White Trash

[Sebastian]

Been meaning to post this for almost a month now. If this pace ever lets up I don't know if I'll be able to find anything to do with myself.... :mad2:

Rick Springfield grabbing a bouquet of flowers form an adoring fan. This was shot with an FM2N on Velvia with my trusty 50mm 1.8. I went back to Nikon and film, digital is garbage I've concluded. Now Walterick and I can be bestest buddies... :aureola:

[Mule]

You can almost hear him singing "I wish that I had Sebastian's camera.... Nobody has a camera like that."

(Sung to the tune of Jesse's Girl)

Seriously, I like the image, Seb. Just don't ask me to go back to film.

[adina]

Yeah, except Rick just went digital....

Nice shot.

[freygr]

Been meaning to post this for almost a month now. If this pace ever lets up I don't know if I'll be able to find anything to do with myself.... :mad2:

Rick Springfield grabbing a bouquet of flowers form an adoring fan. This was shot with an FM2N on Velvia with my trusty 50mm 1.8. I went back to Nikon and film, digital is garbage I've concluded. Now Walterick and I can be bestest buddies... :aureola:

In low light unless you have spent allot of cash on a custom sensor assembly for your digital camera, film will win in low light always. But digital can be almost as good as film and in some places better than film.

[another view]

I always had a hard time juggling a camera and a spot meter, which is just a reflex for me with Velvia. I suppose if you put his left forarm at +1 and had the backs of the fan's heads at around - 1-1/2 you'd be in good shape. Rick, being a nice guy, will hold a pose like that for you.

[Frog]

I won't comment on film vs. digital but that's one helluva shot.

[photophorous]

Film rules! (Is Brian out sick? How did I beat him to it?)

Awesome shot! :thumbsup:

[Liz]

Awesome shot!. I LOVE VELVIA! But I'm not going back to film! I'll enjoy yours, Seb. :thumbsup:

Liz

[Greg McCary]

Great shot Seb. Film or digital your work is always awesome.

[walterick]

Boy, do I feel small about now.

Where's that KEH receipt - damnit -

Well welcome back to film! And Nikon, the Fm2N and Velvia! Any reason you also went with a manual camera?

We can be buds, but you can't borrow my gear.

[Old Timer]

I hope you already know how much I respect your work Seb. But I'll have to say this is one beautiful image. You have topped even yourself. As for film vs digital all I'll say is each has it's place and "what ever pops your cork" is the way to go.

[Sebastian]

OK, now I feel bad. This was meant as nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek response to Rick getting his D70, but I apparently didn't use enough smilies... I didn't mean to mislead anyone, but you guys will be prying CF cards from my cold, dead hands. Man I figured everyone would catch the joke if I said I went back to Nikon. And Velvia? ISO 1600 was barely fast enough for this light...

Thanks everyone for the kind words, it's always appreciated...

[walterick]

Oh, yeah. That's what I meant too

[walterick]

Wait... does this mean we're not friends anymore either?

[another view]

I have a wierd sense of humor, so I got it (no offense meant, Sebastian)...

ISO1600 is possible at a concert with a wide open f2.8 lens, and even better one with VR or IS. Big name concerts (no comment on the state of Rick Springfield... ) will be well lit, and you might get by with a shorter prime lens (50 or 85) and an aperture of f2 at ISO800. In other words, ISO50 slide film that's daylight balanced and horrible for skin colors isn't going to work at all.

I tried to steer it in the direction of being even a little more over the top, but I guess that didn't work...

[photophorous]

I've always thought there needs to be a punctuation mark for sarcasm. The "Roll Eyes" smilie just doesn't seem right to me.

Now, I'm really impressed, though. I mean, for a digital shot, this is pretty good.

[Asylum Steve]

I went back to Nikon and film, digital is garbage I've concluded...

...to just use film. To just use film like that? (Also sung to a hit Rick Springfield song)... :2:

Ah, Seb, if you were like, a hobbyist or something, I might believe you. But you butter your bread in the commercial sector, and without those little ones and zeros, you'd die a quick death...

[Photo-John]

In low light unless you have spent allot of cash on a custom sensor assembly for your digital camera, film will win in low light always. But digital can be almost as good as film and in some places better than film.

Since I got my XTi / 400D, I've felt like I have way more low light capability than I did with film. ISO 800 is a usable reality and higher ISO settings work, too. There's also a ton more shadow detail to be pulled from a good digital file than I could ever get from even the best film scan. And the EOS-1D Mark III completely changed the rules, with usable ISO 1600, 3200, and even 6400 if you really need it. Now, the new Nikons are pushing things even farther. Currently, I would take digital over film for low light work, any day.

[photophorous]

I would take digital over film for low light work, any day.

I would too, if a D3 didn't cost 1000 times as much as a roll of TriX.

[Sebastian]

Since I got my XTi / 400D, I've felt like I have way more low light capability than I did with film. ISO 800 is a usable reality and higher ISO settings work, too. There's also a ton more shadow detail to be pulled from a good digital file than I could ever get from even the best film scan. And the EOS-1D Mark III completely changed the rules, with usable ISO 1600, 3200, and even 6400 if you really need it. Now, the new Nikons are pushing things even farther. Currently, I would take digital over film for low light work, any day.

Oh yeah, digital has had film beat for noise for several generations now. Unless, you count long exposures. Velvia exposed for several hours won't look much different than shot at 1/250.

[Sebastian]

I would too, if a D3 didn't cost 1000 times as much as a roll of TriX.

The D3 is great, but even my D100s were better than film when it came to noise. You really don't need to spend a lot, any DSLR on the market right now is killer noise-wise. Car dealer voice: "Think of the money you'll save!"

[another view]

Shooting RAW, even my Fuji S2 was great in low light at 1600. It was a contemporary of the D100 with Fuji's own sensor. Just like with film, proper exposure is critical.

I don't want to turn this into a digital vs film arguement (fortunately the world has pretty much moved past that...) but film has a different look - notice I didn't say "better". I never got a digital file to look like TMZ or Delta 3200. I still haven't tried TX at 1600 but that'll happen soon. It's just different, that's all. And Steve's right - we hobbyists have the freedom to shoot one or the other, or both - but in the world of commercial and event work, film really doesn't exist anymore. If I were asked to shoot a lot of concerts, then you can bet I'd get another DSLR. Unfortunately, since local bands don't make much money to play (trust me), there is no market for anything other than big concerts (and Rick Springfield ).

[photophorous]

The D3 is great, but even my D100s were better than film when it came to noise. You really don't need to spend a lot, any DSLR on the market right now is killer noise-wise. Car dealer voice: "Think of the money you'll save!"

I don't want to turn this into a debate, either. I think we all pretty much agree. We just use our cameras in different ways.

I have a D70s. I agree that it is better at high ISO in some ways, but I don't think it's better in every way. At 1600 ISO, with some clever post processing, I can make a beautiful 4x6 or 5x7. But, if you try to print the same file at 8x12 it starts to look like line art because there's just not much detail there. At that point, I'd rather look at film grain with some detail in it, but I admit this is subjective.

I'm not a digital hater. I just think there are enough differences between film and digital that blanket statements about one being better aren't free of exceptions until you get up to the level of the D3 and Canon's equivalent (maybe the D300 and 40D also), where digital is clearly the winner. Otherwise it's apples and oranges.

Black and white is a whole different ball game. I was just goofing around with my TriX comment. :thumbsup: