30 Days with Digital - Some Observations

[Lava Lamp]

I have a D70 for about a month now and shot about 3,000 frames - so many pictures that I've had a hard time keeping them organized and have gotten very aggressive about what I keep and what I delete. If I shot that many frames on film and had them developed, I would have paid more than $800 - almost enough to pay for the camera. Of course, if I had to pay per frame, I wouldn't have shot nearly so many - more like six to eight rolls for the month.

The image quality is better than I got out of 35mm and the 1.5X crop factor has really helped with long lens shots.

I've only printed a handful of shots, but this is where things have fallen down a bit. I sent some to Adorama and they came back perfect - even at 11X14 size. I tried to print myself on an Epson 820, and they results were very, dark with no shadow detail and a color shift. I took a CD to the local drugstore and the results were bad, too. The colors were dead on, but the prints had "banding" that made them look textured.

[Sebastian]

I echo your thoughts.

The color and lack of grain make my images much easier to optimize for prints than any film scan I've ever had.

Organization is the difficult part. I don't know if you ever read any of my threads on the subject, but I don't delete ANYTHING. Well, just about. Obvious mistakes and black or white frames are tossed, but that ammounts to maybe 100-200 shots out of the 16,000+ on my HD right now. Start catalogging, and start soon, otherwise you will be bogged down in the future. There are many pieces of software out there that do it in varying ways, try the demos, find something you like and stick wth it.

Printing is another matter altogether. If you are using all the right profiles there is no reason why your 820 prints shouldn't be great. Printing workflow can get confusing, especially with inkjets due to all the paper/ink/colorspace combinations. If you don't want to hassle with it yourself then find a good lab and stick with them. Just like in the film days...

Good luck.

[Charles Hess]

Sounds like you are optimizing the main benefits of digital and that the D70 was a good choice for you. Quality, I still have to say that I prefer the look of film. At times, though, when I've shot something with film, I say that I wish I had the digital with me. When I carry both film & digital, I'm usually reaching for the film camera. Go figure. I do find that I shoot about the same number of frames shooting digital as I do with film, so taking 100s of images at a clip like some folks do just doesn't happen with me. Good luck and keep shooting.

[paulnj]

I USED TO SHOOT 6-12 ROLLS A WEEK!!!!

NOW , WHEN and IF I get out I shoot 100-200 frames a day sometimes

I printed 3 (yes 3) of my 20+ thousand frames shot(just a guess) and they looked good to me with VERY little adjustments

The prints from digital are the same as from film, in that you need a GOOD tech to get quality from EITHER.

but I must say, I am enjoying you images more and more

[another view]

I've saw about the same thing as your observations when I got my DSLR almost a year ago. Unlike Sebastian, I delete a lot of shots. It's just too much to keep track of and fills the drive (and stack of CD's) too quickly. To take care of that problem I just bought a 250gb external drive - that and browsing software will make life easier. But whatever you do, get started on it soon because keeping up with it is one thing - going back into the archives to bring in old work is something else!

I find that I shoot more in some cases, less in others. I can shoot hundreds of images and my per image cost is still zero on digital, but there's just that much more work later. Sometimes I shoot less because I know if the exposure is dead on, and can double check the composition. Different tool, but I'm still looking for the same result.

I had an Epson 820 which I gave up on. For quick proofs, I go to a local minilab with a Fuji Frontier - excellent prints at a price that's less than what I could print for on the 820. When the 820 worked, the prints were pretty good. But it became inconsistent with problems like banding and clogged cartridges. Someday I'll get another printer, but this works for me now. I also have a lab to do my "real" prints but I'm going to check into some of the on-line places like printroom.com and mpix.com - but Adorama does a good job too.

[Sebastian]

Quality, I still have to say that I prefer the look of film.

Charles,

I think what LL was reffering to was the smoothness and detail of digital files. At least that's the way I read it, and that is what I was reffering to. The "look" is something completely different, and a much more personal preference. I still ache for the grain of Kodak 3200, so much that I'm about to bring my development reels back from retirement and am considering purchasing a 35mm SLR to go with my canon glass.

[Charles Hess]

Thanks, Seb ... re-read LL's post. My digital pics are also smooth, grain-free, and 'realistic'-looking, which is great. Personal tastes still enjoy the look of film, which is obviously different than that of disigtal.

[Sebastian]

Thanks, Seb ... re-read LL's post. My digital pics are also smooth, grain-free, and 'realistic'-looking, which is great. Personal tastes still enjoy the look of film, which is obviously different than that of disigtal.

I think over the years we became accustomed to the grain and tonality to represent reality. I used to dislike the cleanliness of digital simply because it didn't look "real." Nothing more than my own personal bias towards a certain look that I thought of as "real."

I messed with making my digital files look like film, and in the end gave up. It's easier to just shoot film. Why reinvent the wheel?

I gotta tell you, I was not surprised to hear you shoot as much digital as film. Your shots always seemed very deliberate, chosen.

Take care.

[natatbeach]

Phew! I started cataloging all the images I have on the computer and pretty much the ones I have burned total 12 CDs at 750MB each and that didn't put a dent in it...HOW do you get to a point where you get rid of stuff.... ugh!

when you figure it out can you let me know please ;)

Larry said he'd give me a day(9-5) to organize all my pics and take the kids out of the house so I could do it...where to start---sigh....

