Outdoor Photographer: Should I go Digital?

[Pie]

1st post here...

I was wondering how outdoor photographers feel about digital photography. I shoot mostly during hikes, travel, etc. and I always enjoyed the color that a good slide film provides. It would seem that digital cameras are not appropriate for outdoor photography because you lose the color saturation that a film like Velvia gives you.

I am going on a long road trip from Seattle to Vermont this summer and am planning on upgrading my equipment prior to the trip... just wondering if I should make the jump to digital. Advice?

[Speed]

1st post here...

I was wondering how outdoor photographers feel about digital photography. I shoot mostly during hikes, travel, etc. and I always enjoyed the color that a good slide film provides. It would seem that digital cameras are not appropriate for outdoor photography because you lose the color saturation that a film like Velvia gives you.

I am going on a long road trip from Seattle to Vermont this summer and am planning on upgrading my equipment prior to the trip... just wondering if I should make the jump to digital. Advice?

Is the major factor. I'm a film shooter. I love film. Like you, I shoot slides on my mountain trips. As a general rule, I haven't been impressed with the colors digital gives. Then there's the whole post-processing issue, and then printing.

Having said that....

I have been REAL impressed with the landscape images I've seen taken with the Nikon D70. It's not Velvia, but it's real close! And Penny sent me some prints she made from digital files that blew me away. I think refining your techniques, learning how to tweak your camera (white balance, etc) is the key. Also, do you want to go home and spend time on the computer? That is also a factor.

The majority of wildlife/nature photographers still shoot film. But that's slowly changing. Moose Peterson has been shooting 100% digital since 1999. And making a good living at it. He used to shoot with a F5.

Personally, I'm not ready to go full bore into digital. But if I come into some money (big tax return, rich uncle, whatever), then I'm seriously considering a D70 to compliment (not replace) my film cameras.

[another view]

If film is working for you, then you might not want to switch. Digital has advantages and can get those saturated colors, but there's a very steep learning curve to it. Photoshop is a very complicated program! Maybe the best bet for getting started is going with a film scanner (like the Nikon Coolscan V) and Photoshop Elements.

When you feel comfortable with that, you might want to get a digital camera that you can shoot RAW files with and Photoshop CS. Not only will Photoshop CS open RAW files without having to do a conversion first, there are some other features it has too, but Elements has most of it so that's a good place to start. Don't necessarily rule out point and shoot digital cameras either. I have a Nikon Coolpix 5000 which isn't made anymore, but can be bought for about $300 used. It shoots RAW, does pretty impressive macro work, and has a very sharp add-on wide angle lens that gets out to about a 19mm equivalent. That (or the newer 5400) might be a good one to look at. You should be very happy with the 8x10's from it, probably bigger too but haven't tried that myself.

[SeattleJo]

[QUOTE=Pie]1st post here...

I was wondering how outdoor photographers feel about digital photography. I shoot mostly during hikes, travel, etc. and I always enjoyed the color that a good slide film provides. It would seem that digital cameras are not appropriate for outdoor photography because you lose the color saturation that a film like Velvia gives you.


There is nothing like a good slide! However when you are dealing with prints from slides or from digital images, you can get the same look. As already stated, you will have to spend some time processing them in your chosen imaging software.

My biggest dilema is the the magnification factor in most DSLR's. You would have to go really wide on these cameras to get the same wide angle on film.

[Cowgirl]

I shoot both. Digital is great for portraits, weddings, and street photography. BUT digital DOES NOT come close to the quality, esp. for large enlargements! The quality of Velvia and Provia ROCKS and the biggest print that I have made with it is a 24x30 - hardly no grain. The largest digital prints that I've had made is 11x14 & 10x15. I do not like large digital prints that show the pixals when viewing close up.

I love my 10D. I love my EOS3. Both work great in different situations.

For serious landscape I still use Velvia, and will for a looooonnnggg time.


Kathy

[racingpinarello]

1st post here...

I was wondering how outdoor photographers feel about digital photography. I shoot mostly during hikes, travel, etc. and I always enjoyed the color that a good slide film provides. It would seem that digital cameras are not appropriate for outdoor photography because you lose the color saturation that a film like Velvia gives you.

I am going on a long road trip from Seattle to Vermont this summer and am planning on upgrading my equipment prior to the trip... just wondering if I should make the jump to digital. Advice?

I'm getting more comfortable with shooting digital for landscapes, but I still rely on film at the moment. For me, it's getting comfortable with the landscape digital processing to get results. I've used the same film for the past three years for my landscapes (Velvia 50) so I know this film so well, and understand how to scan it. That was a steep learning curve too, but I love the results. Most of my landscape pictures are shot with Velvia on my website.

