Digital cameras can't shoot good time exposures?

[Hugh Jampton]

I find it slightly amusing that in ye olde days we used to moan like crazy cause we could only get ASA25 and 64 (bugger that ISO nonsense), and now we've all gone digital where we can have a choice of 100 - 1600 (Nikon D70s - had it a couple months, it took some gettin used to all them buttons, but is very nice) we whinge cause the speeds are too high..

[ChuckCobleigh]

I find it slightly amusing that in ye olde days we used to moan like crazy cause we could only get ASA25 and 64 (bugger that ISO nonsense), and now we've all gone digital where we can have a choice of 100 - 1600 (Nikon D70s - had it a couple months, it took some gettin used to all them buttons, but is very nice) we whinge cause the speeds are too high..

Yes, and we all remember high speed Etachrome with its blistering ASA 160 speed.  If you shot it at ASA 400 and developed to a negative with C-22 chemicals, you got some relatively nice images.

Now, I just move the D-100 to 800 or 1600 when I need some extra sensitivity, run the images through the Kodak GEM plug-in if needed and then get pretty decent prints out of it.  Of course, it's nice to fall back to ISO 100 when you can, 50 would be better, but I can live without it.

What's nice about digital images is that you can do things in PhotoShop in a few minutes that would have taken hours in the darkroom and still get more detail at both ends of the curve on the print.

Now, if someone would come out with a MF back that was a full 6x7 and strapped onto my idle Mamiya RZ.  Just one old man's fantasy.

[CopCarSS]

I find it slightly amusing that in ye olde days we used to moan like crazy cause we could only get ASA25 and 64 (bugger that ISO nonsense), and now we've all gone digital where we can have a choice of 100 - 1600 (Nikon D70s - had it a couple months, it took some gettin used to all them buttons, but is very nice) we whinge cause the speeds are too high..

It is amusing in a paradoxical sort of way. There are just situations where I would like to be able to use some looooooong shutter speeds, and barring the use of ND filters (which I'm not a huge fan of...but then again I don't even use UV filters because I hate sticking any more glass in front of my lenses), there just isn't a way to do that with a minimum ISO of 100.

Probably the situation I find myself craving a low ISO the most has to be shooting waterfalls. This shot was taken at Yellowstone in postively dark dreary conditions (missed taking pictures of a black bear with two cubs because of that fact):

Had the overcast skies been even a little brighter, I wouldn't have been able to get the "cotton candy" look to the running water. Having ISO 6 would have allowed me to shoot many more similar subjects in brighter conditions.

I'm also kind of wanting to start a project mimicing the look of a vintage shot with a digital camera. Part of this will involve adapting some of my brass lenses to mount on the EF body. However, a big part will be the ability to drag down the shutter speed. I really think this is key. Take a look at Civil War Re-enactment pictures up at PBase sometimes. Even when they're done in B/W, it's too easy to see that they were shot with a modern camera. The optics are too good, and the shutter speeds are too high.

This might be kind of a strange project, but I think if I can pull it off, the results could be a lot of fun. And besides, it puts me in the ranks of the few folks that actually crave a nice low ISO of 6!

[ben10ben]

One of the great things about print film is that it loves overexposure. If I find myself needing a slow shutter speed(like to shooot a water fall or moving water), I generally try to use ISO 100 print film overexposed two stop for an iso of 25. I then stick a polarizer on the front, which costs about two stops, so it's like using an ISO 6 film. If that's still not enough, I use my 50mm macro lens, which stops down to f32, thus gaining me another stop over most other lenses. I don't really like to do this, though, since the macro is an extremely sharp lens, and I hate killing all of that sharpness with so much diffraction.

The other alternative is to use Velvia 50 and all of the above. If need be, I could even pull it a stop or two, although this is an option I've never exercised.


Most of the time, I do find that fast film really is great when I need the speed. Grainy as it may be, I love to throw some Superia 1600 in one of my cameras and put my 55mm 1.2 in front of it for low light.

