I used film from 1962 until 2003. In 2003 I took early retirement (but was back at work more or less full time by January 2006 until last year.)
Anyway, in 2003 I purchased the first good digital camera, the Canon EOS 10D for my birthday (and retirement date). I already had Canon film SLRs, so kept using the same lenses (just losing any useful wide angle).
I have never looked back, although I kept a Canon film body against any emergency. Bravely I took the new digital camera to Argentina to use for the first time, along with a laptop to download the photos and a spare camera battery.
I planned to take Kodachrome as a back up, but Kodachrome was being discontinued at that time (in Australia at least) and I could only get Kodachrome 400 (if I recall correctly).
When travelling overseas, being able to review the photos straight away was very useful and I became a bit braver in taking shots in difficult lighting.
Anyway, I'm currently scanning photos from one of my overseas trips in 1996. This covered Malaysia, Norway, Ireland and the United States. I had prints made at the time so I have been scanning the prints, which were quite good quality.
When the scans are viewed on a 24" monitor, photos that looked quite good as prints show technical problems previously unseen. On the other hand some good photos look quite amazing. These shots were all taken with a Minolta 3Xi, a pretty basic camera but with autofocus and power wind. All photos were taken using a Minolta 28-80 autofocus zoom. This reliably focussed, but lacked depth of field except in really bright light. I had good light at Washington DC Union Station and later in San Bernardino and Cajon Pass.
The technical problems were slight blurring of fast moving trains, and camera shake. I found that many of my photos were not level, and one advantage of scanning prints is that they can be adjusted to give a level image very easily, while slides have to be adjusted to level in a separate operation.
I also took slides, but the slides were fewer, theoretically of more "pictorial" scenes. Prints were more readily used for publication, even then often in black and white. I intend to drop some slides into the sequence later, when I get time to scan the slides as well.
I find that I can easily give a digital slide show on a medium size TV, connecting a laptop to the TV using an HDMI cable.
Among the interesting items in 1996 were new Amtrak AMD-103 (P-40) locomotives, EMD SD70M lease units in demonstrator colours (SP seemed to be using all of those) but BNSF still using GP-20s as well as all the red and silver units.
Peter
I've been shooting prints since 1969. Numerous albums involved.
CSSHEGEWISCH Since I'm the curmudgeon who initiated this discussion, one of the reasons that I have stuck with film is that it's a lot easier to share your photos when your friends come over or when you want to look back at what you shot anytime between last week and 50 years ago.
Since I'm the curmudgeon who initiated this discussion, one of the reasons that I have stuck with film is that it's a lot easier to share your photos when your friends come over or when you want to look back at what you shot anytime between last week and 50 years ago.
Are you shooting print film and having prints made? Or are you sharing your pix by doing slide shows?
BaltACDSo now we have changed the idiom from 'one keeper to the roll' to "one keeper to the SD card".
Pretty much, although the 1 out of 36 ratio probably holds.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Lithonia Operator tree68 I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Digital has given us the ability to shoot huge numbers of images. With three batteries and two cards, I can shoot upwards of 500 JPEGS with my DSLR without having to download anything and make more room on the cards. If I want to do serious post-processing, I can get 120 RAW images on those two cards, and I could do more if I invested in more cards. I have a friend who frequently shoots sports events for her kids' school. Coming home with 500 images from one event is de rigueur for her. She'll usually spend a full day reviewing the images and getting them out to families, etc. This is as opposed to the days when film came in 24 and 36 exposure rolls (for your 35mm camera - and it still does) and unless you could afford lots of film, resulted in picking your shots more carefully. There is also that old rule of thumb that says you'll get one real "keeper" out of a roll of film. Link's work served the purpose of documenting the end of an era. That's why he did it. It was not casual, candid railfan photography, even though he sought to portray everyday life on and near the railroad.
tree68 I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Digital has given us the ability to shoot huge numbers of images. With three batteries and two cards, I can shoot upwards of 500 JPEGS with my DSLR without having to download anything and make more room on the cards. If I want to do serious post-processing, I can get 120 RAW images on those two cards, and I could do more if I invested in more cards. I have a friend who frequently shoots sports events for her kids' school. Coming home with 500 images from one event is de rigueur for her. She'll usually spend a full day reviewing the images and getting them out to families, etc. This is as opposed to the days when film came in 24 and 36 exposure rolls (for your 35mm camera - and it still does) and unless you could afford lots of film, resulted in picking your shots more carefully. There is also that old rule of thumb that says you'll get one real "keeper" out of a roll of film. Link's work served the purpose of documenting the end of an era. That's why he did it. It was not casual, candid railfan photography, even though he sought to portray everyday life on and near the railroad.