You can get good saturation from digital that rivals Velvia, but you need to have that process in place. The one thing about digital that is a life saver is the ability to change ISO's in the field.

If I was in your shoes, I would only switch to digital if you are unhappy about the costs of film processing and the results. With the advanced digital cameras you have better color gamuts but those digital cameras are not cheap, so do some financial analysis, and see if switching makes sense.

Loren

[Pie]

Thanks for all the advice everyone!

I've been doing a lot of research this morning and I'm running in to another big issue with digital, that being the 1.5X magnification factor. I shoot a lot of landscapes (and pictures in general) with my 24mm lens, but if I go digital and want to shoot wideangle my only real option is the Nikon 12-24 f4, which will cost me over $1,000. So for the D70 and the lens I'm out over $2 Grand, plus I have to buy memory cards and such... and I don't even want to think about shelling out the cash for the latest version of Photoshop.

On the other hand I can get an N80 for under $300, keep my 24mm prime for serious landscapes, and pick up the 24-120 VR lens as my all-purpose lens.

I think at this point, the best thing for me to do is to wait for digital to mature a bit more, especially in terms of lens selection.

[megan]

... had a photographer discussing film vs. digital for outdoor/landscape photography [if I remember correctly, and sometimes I don't!] If you can, find a copy of last month's [or even this month's, it's chock-full of GREAT info for both the traditional and digital darkroom], or I can always wrestle it back from my boyfriend's hands and PDF it for you.

Megan

[Speed]

Thanks for all the advice everyone!

I've been doing a lot of research this morning and I'm running in to another big issue with digital, that being the 1.5X magnification factor. I shoot a lot of landscapes (and pictures in general) with my 24mm lens, but if I go digital and want to shoot wideangle my only real option is the Nikon 12-24 f4, which will cost me over $1,000. So for the D70 and the lens I'm out over $2 Grand, plus I have to buy memory cards and such... and I don't even want to think about shelling out the cash for the latest version of Photoshop.

On the other hand I can get an N80 for under $300, keep my 24mm prime for serious landscapes, and pick up the 24-120 VR lens as my all-purpose lens.

I think at this point, the best thing for me to do is to wait for digital to mature a bit more, especially in terms of lens selection.

I know, because I have one and I love it! Been shooting with it for 2 1/2 years now. I know it like the back of my hand. Get it, use it with that 24mm and by all means get the 24-120mm VR. I've played with that lens some. Incredibly fast, very quiet, should be an excellent all-around lens.

[Michael Fanelli]

Yes, nothing beats a slide on a light table. Slides use transmitted light that always looks better than reflected light. Unfortunately, most people don't spend all their time gazing at their slides on light tables.

Once you create prints, all bets are off. Although printing from slides has become much cheaper and easier than the old days of Cibas, there is still no way that paper and ink can match the original slide. The slide's contrast makes the print limited compared to print film or digital. No ink can reproduce the colors.

If you love slides and can afford the high cost, keep what you have. If you want maximum control over your image, go digital. If your final result is a print, slides have no advantage and many weaknesses.

[racingpinarello]

Yes, nothing beats a slide on a light table. Slides use transmitted light that always looks better than reflected light. Unfortunately, most people don't spend all their time gazing at their slides on light tables.

Once you create prints, all bets are off. Although printing from slides has become much cheaper and easier than the old days of Cibas, there is still no way that paper and ink can match the original slide. The slide's contrast makes the print limited compared to print film or digital. No ink can reproduce the colors.

If you love slides and can afford the high cost, keep what you have. If you want maximum control over your image, go digital. If your final result is a print, slides have no advantage and many weaknesses.

Michael,

Why do you have to be anti-film on this post? If you want ultimate control people need to understand what tool they have, film or digital. If you think that you have ultimate control over a landscape image using digital, you're crazy. When I am out in the field, the digital sensor is always trying to balance out the color of the sky, and it's frustrating. It's a learning curve for sure but digital is not my savour of landscape photography.

You may not get 100% reproduction from a slide to print, but you will not get 100% reproduction from a digital file to print either. It's the problem with the printer gamut, and has nothing to do with the slides or digital sensor. Yes, Velvia is tricky to print, but if you understand it and learn it then you know how to print a Velvia slide. I have done it sucessfully many times over.

Unless you are out in the field with a digital camera taking landscapes, don't bash film. I have scanned so many slides and have produced a lot of good images using Velvia slides. It still is a very viable platform, and you don't even need a light table. Slides offer a lot of control, based on the slide film that you choose. Astia for people, Velvia for landscapes, Provia for anything. I show my images in a portfolio consisting of 16x20 prints which require good negatives or slides.

