I think I finally understand ...

[Charles Hess]

my restlessness and perhaps disillusionment over the digital frenzy that has taken over most photographers. I emailed Liz a few days ago, rambling on about this topic, and was planning on hopping up on a soapbox here in Viewfinder to spew forth my feelings about the bane of technology. After reading a simple sentence on a camera mfg website, a light bulb went off in my head, and I now put the soap box back in the closet to be used another day.
The statement ... "OPTICS are the decisive elements for outstanding photographs - NOT the analog or digital path to those photographs". This statement came from the chief of technology for one of the top camera makers.
For my own reasons, and for me only, I'm going to sell my D100(already sold the Oly C-8080), have picked up a used/mint F5 from B&H to make use of my Nikon glass, will continue to marvel over the quality of the Zeiss lenses on my Contax G2, will pick up another lens for the M6, and am looking at picking up a used RZ67. I know all of the negatives, know all the arguments, and finally know what will be best... for me.
Yikes, I realized that I was using the soapbox, anyway. Sorry. No need to respond, or submit arguments, or tell me I'm crazy(I already know that), just wanted to let you know what's been happening. I guess I've gone full circle ... again. Thanks for reading these ramblings. :-)

[Speed]

my restlessness and perhaps disillusionment over the digital frenzy that has taken over most photographers. I emailed Liz a few days ago, rambling on about this topic, and was planning on hopping up on a soapbox here in Viewfinder to spew forth my feelings about the bane of technology. After reading a simple sentence on a camera mfg website, a light bulb went off in my head, and I now put the soap box back in the closet to be used another day.
The statement ... "OPTICS are the decisive elements for outstanding photographs - NOT the analog or digital path to those photographs". This statement came from the chief of technology for one of the top camera makers.
For my own reasons, and for me only, I'm going to sell my D100(already sold the Oly C-8080), have picked up a used/mint F5 from B&H to make use of my Nikon glass, will continue to marvel over the quality of the Zeiss lenses on my Contax G2, will pick up another lens for the M6, and am looking at picking up a used RZ67. I know all of the negatives, know all the arguments, and finally know what will be best... for me.
Yikes, I realized that I was using the soapbox, anyway. Sorry. No need to respond, or submit arguments, or tell me I'm crazy(I already know that), just wanted to let you know what's been happening. I guess I've gone full circle ... again. Thanks for reading these ramblings. :-)

I recall you going through this digital experimentation before. And coming full circle. Nothing wrong with digital, but it's definitely not for everyone. While I give my digital using friends a hard time over it, I use digital, a little. But I am a film man, first and foremost.

Congratulations on your new F5!!! Now THAT'S exciting!!!

BTW, I don't think you're crazy.

[another view]

Funny you bring this up. I bought an F5 two weeks ago, mainly for B&W work but also because I've started to do a few weddings and needed a second camera. I'm lucky enough to have a lab that I can trust to develop film at the speed I tell them and give me a real optical contact sheet so I want to use them. I'd still like to set up a darkroom but it's a time/space problem for me, so it won't happen right away. Everytime I think about David Hume Kennerly's prints I saw in Houston earlier this year (I think 20x24 from 6x7) I want to do this. These prints were some of the best prints I've ever seen - b&w, color, film, digital or whatever.

There are pros and cons to anything whether it's film vs digital, rangefinder vs slr, zoom vs prime or whatever the choice is. I'm in the "it's the end result that counts" group, and whatever tools work best for you are the right ones. I do plan to stick with digital also, but it's just not always the best choice.

I give you a lot of credit for trying digital and really working with it before you decide it's just not for you. You know what works best for you and you've found it. Now let's see some more shots!

[Photo-John]

The statement ... "OPTICS are the decisive elements for outstanding photographs - NOT the analog or digital path to those photographs". This statement came from the chief of technology for one of the top camera makers.

Keep in mind where that quote came from - a camera manufacturer.

I believe the "decisive elements" for "outstanding" photography are the mind and vision of the photographer behind the camera. Great optics are nice. But a powerful vision and the ability to create and structure a meaningful image will shine through, regardless of the quality of optics used. A great photographer can make great images with pretty much any camera. And a mediocre photographer will take mediocre photos with even the very best equipment.