I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Digital has given us the ability to shoot huge numbers of images. With three batteries and two cards, I can shoot upwards of 500 JPEGS with my DSLR without having to download anything and make more room on the cards. If I want to do serious post-processing, I can get 120 RAW images on those two cards, and I could do more if I invested in more cards.
I have a friend who frequently shoots sports events for her kids' school. Coming home with 500 images from one event is de rigueur for her. She'll usually spend a full day reviewing the images and getting them out to families, etc.
This is as opposed to the days when film came in 24 and 36 exposure rolls (for your 35mm camera - and it still does) and unless you could afford lots of film, resulted in picking your shots more carefully.
There is also that old rule of thumb that says you'll get one real "keeper" out of a roll of film.
Link's work served the purpose of documenting the end of an era. That's why he did it. It was not casual, candid railfan photography, even though he sought to portray everyday life on and near the railroad.
Totally, Larry.
The initial investment was enough to make me gag. But once I was past that, the ability to shoot as much as I wanted without fretting what I was racking up in film and lab costs was awesome. (Not an issue with assignments, because everything was marked up a bit and billed through; but a huge change for stock, which I shot a lot of.)
Also, since I was located almost an hour from the lab, digital saved me LOTS of time. Sometimes I would make two lab runs in a day, if an assignment shoot was on a tight deadline; drop film, then later pick up. To go from that, to getting back to my studio, letting the shoot download while I grabbed a snack, then plunging right into editing, that was huge also.
So now we have changed the idiom from 'one keeper to the roll' to "one keeper to the SD card".
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
x
By the way, a tip, if this has not occurred to you:
Maybe as I did, you use a skylight or UV filter on all your lenses, to protect the front element. But there is a built-in issue when shooting trains (or cars, whatever) that are coming at you (which is most of the time). The problem is the headlight. And ditch lights.
Take off that filter. You will always get a sharper picture with no filter, but particularly when there is a bright light in the frame, and especially when it is aimed at you. Lenses these days are very good, and handle flare well. Don't compromise your $1500 lens with that $30 filter. With a filter on, you will almost always get some flare from the headlight if it's not super bright outside (and maybe even then). The more contrast between the engine's headlight and the rest of the scene, the worse it will be. Try a comparison test. Do it at dusk or night, to get the best comparison.
Shooting in the majority of non-railroad situations, a decent filter won't hurt you much. 90% of my pix were shot through those filters. They get a bit scratched, you replace them. Cheap.
Because I wanted to be able to work and react quickly, I virtually never used lens cases. Hated 'em. I would use good-quality clear filters, and leave the lens shades deployed. The lens shade plus the filter will protect the lens pretty well in most oops situations.
Digital just gives you more ways to get exactly the shot you want.
Here's one example. Say you are shooting a scene on a hot hazy day, and the composition you want will contain quite a bit of sky. The rest of the shot is mostly a train being led by a Norfolk Southern engine, and a bunch of dark pine trees. Let's say you are using slide film, maybe Fuji Velvia (my final go-to film).
With film, to get the correct exposure for train/trees, you basically have to let the sky blow out. Parts or all of it will render as white or near-white, because it's overexposed. OR you use a neutral-density graduated filter ...
In my experience, graduated filters, except for the really expensive ones (which are large, square or rectangular, and require a special holder) are never color-neutral. So you can knock down the pesky sky tonally, but you will usually get an unnatural color cast, which will vary according to what film you were using. I used to wind up with a dirty magenta in many cases. And even with the really high-end arangement, there is often no practical way to reduce lens flare in the field (because there's no lens shade for that rig), unless there just happens to be a utility pole or something throwing a shadow right in the spot from which you want to shoot. Which ain't often. Now, I did sometimes use a special rigid "flag" on a flexible arm which clamped to the tripod, but as you can imagine, it's a pretty clunky rig, terrible in wind, and if there is any precip, that will get on the filter. It's not fun. And if suddenly something changes in the background (Fedex trucks used to follow me around, I swear) and you need to quickly change your position, it's not all going to stay exactly as it was as you run across the track or whatever.
Fast-forward to digital. Be mobile, use your lens shade, get the shot you want. Then go home and use Photoshop's graduated "filter," and the darn thing will be perfect. Voila!
And on film, say you shoot a series as the train comes. One slide turns out to be the clear winner. Like maybe that's when the engine hits the snow bank, and makes a white explosion. But there is only that one best frame. So, you now want to send it to a magazine. Do you really want to risk your best image to the mails, or careless people on the other end? I used to Fedex my best originals all over the country, and I always worried about them. A few got lost, and many came back dirty or scratched. With digi, you just tweak your best Master File, then you can hatch those rascals like rabbits, in any size; make some b/w, make some sepia, whatever. Some for web, some for exhibition, some for publication. And don't worry, be happy.
