still finding it difficult to understand if this is a gimmick  
>> or if it
>> is true. I did note it says it is not for film cameras and will not  
>> work
>> with an external light meter.
>>
>> Thank you for any advice you can provide.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> this sounds odd to me, that it couldnt be used for film!
>>
>>
>> If you want a grey cardand have access to a laser printer, in  
>> photoshop
>> make up a swatch and fill it with a color R=127 G=127 B =127. Print  
>> it on a
>> laser printer and it matches an 18% gray card.
>>
>>
>>
>

Jorj Takacs
jorj@...

[karl shah-jenner]

AllJorj Takacs

Thank you for the responses so far, but this gray card i lighter than
the normal gray card.  And, they say it's just for "digital" cameras.
It thought that gray cards represented an average scene, what
difference does it make if your metering with a film camera or a
digital camera.  Average is average!



Ah - I think its as trevor suggested, more for making an accurate white
balance than for exposures, that's why it wouldn't work for a film camera.

In film photography we know a grey card to be 18% grey with often a colour
bias (from production) - the colour isn't a problem for film as much as it
is important to have an accurate density

for digital white balance readings, colour accuracy is more important that
density.

it's a good idea really to use a grey card for a white balance over a white
card - it's been argued that a white card is more likely to yield an
overexposed reading.. and an overexposure tends to be white, irrespective
of slight colour variations

this make sense?

karl

[Robert Earnest-2]

I don’t think it is true at all. I have heard that there are “some” but not “many” professional photographers that still use film.
I firmly believe that 35mm digital slr’s have surpassed 35mm film in terms of resolution due to the lack of grain.

Hasselblad just came out with a 60 megapixel camera??? What about the RED cameras?
Case closed. It was nice knowing you, film. You served us well but it is now time to relax and take your place next to the dye transfer prints.

r

From: Bob <w8imo@...>
How true is this statement?

> You will find that many professional photographers still use film for
> most things (6x6 format is still *the* choice for quality hi res
> imaging), and only use digital for things that will not need high
> resolution.

[James B. Davis]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:21:55 -0400, Tina Manley <images@...>
wrote/replied to:

>> After reading a couple posts in a computer forum I have a
>> question.....   How true is this statement?
>>
>> > You will find that many professional photographers still use film for
>> > most things
>This professional photographer does not know a single professional
>photographer who still uses film.

I've seen the old guys setup in the mountains for Mt. Fuji shots. They always
have a 120 film camera on a tripod and a DSLR. They save the film for the good
shots, and shoot plenty of digital just in case.

--
Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company:
http://easternbeaver.com/ - Motorcycle Electrics
Check out my incredible fuse panel - the PC-8 is a hit!
1990 Honda VFR750, 1988 Honda Africa Twin 650

[Kenneth Frazier]

On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 20:32 -0400, Bob wrote:
> After reading a couple posts in a computer forum I have a
> question.....   How true is this statement?
>

Folks,

Mostly I still lurk and learn on this list, but as a happy skilled
amateur AND a minister who does a lot of weddings, I can say that in the
past 7 years I've only done one wedding where the photographer used
film, and that was at the specific request of the bride's father.  (He
and I discussed it before the wedding, and he hired a sometime press
photographer who shot with 2 F100's and an M6, all Tri-X.)  

All others have been digital, exclusively.

Peace,

Ken


--
The Rev. Kenneth Frazier
Senior Minister
First Congregational Church, UCC
222 West Main Street
Waterbury, CT  06702
203-757-0331
pastorfcchurch@...

[Kenneth Frazier]

On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 06:57 -0400, Ken Frazier wrote:
> All others have been digital, exclusively.
>

And, even more interesting, as a sign of the change, many of the wedding
photographers were NOT what once would have been regarded as
professional.  They are folks without backgrounds in film who can shoot
and process digitally simply because it is possible.  I know because
I've asked them.  :-)

Ken
--
The Rev. Kenneth Frazier
Senior Minister
First Congregational Church, UCC
222 West Main Street
Waterbury, CT  06702
203-757-0331
pastorfcchurch@...