I honestly use both film and digital, and have invested considerably in both platforms. In this case, the original poster would be better off using a N80 with his VERY VERY VERY good Nikkor 24mm. It's an awesome lens and you couldn't replicate it with a digital camera due to magnification factor. Plus, the poster is comfortable with slide film and knows that exposure must be on.

Also, digital forces landscape photographer to shell out a crap load of money for wide angle shots, which equate to a heavy 17-35mm lens. Do you have that type of money and willingness to haul that thing into the field?

In this case, film makes a lot of sense.

Loren

[berrywise]

Yes. But only if you are willing to spend the money to get a pro quality camera and learn the tricks of photoshop.

[JimK]

Michael,

Why do you have to be anti-film on this post? If you want ultimate control people need to understand what tool they have, film or digital. If you think that you have ultimate control over a landscape image using digital, you're crazy.

Man!! This arguement is really getting old. Which is better oil or watercolor? Same thing.

You will get the best results with the one you are most comfortable with. Period. If you don't want to (or don't think you can) take a great landscape with digital (or film) you won't be able to.

My local photography club has decided to separate the competitions so film and digital don't compete with each other. They feel that the digital folks have an unfair advantage in being able to print exactly what they want. Things change.......

[racingpinarello]

Man!! This arguement is really getting old. Which is better oil or watercolor? Same thing.

You will get the best results with the one you are most comfortable with. Period. If you don't want to (or don't think you can) take a great landscape with digital (or film) you won't be able to.

My local photography club has decided to separate the competitions so film and digital don't compete with each other. They feel that the digital folks have an unfair advantage in being able to print exactly what they want. Things change.......

I was trying to say the same thing. I use both platforms, and get great results from both. I don't push any platform onto anybody, so back off . Attached are two images, one from Velvia, and one from a Fuji S2. Both platforms offer great results, and the prints turned out exactly as planned. The digital file is good up to 13x20 print, and the slide is good up to 20"x30".

I'm not the one pushing my views onto others, I was only trying to offer the most sensible solution/advice to the original poster.

[Michael Fanelli]

I was trying to say the same thing. I use both platforms, and get great results from both. I don't push any platform onto anybody, so back off . Attached are two images, one from Velvia, and one from a Fuji S2. Both platforms offer great results, and the prints turned out exactly as planned. The digital file is good up to 13x20 print, and the slide is good up to 20"x30".

I'm not the one pushing my views onto others, I was only trying to offer the most sensible solution/advice to the original poster.

Good grief, here we go again. NOTHING I WROTE WAS "ANTI-FILM." Just what did I write that was incorrect? Do you honestly believe that slides can be printed as well as print film or digital? Are you telling me that printer ink gamuts now match slide film? Will you proclaim that the reflected light off of a print can now match the brilliance of a transmitted-light slide? Has the high cost of using film suddenly taken a huge dive?

If you are printing a tiny 35mm slide at 20x30 that is sad. Even Velvia can't stand that sort of thing gracefully. It was the lack of quality at even 11x14 that drove me to 6x7 film so many years ago.

Yes, you ARE pushing your views onto others. That is the definition of an opinion. No one is grabbing the camera out of the original poster's hands. He asked for opinions and got them. Too bad they don't all match yours.

JimK said it all: "My local photography club has decided to separate the competitions so film and digital don't compete with each other. They feel that the digital folks have an unfair advantage in being able to print exactly what they want." Gee, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

[JimK]

I was trying to say the same thing. I use both platforms, and get great results from both. I don't push any platform onto anybody, so back off . Attached are two images, one from Velvia, and one from a Fuji S2. Both platforms offer great results, and the prints turned out exactly as planned. The digital file is good up to 13x20 print, and the slide is good up to 20"x30".

I'm not the one pushing my views onto others, I was only trying to offer the most sensible solution/advice to the original poster.

Actually racingpinarello, you were engaging in a personal attack against a long time member and moderator on this site. It is time for you to go elsewhere. That type of behavior is not wanted or needed here.

[Asylum Steve]

...and I want to make it absoultely clear I REFUSE to get in the middle of another film-digital donnybrook, but I feel I should point out that Michael and Loren are BOTH longtime members here, have BOTH been valuable contributors, and are BOTH on occasion pretty opinionated, but there's nothing wrong with that...

What isn't appropriate is for a regular member to tell another regular member they are not welcome here anymore. Supporting a friend is one thing, but trying to give another member the bum's rush simply because you didn't like what they said ain't cool.

Besides, I know Michael, and he's perfectly capable of defending himself...

Truth be told, I haven't read anything in this thread so far that I'd consider too terribly personal or off-topic.