[Charles Hess]

Hi guys .. P-J, I agree with most of what you are saying, but the quote is accurate when you think about it(it came from Leica, who are finally, officially, going to research a digital M). He's saying that it shouldn't matter whether it's digital or analog, but lenses can and will make the difference. Put a crappy lens on a 1DMKII and the quality of the image will be, if not crapola, then of a lesser quality. Put an L lens on a Rebel or an AE-1 and the quality will be fine. Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with composition, exposure, creativity, etc. ... things controlled by a good or bad photographer. My point was people are becoming absolutely frantic over megapixels and have worked themselves into a lather over Canon's latest, the 20D, and the Nikonians are bemoaning NIkon's lack of action, and on and on. To me, this is absolute nonsense, and I am going back to film exclusively simply because it's what I prefer, and it's what I feel will give me the best possible images. For the others in the world, they will use what they use. My post was simply a personal observation resulting in a very personal decision. :-)

[Spike]

No need to respond, or submit arguments, or tell me I'm crazy(I already know that), just wanted to let you know what's been happening. I guess I've gone full circle ... again. Thanks for reading these ramblings. :-)

What do you mean, we can't respond and call you crazy? Hmmph.

So, Mr. Optics, you're throwing cold water all over my planned upcoming pinhole camera experiments. Hmmph again. I hope Megan knocks you upside the head with her Holga, so there, nanner nanner.

;)

Spike

[Lava Lamp]

Keep in mind where that quote came from - a camera manufacturer.

I believe the "decisive elements" for "outstanding" photography are the mind and vision of the photographer behind the camera. Great optics are nice. But a powerful vision and the ability to create and structure a meaningful image will shine through, regardless of the quality of optics used. A great photographer can make great images with pretty much any camera. And a mediocre photographer will take mediocre photos with even the very best equipment.

I dunno, John. I figure I'm an "average" photographer -- not an pro, not an artist, maybe just one or two clicks above mediocre -- but better equipment does help me to be less mediocre.

Of course, better equipment will mean different things to different people. I get better photos using my 50mm 1.8 than I did using the Nikon kit lens. I certainly get better indoor sports shots with my 180 2.8 than the 70-300. I also get much better results from my D70 than any 35mm film camera I've had. But then, I got much better results with my N80 than I did from my Canon AE1 and Minolta 300si.

The funny thing is that the pictures Hodgy used to post from his AE1 are better than pretty much any of mine from any camera and any lens I've ever had. But he's a pro and an artist. So is Charles. My point is that for hacker, I think equipment does help.

[Chunk]

So, Mr. Optics, you're throwing cold water all over my planned upcoming pinhole camera experiments. Hmmph again. I hope Megan knocks you upside the head with her Holga, so there, nanner nanner.

;)

Spike

Just make sure it's a high end pinhole.

[Asylum Steve]

You just saved me a heck of a lot of thinking by putting into words EXACTLY what I feel.

Charles, you know how much respect I have for you and your work, and, as we are all on individual paths, I would argue all day for the right of ANY artist to find the tools and methods of working that THEY were the most comfortable with and excited about using.

Still, I have to say that, like John, I disagree with the statement you quote. Quite strongly, in fact. I will agree that high quality optics are important for "certain types" of photography, but when looking at the entire world of photographic art, these types are only a part of the vast array of image making methods.

Like many on these forums, I am often passionate about images that capture and express motion and emotion, many times at a disregard for optical and technical "purity". I admire many photos from the early twentieth century using older processes before modern film and lenses.

I also thoroughly enjoy contemporary attempts at "retro" or "throwback" processes using older or cheaper (holga, lomo) cameras.

In fact, some of the most stunning (IMO) images of all time have been made from pinhole cameras, whom few would argue posess state-of-the-art optics.

As John says, the VISION of the artist is the decisive element...

In any event, I think it's a great thing when any of us reach a breakthrough in thought or technique that allows us to come to better grips with our art, and I hope your realization translates into a new motivation for and satisfaction from your work.

Hmmm, guess I did some thinking after all...

[Charles Hess]

Ha, Spike ... at least you and Megan don't need to get worked up about your pinhole camera and Holga for fear that in a few months those cameras will be obsolete because the next latest-greatest with 2 more mexapixels makes them dinosaurs. Me crazy? I've been walking that fine line for years. :-) Let's see some results from the pinhole when you're done. :-)

[Chunk]

I dunno, John. I figure I'm an "average" photographer -- not an pro, not an artist, maybe just one or two clicks above mediocre -- but better equipment does help me to be less mediocre.