[WP 3020]

Wow! Outstanding photos! Great examples!
 My foamer friends lean to the "purist" side of photography, and are mianly the ones I get most of my input from. I can understand their reasoning, to a point (I'm a "stick & paper" artist). Producing my style of artwok is doable on a computer, but is a world apart from the techniques to the difficuty (on a computer mistakes can, sometimes, be corrected rather easy compared to having to start over when using pen & ink). But how many "purist" artists would consider going back to what early man [had to] used. Some look at digital photography as cheatig, and I can understand. I believe taking good night shots and multiple exposures takes a great art skill. I can immagin it taking more skill when using film vs. buying the right program for digital. (like pen & ink vs. digital) But we have to and will progress to something better, or maybe easy. I'd rather draw some pictures from photos I've taken than have to draw it on site (for many reasons, environmental, biting bugs, the subject is a bear, the RR cops are coming.....). So, is auto focus cheating vs. manual focus, or having the steady shot enabled for the grab shots? Some people have eye problems and have to use an auto focus for a picture not to be blurry (I can't hold a camera as steady as I once did).
 Moving to digital, for me, is going to happen sometime. I realy look forward to being able to have a thousand pictures in the space of my fingernail as opposed to having to use a big box (moving all of them sucks). Of course, care will have to be taken, but not having to have a speacial enviroment to keep them from degrading will be nice.
Thanks for all the info and pics!

[kevikens]

Speaking of the problem with emulsion film at airports is there any problem with x-ray screening and the digital format ? I've always wondered if any of the electronics in a digital camera can be "fried" by the x-rays.

[blhanel]

I've run my Digital Rebel through airport screening without any problems so far.

[domefoamer]

Funny how this discussion of digital gradually morphed into a chat about our favorite films. We have a profusion of good choice in photography right now: on one hand, there's cheap 35mm and 120 cameras galore on the used market, and the best films ever made to put through them (except for the loss of those ultrasharp ISO 25 variants). On the other hand, new digital cameras with better performance and value are arriving at a furious pace. Too bad there's so much less to photopgraph. I just leafed through the library's copy of "Outbound Trains" by Jim Boyd. It's a new coffee-table volume of rail photos from, as the subtitle says, "the Era Before the Mergers." It's luck that good color films arrived just in time for these photos to be taken, mostly in the 1960s. The rainbow of different color schemes in use at the time made the railroad stations the most colorful place in town. I don't think you could say that about anyplace on today's railroads, with so little corporate and aesthetic diversity remaining. I'm not a foaming fan of most rail photography, but this one has some truly superlative scenes, all shot with humble Pentax 35mm cameras, I believe. But back to the original question, which deserves a better answer. Yes, some digital cameras do lousy time exposures, and others produce photos more colorful and less grainy than film. The key difference is in the size of the image sensor. Smaller cameras, from cell phones up through some high-priced "advanced" compacts, are built around small digital sensors. These generally do a poor job of colllecting and recording dim light. The worst time exposure I've ever seen was one I took by moonlight with a Sony V1, a $600+ camera from a few years ago. It was a hot night, which makes digital noise much worse. The photo taken with a one-minute exposure looked pretty good on the camera's playback screen, but on the computer was revealed as mottled mush, with no smooth tones or details. It's probably a good thing that SLRs are becoming prevalent and the costly compacts (Sony V & H series, Canon G series and Nikon's Coolpix )are disappearing from the market. They offered every zoom and control option, but they just don't deliver the image quality when it counts. Digital SLRs, on the other hand, have at least four times the sensor area. That means bigger individual pixels, which handle long exposures much better. Bigger pixels have a longer tonal response, meaning you can capture more color and detail in bright and dark areas of high-contrast scenes. That's why the race to squeeze more and more megapixels into cameras is misguided. Unless you're regularly making poster-sized prints, 6 MP is enough for most of us. If you want to push the envelope of fast ISO and long exposures, I believe 6 MP outperforms 10 or more in overlal image quality. I shoot most of my photos with a Konica Minolta 7D digital SLR. (Yes, Canon isn't the only maker of good digital cameras, it's just the one that seems to have a promotional tie with this site.) For higher-quality images like landscapes and other low-volume work, I just picked up a used Pentax 645 medium format camera on eBay. It came with a wide-angle lens and a long zoom, all for less than $500. An amazing value, IMHO, with image quality to beat the best Canons that sell for 10x the price, without lens- but the film scanner that would bridge this camera with the digital domain will cost me another grand or so. Finally, I enjoyed your pix, Chris- especially since I recognized the little wooden house with the flowers out front. I was up in Silver Plume last month and shot the same house, without blooms, just as the sun dropped behind the ridge... at 3 pm. That's wintertime in the Rockies for you!