[another view]

Larry said he'd give me a day(9-5) to organize all my pics and take the kids out of the house so I could do it...where to start---sigh....

Sounds like a fun day . However you do it, it's important to have a backup because computers aren't perfect (as we all know too well...). Maybe organize by date? I usually call my files 20040628_(subject) so they come up in chronological order.

[another view]

I still ache for the grain of Kodak 3200, so much that I'm about to bring my development reels back from retirement and am considering purchasing a 35mm SLR to go with my canon glass.

Had to read this one three times to be sure! It's addicting, isn't it. At the suggestion of both you and Charles, I just dropped off a couple of rolls of Delta 3200 - one exposed at 1600 and one at 3200. I'm looking forward to comparing the two. I'd try it myself, but one roll is fairly important and I don't trust myself. I haven't actually tried to develop either of the 3200's myself yet - I guess they're pretty touchy.

[natatbeach]

now I'll have to find a system for rememebering why I put all those numbers ahead of the subject he he ;) seriously...that's pretty good advice I'll have to keep it simple ... I know the lack of depth my brain has

[Speed]

I have a D70 for about a month now and shot about 3,000 frames - so many pictures that I've had a hard time keeping them organized and have gotten very aggressive about what I keep and what I delete. If I shot that many frames on film and had them developed, I would have paid more than $800 - almost enough to pay for the camera. Of course, if I had to pay per frame, I wouldn't have shot nearly so many - more like six to eight rolls for the month.

The image quality is better than I got out of 35mm and the 1.5X crop factor has really helped with long lens shots.

I've only printed a handful of shots, but this is where things have fallen down a bit. I sent some to Adorama and they came back perfect - even at 11X14 size. I tried to print myself on an Epson 820, and they results were very, dark with no shadow detail and a color shift. I took a CD to the local drugstore and the results were bad, too. The colors were dead on, but the prints had "banding" that made them look textured.

I, for one, appreciate this update! More than you know.

I use a digital camera at work, and some for my personal shots on nights and weekends. I find I'm more like Charles than you or Seb or Paul. I do shoot a little more with digital, but not a whole lot more.

Like you, I would love to have that 1.5X multiplying factor with a digital SLR. I shoot with my 70-300mm more than any other lens, so I would love having some extra focal length. Also like you, I've not been terribly impressed with my prints. Part of that is not printing enough to know the printer, and part is my limited exposure to the different paper types.

Penny sent me some gorgeous prints she made on her printer, but I'm not sure I would ever get that involved with the time and effort it would take. It is possible to make great prints, but you've got to invest in the printer, inks, paper(s), and the put the time into optimizing everything. If I ever get a D70, I'll probably send my files out to a lab to have them printed. I don't print that many shots from digital files, so I don't think it would be a big deal.

Thanks again for the update, and keep sharing those images with us!

[yaronsh]

Reposting my question from another thread, since it seems more in line with the conversation here. The need to git yo'self organized hit me after coming back from a week's vacation in Canada a couple of weeks ago, with a metric bumload of shots on both the DReb and A60, inc. a whole photo-essay that my sig. other indulged in of the gargoyles on the Parliament bldgs in Ottawa.

I do shoot more w/ digital. Didn't think I would, b/c I'd shoot quite a bit w/ film (and pay the price later), but w/ digital I do more experimentation w/ exposure, or I'd feel unstable and raise the ISO (if there's no opportunity to use the tripod), etc. I often weed thru some shots right on the camera (histogram, blur/focus problems), then do more weeding after downloading.

Anyway, my question:

Here's what I'm looking for - a program that provides:

1) A meaningful categorization system
2) Previews with histogram
3) Ability to view multiple folders at once
4) Ability to preview DReb RAW files
5) Versatile printing
6) Batch renaming and metadata editing

Does such an animal exist? If not, I'd settle for: One program that has (2), (3), and (4); one that has (1) and (5); and one that has (6). But then, since it's separate programs, they'd have to be cheaper.

I think PS Album has (1), (3), maybe (5), somewhat (6).
I think ACDSee has (1), (3), (4), (6).
I think BreezeBrowser has (2), (4), I think (6).
I think ZoomBrowser has (2) and (4).

Is there *anything* out there that fulfills (2), (3), (4) together?

Thanks!
Yaron

[William Kazak]

So as to not hold back, all I can suggest is try PhotoshopCS and ABC View. With Photoshop, you can view histograms, at least on an individual basis. Why are you not viewing them while you shoot?
ABC view allows a double folder view.

[William Kazak]

I never get rid of anything. Just put it all on a variety of hard drives.

[Lionheart]

Phew! I started cataloging all the images I have on the computer and pretty much the ones I have burned total 12 CDs at 750MB each and that didn't put a dent in it...HOW do you get to a point where you get rid of stuff.... ugh!

when you figure it out can you let me know please ;)

Larry said he'd give me a day(9-5) to organize all my pics and take the kids out of the house so I could do it...where to start---sigh....

I burn my images to dvd to save storage space both on the HD and on my desk/shelves. They're not that expensive anymore, and your HD works faster if you can keep it below 50% capacity and defragged once or twice a month. I find these days that one folder of photos will not fit onto a cd-r any more, especially if they're RAW or TIFF, which most of mine are now.