Of course, better equipment will mean different things to different people. I get better photos using my 50mm 1.8 than I did using the Nikon kit lens. I certainly get better indoor sports shots with my 180 2.8 than the 70-300. I also get much better results from my D70 than any 35mm film camera I've had. But then, I got much better results with my N80 than I did from my Canon AE1 and Minolta 300si.

The funny thing is that the pictures Hodgy used to post from his AE1 are better than pretty much any of mine from any camera and any lens I've ever had. But he's a pro and an artist. So is Charles. My point is that for hacker, I think equipment does help.

LL, I have to agree with you in some ways. I know I am limited by the limited aperture range, usable iso range, optics of my Canon S30 and can't wait until I can upgrade and take better mediocre shots with a digital SLR.
Because of the equipment limitations there are shots that I can not take successfully now that I will be able to take with better equipment. I could probably take those shots now with the (also limited) film equipment that I have but I choose not to carry that gear around and still have the inconvenience of using film (cost and having someone else making processing choices).

I think John's point about good photographers being able to take good photographs with less able equipment is valid because I think the value of a photograph transcends the technical aspects of reproducing a scene. I think your self deprecating comparison (unwarranted IMHO) between your work and Hodgy's is an agreement with this.

I think Charles, like all of us, has chosen the set of limitations of equipment and media with which he can most comfortably afford to live. Choosing the limitations of film over the limitations of digital is certainly a valid and understandable choice.

[Trevor Ash]

I could take a bucket of paint and throw it against a wall and call it art. Or at least some could call it art. I'd just call it a mess.

[Charles Hess]

Steve ... with mutual respect, certainly no argument from me with your post. I think maybe too much stock is being taken in my reference to that quote about optics. What it did was get me thinking about how silly the digital-film, Canon-Nikon wars really are, and that it is not the latest-greatest camera out on the market that the manufacturer entice you into buying and into thinking that your perfectly capable camera is now obsolete and no longer able to capture quality images. And reading the panicked posts and frenzied arguments on places like dpreview...THAT'S what got me into deciding that digital really doesn't capture 'better' images than film, and that a good photographer can produce a good image on almost any kind of camera. So, my decision, again, was personal, and I truly believe that my images will be better with my choice of equipment.

And again, this is no way meant to slam digital or slam those who have taken the step to go 100% digital, or slam those newbies just starting out and choosing digital as their gear. I just truly believe I will be happier ... and a better photographer with my chosen gear, which happens to be film cameras.

[Trevor Ash]

BEGIN RANT
I knew what you meant from the get go Charles. And honestly, to me these arguments are boring and tiresome. The points brought up in this thread have been brought up for ages. Today's flavor is film vs. digital. Yesterdays flavor might have been manual versus autofocus. It's the same thing over and over again.

Don't waste your time explaining to others why your choice is the right one for you. This just causes any one of a few types of reactions to take place. Most of which will cause you to feel like you have to clarify/justify your reasoning, which you don't.

Everyone do what makes you happy and don't worry about how your choices compare with someone elses. If you made a choice like Charles did, and it turns out to be the wrong choice, you'll eventually figure it out. Charles did and now he's happy about it. Congrats on doing what's right for you Charles!!
END RANT

[opus]

It's my opinion that the "frenzied" arguments for and against [insert issue here] are made by people who will make frenzied arguments for and against all the details of their life. They want the whole world to agree with them, or at least, they want to feel their decision is on the side of "being right". Irrelevant details matter to these people. So I just let them argue, but I don't really pay much attention.

The film vs. digital decision, in my opinion, depends on how you want to use your images. Some photographers who hate digital are being forced to use it because it's the only way their images will be accepted by their clients. If you can use film and not suffer, then stick with it!

Digital isn't "better", it's just "different". I like it because I can afford to experiment and learn. I can "fix" less-than-perfect exposures. If I were a pro I would still like it for the instant feedback, but I would hate it (I already do) for the burden and drudgery of working with the quantity of files on my hard drive. I already miss holding the paper in my hands.

Equipment can make a good image better, but in looking at the online slide show of the Pulitzer Prize winning photographs, I realized that a powerful image can still win a Pulitzer despite being fuzzy and out of focus.

I agree with the quote about Optics in that it's the glass that matters more than the capturing device. But it's the eye that matters more than the glass. So everybody is right.

<---[kellybean assuming the oh-so-familiar role of the diplomat]

[Charles Hess]

And a fine diplomat you are, Ms. Kellybean. :-)

[Asylum Steve]

Charles,

Now that you've clarified your points a bit, I can say I couldn't agree with you more. Pesonally, I lose interest in my (or any) camera's specs the moment I start using it and have always taken manufacturer's claims of "great improvements" over older models with a grain of salt. This was true for my film as well as my digital cameras.