[Anonymous]

5 10 years ago someone said that DVD's are going to put VHS out the door,NOT! VHS is still around. They say slide and 35MM film won't be around in 10 to 15 years because of Digital. What do you know,there still around. So don't believe everything you hear. Slide and 35MM film isn't going away any time soon. As long as there is a demand for it. It will be around.

[stmtrolleyguy]

What I find interesting is all the film stuff that I'll probably never have the chance to do.  I mean, i've taken a photography class, but there just seem to be thousands of combinations, techniques, and preferences for film, chemcials, paper, or slides.  I think the really sad part is that it would take lots of work to even begin to actually try many of these for myself to generate my own opinions about what combinations I like.

It's also interesting looking at all the variance in digital camers and preferences in them today as well.  I have a feeling that I wouldn't be able to notice half the small details and preferences listed, although I suppose I just don't have the experience or the eye to do that (yet.)

The only other thing I have to ask is why isn't 8-10 mp enough for most of the stuff you're doing?  I know that its nice to be able to make giant enlargements, and crop different parts of the photo, but how often do you actually  do that to the point where it makes a noticeable difference?  From the little bit of basic work i've done on film, i've found 10mp (from a Canon RebelXTi) to be more than sufficient for anything i've done yet.  I've made 8x14 prints that looked great, but I can't imagine i'm going to be making many much larger or closely cropped than that.

 

I do have one minor disagreement relating to the above post : I've done work with VHS and DVD, both from original source tapes.  The DVD looks better each time, and won't degrade after a couple hundred playback cycles, although the tape may be more durable on the exterior (dvds are very vunerable to scratches). 

[JSGreen]

HAve really enjoyed finding out about digital (and film) photography.  Especially since I am toying with the idea of getting a really good digital...

But I have a basic question....I assume that those of you who take the super shots I have seen here, record/store your photos not in JPG but in the RAW format.  Is that correct?

Also, does anyone know of a simple device which will read your digital memory and store it on a portable hard drive, thus freeing up the digital memory for reuse?  Or, is a laptop the only solution to that at this time.... 

Thanks! 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Food for thought to those who shoot digital format:  What happens when you upgrade your computer operating program (by choice, necessity, or orders from Microsoft) and your digital pictures are in a format that the new program can't read?

[Anonymous]

JPEGs will probably be with us for the indefinite future.

If you shoot RAW, as I do, you either use the camera

manufacturer's software or Photoshop to convert to TIFF.

In both instances, you can be sure Canon, Nikon, Adobe, etc.,

will adapt to VISTA, et al.

 

Dave 

Food for thought to those who shoot digital format:  What happens when you upgrade your computer operating program (by choice, necessity, or orders from Microsoft) and your digital pictures are in a format that the new program can't read?

[JSGreen]

  What happens when you upgrade your computer operating program (by choice, necessity, or orders from Microsoft) and your digital pictures are in a format that the new program can't read?

More important than the OS (operating system) is the program which you use to manage edit,  or download  your photos.  WOrst case sceanario is you would have to purchase an upgade to that or those programs.  As a general rule, the file formats are not affected by operating systems, especially if you are upgrading....switching to a totally new OS (ie, Windows to MAC) may be an issue, though.  

 

The windows upgrade advisor doesnt address software compatability, but will tell you if you have enough hardware to run the new version.  Your software vendor should be able to tell you if the old program will work in the New OS.  I have not heard of a major problem of old programs not working in an updated OS.  The favorite term is "Backwards Compatability".  Of couse, everyone will tout the new advantages of the new OS, and why you should upgrade your software to take advantage of those things, but programs that worked OK in win 95 ought to work in Vista...but programs that do the same task better will soon be available that will work in Vista, but not previous versions.  My theory is that if it aint borken, dont fix it!    