Why don't we keep it that way.... ;)

[JimK]

...and I want to make it absoultely clear I REFUSE to get in the middle of another film-digital donnybrook, but I feel I should point out that Michael and Loren are BOTH longtime members here, have BOTH been valuable contributors, and are BOTH on occasion pretty opinionated, but there's nothing wrong with that...

What isn't appropriate is for a regular member to tell another regular member they are not welcome here anymore. Supporting a friend is one thing, but trying to give another member the bum's rush simply because you didn't like what they said ain't cool.

Besides, I know Michael, and he's perfectly capable of defending himself...

Truth be told, I haven't read anything in this thread so far that I'd consider too terribly personal or off-topic.

Why don't we keep it that way.... ;)

Like it or not steve I have been a member here longer than any of you. My post had absolutely nothing to do with Loren or his disagreement with Michael and yet he attacked me as well for expressing hi opinion. Mister pinarello has clearly forfeited his right to post in this forum by posting his personal attacks.

[Asylum Steve]

...I doubt you have been a member much longer than I have. But that is not the point, and even if true, it certainly doesn't give you the right to say what you did to Loren. If you'd like, you can always report Loren's or any post to Photo John. However, I'm pretty sure he'll tell you the same things I'm telling you...

"My post had absolutely nothing to do with Loren or his disagreement with Michael..."

To the contrary, the evidence is in the thread. IMO, you started this by quoting Loren then making a slightly mocking comment (saying his argument "is really getting old"). When you quote a previous poster in your reply, it is generally assumed you are responding directly to them, and the fact that Loren hasn't argued anything at all in this thread, but in fact advocates BOTH film and digital is probably what annoyed him.

"Mister pinarello has clearly forfeited his right to post in this forum by posting his personal attacks..."

Maybe you should quote the actual words of the "personal attacks" you keep referring to, because I can't find them. All of Loren's responses have been very civil. In fact, the worst thing I read was "SO BACK OFF", which of course, while strong language I doubt very much would be perceived as an attack (seeing how it was a defensive response to your previous post).

Look, this is the last I'm going to say about this nonsense. In any of the "adults" here want to stop talking about photography and start a witch hunt, well then I suggest you take it up with John...

Everybody have a great night!

[JimK]

"If you think that you have ultimate control over a landscape image using digital, you're crazy."

This is the arguement that is really getting old. Digital vs Film which is better

"Michael,
Why do you have to be anti-film on this post? " This is a personal attack

"I don't push any platform onto anybody, so back off " This is another personal attack as well as an inferred lie. I did not say he was pushing a platform on anyone.

"the fact that Loren hasn't argued anything at all in this thread" not true Loren did very well in this post until Micheal posted his opinion. He then became abusive and argumentative.

[Charles Hess]

I am also one who refuses to get into any fim/digital debate and am more concerned with the accusations that are flying around here. I've read and re-read this thread, and while there is strong disagreement, I fail to see where there was any personal attack on anyone. This site is great simply because the members have kept from lowering themselves to the levels found on too many other sites, like photoSIG's forums, for example.

As co-moderator of this forum, I'm asking all to step back, consider all that's been said, and consider that each and every one of you has been around here for quite awhile and all have been valuable contributors. We all know Mike's stance on digital, it's been clear for probably 2 years now. Loren has been successful using both mediums. The endless techno-babble which gets the better results is falling on many a deaf ear, including mine.

Jim, Loren's comment about "anti-film" ... I don't see it as a personal attack, I don't think Photo-John, knowing Mike and Loren, would think it as a personal attack, either. Heck, knowing Mike from his lengthy posting history, I doubt if he looked at it as personal. I think the 3 of you, all knowledgeable, excellent photographers, need to step away from this thread and start fresh. If you disagree, then any one of you can go to P-J. Thanks.

[Liz]

As the "other" moderator of Viewfinder, I agree 100% with everything Charles has said here, and I think he said it very well.

Once in a while things get a bit out of control.........since we all have different views and different personalities. Many of us have been here a long time and know these things happen from time to time. I hope we can all move on.....thanks.

Liz

[natatbeach]

well said Charles and Liz...

and my two cents... Digital is a great tool to have...I firmly believe that saying one is better than the other---well, is like two mothers arguing about who's kid is cuter... both would have good points but it all boils down to personal attachments and reasons.

So don't limit yourself and go for digital nad take your film or slides, or Holgas, or pinholes, or etc along shoot every scene with what ever suits your needs and have fun...

art without fun is well---- NO FUN!

[another view]

And by the way - welcome to photographyreview.com, Pie!

[adamsti]

Either film or digital will do the job, but if you have any doubt about digital for the outdoors head on over to naturescapes.net. The overwhelming majority there use digital.