The picture's always been the thing, and how can I best create the image I have in my head...

And while I suppose a few here completely misunderstood your original premise (as Trevor points out), I never read your first post as a film-digital argument at all. In fact, if you read my previous post carefully, you'll notice I didn't make any digital references at all.

One thing I will disagree with Trevor about is that I actually think this discussion is anything but boring and tiresome. I think it's a very refreshing topic, specifically because it is NOT a condemnation of the digital process, but rather a facinating look at what we each consider some of the more important aspects of image making, and THAT IMO will always be the most definitive topic of photography to talk about.

I think it IS important to take the time to explain to others why "your choice is the right one for you". That's how we relate to and learn about each other as well as the creative choices available to us all. It's the people that keep their workflow a secret as if it's some magic formula and not suitable for sharing that I have trouble dealing with...

BTW, for what it's worth, my immersion in the digital process and workflow is simple; a digital camera and darkroom now allows me to do INFINITELY more creative things with my photography than the old way I worked, which was film camera, home bw darkroom, and custom color lab.

[Charles Hess]

Thanks, Steve, for another good post, as it has helped me clarify a lot of things in my own head. My reasons, if I can narrow them down to the basics: I like being able to choose my choices of looks...do I want Tri-X? Delta 3200? Delta 100? My choice, on the spot.

I dislike the fast-paced, technology world we live in today...fast food everywhere, cell phones and headphones attached to faces, impersonal, and now instant feedback/gratification with digital. I like going to the lab, like interacting with the same lab techs I've interacted with for the past 9+ years, like viewing my slides through a loupe and lightbox, like studying contact sheets for images I might want to print ... you get the idea. Since I don't do this for a living, I'm not forced into this fast-paced 'I want it now' kind of pressures, so I have the luxury of choosing what I like. I know that film is dying a perhaps not so slow death, but by the time it does breathe its last breath, I won't be breathing at all, or too old to remember what all the fuss was about. This all make sense? All of this had been bothering me for awhile, and it took that quote(however perceived) to bring these feelings to the front and to our forum here. Thanks for listening, reading, posting, and making more sense than I ever could. :-)

[opus]

Charles, I read a phrase myself, last week sometime, that I've been pondering and was going to someday build a thread around, very similar to your own.

The phrase I read was "digital distress". A British photo magazine ran a short article about the great percentage of people who are now suffering from digital distress, and I thought, "man, I'M suffering from that!"

Just because I'm suffering digital distress doesn't mean that I, personally, am going to turn away from the digital world. I'm dealing with it by dreaming up inventions that would make the digital world easier to cope with. A way to simplify it all.

A very long time ago, a client at the prepress shop I worked at was talking about the days before computers and said, "I've had copy fall off the artboard before, but I've never had it just vanish!"

I'm rambling. So I'll stop.

[Photo-John]

Trevor-
The reason we continue to indulge in these same arguments/discusions is that we're all still interested in learning from others and sharing our own experience. And there's still something to figure out. I don't actually disagree with Charles. I like good lenses, too. But I just wanted to point out that the photographer's Vision is also a very, very important element in creating a good photo. For me, it's the most important element. I've been able to collect some good gear, but I'd like to think I'd be making fine images with a toy camera.

And don't forget that not everyone here has had the chance to play this particular game. And there's always something new brought up. In fact, the reason I responded to Charles's post is that it was a new approach to the digital vs. film subject. And it reminded me that, at least for me, the real issue is content vs. equipment/technique, not film vs. digital. My goal is always great content. Equipment helps me get there, but people have always made great photos with less than perfect camera gear. In fact, I believe a great photographer will get great photos regardless of equipment. If the equipment can't capture a particular type of image, the photographer will accept that challenge and figure out another way to express that particular event / idea / situation with the equipment they have.

This site is about equipment. But I want to always remember that photography is about the image, not the gear. Good equipment is nice, but it's not the goal. And I want to remind everyone else of those ideals, too. We all like and want the best equipment, but we should always do our best to accomplish what we can with the cameras and lenses we have at our disposal.