The requirements for running vista properly (1GB RAM,) means most folks would be better off buying a new machine than trying to upgrade the current machine.  Not to mention the historic problems of "Upgrading" a windows installation.  Most people found it eaasier to go for a clean install instead of an upgrade...but buying hte upgrade version required you to already have one version installed....so, my recommendation is to buy a new vista machine, but keep the old reliable around untill you are sure all of your critical applications will play nicely with teh new box! 

Or, wait untill someone else does it, and it works!

One long term problem would be the media for backups...

I am burning CD's with my photos, being paranoid of a hard disk crash.  But how long will that format be around?  Heck, Floppy drives are all that old (3.5") but you dont get them on new computers now, unless you specifically request tehm...and DVD burners are inexpensive enouigh for hte averag joe now....what's next?  As long as you dont do a Rip Van Wrinkle, and sleep for 40 years, chances are you'll be able to keep up with the storage technology enough to keep leapfrogging your media to current standards, or ensure you maintain a legacy system for compatability...

But, honey, I NEED all those computers.....

[TimChgo9]

I have and old 486, 2 Pentium I's, a Pentium III laptop, a Pentium IV laptop, and 2 old Athlon desktops..... I guess I have plenty of legacy systems... Oh yeah, and a 2 year old AMD Athlon 64...

[CopCarSS]

Gads...what was most interesting in this thread (to me at least) is how quickly things can change in the Digital Realm. Just a few months back I was a complete Canon zealot. Today I'm selling off all of my Canon gear after switching to Pentax DSLRs. Wow!!! It would seem that users can be affected, too! I hope my operating system upstairs doesn't get obselete too quickly!

[ben10ben]

To me, the most compelling reason to continue to use film is the incredibly low cost of equipment.

 

Just a couple weeks ago, I bought two Canon FD lenses for $120 for both. One was a 135mm f2, and the other a 24mm f2. Both are really, really nice lenses. The EOS version of the 135 sells for close to $1000.

 

It would cost me upwards of $20,000  in EOS equipment to duplicate a kit whose cost only just broke $1000 last week. $19,000 saved buys more film than I'll probably be able to shoot in my lifetime. 

 

Even in the autofocus realm, film bodies are cheap. I bought a bunch of FD parts bodies from a friend last week, and he threw in two film Rebels for free. I'm currently hunting for a cheap EOS lens just to give autofocus a try, although, as I said, I have too much of an investment in FD to consider a serious switch. 

[Datafever]

Well, there are other lens systems out there besides Canon...

Also, are you by any chance comparing the price of used equipment to the price of new equipment? 

[ben10ben]

True, there are other lens systems out there.

 I just mention Canon because I'm most farmiliar with it. Most are pretty comparable as far as price and quality.

 

The 135 f2 I mention is available from both Canon and Nikon. The Canon EOS version has a retail of $899, and the Nikon of $1065. The best used price I could find on either at KEH(big used camera dealer) was $769. That's still a pretty signifcant price difference from the $60 I paid. 

[M636C]

I've been scanning my colour slides from thirty years ago, all taken with Pentax cameras fitted with fixed focus quality lenses, usually in the 50 or 55mm focal length. I am not that impressed with the appearance compared to what a Canon EF 24-85 will deliver today. As to second hand lenses, when I disposed of my film Canons, I kept an extra 28-80. The 28-80 retails for a third of the cost of the 24-85 and sadly it shows around the edges. So I noted that the local camera shop had an EF 28-105 F3.5 mounted in a film camera. This is still available (with"II" added to its description), and is a metal body lens and not related to the polycarbonate body 28-105 F4.5 also sold now.

I talked them into selling me the lens for $120 plus my polycarbonate 28-80 which filled the hole in the film SLR for any possible sale. I fitted it to my 300D and went out for a day chasing trains. At the end of the day I realised that I hadn't taken any shots with other lenses, just in case there was an unexpected problem. When I looked at the results I was amazed by the depth of focus and really sharp appearance. I'd be happy to compare my shots with this lens with any 35mm flm camera. I think it is slightly better than the more expensive (even new) 24-85. Canon, and Nikon still make good SLR lenses, although many lenses made today are not excellent. The polycarbonate 55-200 is also very sharp despite its low price, but MY 18-55 is a complete disaster at wide apertures and I hope that no 400D user gets one as bad as mine.