[Charles Hess]

Thanks, Kelly. I'm certainly not turning away from the digital world, as I use Photoshop, have a film scanner, and CD burner ... haven't used the darkroom in years and would never plan on getting back into it. Man, technology is moving so fast, I can't begin to imagine what photography, as we know it, will be like in 20 years. :-) Take care ... I'm going to have a cup of coffee, shut off the computer and, gasp, read for awhile, lol.

[Peter_AUS]

Hi Charles, interesting Decision you have made/making.

I think partly this statement about better equipment gives the photography a chance to take better (read this as clearer) images is probably correct, given the photographer knows what they are doing in the first place.

Place anything in someone hands where they don't know what they are doing, and usually it will either work or not work well.

Certainly better glass (my opinion) will give much better photographs and I (just me), agree with that. Given any camera in existance, put the best glass on it and one should get better images (my opinion).

I still have my film camera and film haven't used them.

I have a Canon 10D, but why get the 20D generally don't need it. I use it because I can view the images immediately and decide at the time, do I take it again.

The thing I have found is, the LCD does lie about the image when you review it as when viewed on a computer, the mistakes show up where they usually don't so much on the LCD of the camera, which is what disappoints me about digital.

But that comes down to my own inexperience with camera equipment I am using, as opposed to someone like you, Steve, Hodgy, PJ etc who have a vast experience in film etc photography.

I think the only reason to upgrade digital equipment, is to resolve issues one might have with a certain camera due to it's failings, for example the 10D having a Safe Sync Voltage of only 6V where most Studio Flash strobes are way over this voltage, something Canon should have addressed in the 10D/1DMKII. They have done that in the 20D which I believe has a SSV now of 250V which is a big swing isn't it.

There will always be differences between people on film/digital/what ever is the next big thing, but I think Film will always just have the edge over Digital Cameras untill the time comes where Digital can emulate everything that Film cameras do with their add-ons.

Interesting enough the 20D is going to have built in filter effects for B/W photography to emulate the filters used on film cameras for B/W photography, which I think is a positive step in the right direction. Another positive step would be introducing as standard full frame sensors without having the need to produce these specific camera only lenses, but then that is a marketing ploy isn't it.

Interesting decussions hopefully without anymore over the top input like other threads in the past.

Take care and enjoy.

[Trevor Ash]

I'm going to have a cup of coffee, shut off the computer and, gasp, read for awhile, lol.

Me too. Cheers everyone. ;)

[walterick]

I like what you said here man. I too feel frustrated if not overwhelmed by the "pace" of society. Too much "tech" not enough "love" in my opinion.

But that's MY soapbox.

Let me just say that to me there's also something very satisfying about using a manual camera, getting back loads of prints, looking at slides through the back of a 50mm lens, and selecting the type of "look" I want through the selection of my film. Lots of folks have moved beyond this, I haven't. I love using my digital point and shoot for everything casual, but for "serious" stuff it's still film all the way.

I took your quote a little differently than the others. I agree that ultimately it's the photographer's skill that defines the image. But within the context of the camera, I think it's the lens that counts the most. Not the body or the media.

Rick

[tab]

I didn't read your original post as a digital/film debate but as an off shoot that is what it's become. I remember when you first got that M6, prior to that there were a few threads about how the Leica equipment was more a fashion accessory like a Gucci bag for the photographer that wanted to look good and had money to burn. I stayed out of those discussion because I was on my 2nd Leica camera and I knew it was about the optics. You can't beat it in low light situations. The images that it is capable of producing when everything comes together show so much depth that art replaces the science behind it. Similar to a Hasselblad 501, they are such simple cameras but the sum is so much more than the parts. With one asterick: In the right hands. I couldn't agree with walterick more, there is something about shooting a manual camera. You slow down, you move yourself in the right position (instead of zooming), you focus, you set the exposure to how you want the image to be viewed and you shoot. That M6 on the street allows you to get intimate with people and scenes that a D1X won't allow. I shoot mostly digital now, it's the medium I choose. That doesn't make me right and you wrong or vice versa. I still shoot film with both cameras listed above when they can produce the image I want best. Often times they do or I should have used them. Along the same line I also shoot an F5. I am always amazed by the people that post about this camera that have never used it or they shot the F100 and feel they can comment on the F5. I believe you, Charles, have even made comments about the meter on this camera. I plan to be buried with this camera. The F5 is like a thoroughbred. It just wants to run and show you what it's got. It is balanced in your hands, lightning fast, you will want to shoot all day with this camera. You will wake up wanting to take it out again. I feel guilty when I don't put it through some paces. But whatever you shoot and whatever you shoot it on just keep shooting.