M636C  

[wctransfer]

5 10 years ago someone said that DVD's are going to put VHS out the door,NOT! VHS is still around. They say slide and 35MM film won't be around in 10 to 15 years because of Digital. What do you know,there still around. So don't believe everything you hear. Slide and 35MM film isn't going away any time soon. As long as there is a demand for it. It will be around.

 Ok Captain Obvious.

 I shoot Digital now, but did shoot film for about 2 years, and I loved the film shots, because i like the manual settings etc. But, it was expensive, i could only shoot 24 per roll (or 36) and when I went digital I had no regrets. I had a bunch of shots overexpose on me, and that is very frustrating, as the stuff I was shooting isnts even around anymore.

 Alec

[Datafever]

I am currently considering the purchase of either a Canon EOS 30D or a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro.  The Canon uses the EOS EF mount lenses while the Fujifilm uses the Nikon F mount lenses.  I haven't looked at lens differences yet, but right now I am learning toward the Canon.

There are some things that digital cameras can do that film cameras cannot do, such as time lapse photography - which is one of my reasons for getting a camera.  Another plus for digital cameras (from my perspective) is that I can take 100 pictures a day and not worry about it.  At 100+ pictures a day, even $20,000 in savings gets eaten up within a few years in film and processing costs. 

[ben10ben]

Film cameras can do time lapse photography. There exists and intervalometer for all but two of my 20 year old plus cameras, which can be programmed for intervals as long as 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 second. Of course, you're limited to 36 exposures. Even that can be avoided by using an F-1 and a roll film back, which gets you as many as 250 exposures in one load. 

 

At the moment, I'm paying about $12 for a 36 exposure roll of slide film and processing at a pro lab. At that price, $20,000 buys 60,000 exposures. Probably more than that since some of my cameras can get 37 or even 38 exposures on one roll.

 

However, this can't compare directly. I tend to be more contemplative when shooting film, and tend to try more to get it right in one or two shots, where it might be tempting to fire off ten digital shots just to get something right. I can easily spend fifteen minute fiddling with composition, exposure, etc. just one one shot to get it right with only one frame, where I might be tempted to fire off a new exposure with every little change with a digital camera. At most, with film, I might do some additional bracket with one stop above and one below. This is still only three shots. I find a more contemplative approach is not at all a bad thing. Plus, you get a really great feeling when you do nail a shot.   

 

[Datafever]

Thank you for all of your information.  I will admit that you are probably a much better photographer than I will ever aspire to be.  To be honest, this is really just going to be an expensive toy for me.  I doubt that I will ever own more than about $5000 worth of lenses.

I guess that's why we each find our own way of doing things.  Film definitely has its place.  But digital opens up avenues to me that I would not otherwise go with film. 

[Anonymous]

 I do have one minor disagreement relating to the above post : I've done work with VHS and DVD, both from original source tapes.  The DVD looks better each time, and won't degrade after a couple hundred playback cycles, although the tape may be more durable on the exterior (dvds are very vunerable to scratches). 

True.

[TimChgo9]

I guess that's why we each find our own way of doing things.  Film definitely has its place.  But digital opens up avenues to me that I would not otherwise go with film. 

I used to shoot film, but once I started digital 3 almost 4 years ago, I never looked back, and I believe I have become a better photographer because of it.  Why?  because I am able to view my work as I do it, and incorporate improvements, or techniques almost immediately.  I am totally in love with the fact that I can shoot a memory card full of pictures (42 at 6MP) and delete those that don't turn out (way over-exposed, blurry, too dark, etc.) and be able to take more pictures right away. (On any given day, I probably discard about half of what I shoot before I even get home)  Then once I view the photos on my computer, I can see where improvements need to be made, and things like that.  And it is really great to be able to share the really good pictures with friends and family right away....

[Poppa_Zit]

 I do have one minor disagreement relating to the above post : I've done work with VHS and DVD, both from original source tapes.  The DVD looks better each time, and won't degrade after a couple hundred playback cycles, although the tape may be more durable on the exterior (dvds are very vunerable to scratches). 

True.

I've never had a DVD wrap itself around a sticky capstan roller.

Plus, you can burn copies of DVDs in minutes compared to videotape. Or save the files to a hard drive just in case a copy in use gets scratched.