I spent a lot more years with film than digital. I would NEVER go back. Digital is the best thing to happen to photography in my lifetime. And I was a die-hard traditionalist. Of the ten or fifteen commercial shooters I knew/know in Maine, I was the last to go digital.
tree68This is as opposed to the days when film came in 24 and 36 exposure rolls (for your 35mm camera - and it still does) and unless you could afford lots of film, resulted in picking your shots more carefully.
Not just the film, but for many of us, the time spent processing and at least doing contact sheets. (Of course, when I got a large stainless steel tank that would process 8 120 rolls at a time, that helped things out considerably. Never got to the point of using a 3-1/2 gallon tank for film processing, though.)
The whole process (you should pardon the expression) inspired a lot of thought at exposure time.
Semper VaporoIt is too easy (thankfully for us duffers) to shoot digital and correct things on the fly than to think ahead and get it right the first time. Different disciplines, but one teaches you so much more about the process and the other helps us duffers take casual shots that are good enough for boring our relatives to death.
But at the same time, modern digital cameras give the photographers so many options to take photos - that you, if you so choose, have so much more about photography to learn becuase you're able to learn and do so much more. You don't put the camera away becuase it's cloudy or dark, or rainy... no excuses anymore. Well, except for time, opportunity, and interest. Those are forever.
TLDR version: different? yes. Better/worse? no.
I'll be honest - if it weren't for digital - I don't think I would have gotten into photogprahy (well, when I was into photography, and hope to be in again, some day)
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I have a strong preference for available light. I had to do lot of lighting in my career, but I did not enjoy that aspect.
Of my railroad photos, in my whole life I can think of only two where I used flash.
However, to me Link's work just so very special. As Ulrich stated above, he's giving you this incredible window into America at that time. In some of my favorite shots the train/railroad is actually secondary. To me, no one else connected everyday life to the railroad like he did, and he did it in really unique ways.
Very few of my favorite RR photos are of just a train. I want to see the context. I want to see how the railroad interacts with its surroundings and vice versa. And having humans or even animals in a shot can add a lot.
Im thinking if a Shaughnessy image with a passenger train at a station. One small thing, to me, really elevates that shot to something special. It's the silhouette of an onlooker smoking a pipe. A simple thing taking up very little space, but really adding a lot. And making a connection between the railroad and humanity, while also providing an element which adds some balance to the composition. I have little doubt that Jim waited for the man to bring the pipe to his lips before releasing the shutter; it's no lucky accident.
Link's sense of design in his shots is a key ingredient to their effectiveness. Everything works together design-wise and thematically.
BaltACDRemember - armies were resistant to buying machine guns - featured they would use too much ammunition.
So they were, but not for long...
Flintlock76Kind of like shooting a muzzle-loader. It takes effort to get that shootin' iron ready, and then you've only got that one shot, so it better be good! Look what that kind of discipline did for Alvin York!
Look what that kind of discipline did for Alvin York!
Remember - armies were resistant to buying machine guns - featured they would use too much ammunition.
Semper Vaporo zugmann CSSHEGEWISCH I still shoot film and I've had some luck with available light shots. Experience helps and I believe that shooting with film improves your skill and knowledge much better than shooting digital. I don't think that's true. Shooting film you have to stop and think about composing the shot, consider the lighting, focus, shutter speed, film speed, and lots of other things, because you will probably get just one or two shots before the scene is gone. Even auto-wind cameras have a limit. You'd better have the settings close to the ideal before the scene appears. You probably won't have time to make adjustments between rapid shots as the scene transforms. And even at that, you have no idea if you had the focus or the aperture, or the shutter speed right until next week when the photo developer sends back an empty envelope and a note saying the film was fogged. Or, worse, I heard of a family that took photos of their dog during a St. Patrick's Day parade and the film developer gave up trying to get the dog the right color... seems when they got the human flesh tones right, the dog came out green! They didn't know the family had dyed the dog's fur green for the parade! So they didn't print any of the photos. Shooting digital, you can shoot much faster and the cameras often have automatic bracketing of the shots... you set one setting and the camera will take 3 photos, one step above your setting, one at your setting and one below your setting. You can then immediately see the results and take some more before the scene is completely gone. It is too easy (thankfully for us duffers) to shoot digital and correct things on the fly than to think ahead and get it right the first time. Different disciplines, but one teaches you so much more about the process and the other helps us duffers take casual shots that are good enough for boring our relatives to death.
zugmann CSSHEGEWISCH I still shoot film and I've had some luck with available light shots. Experience helps and I believe that shooting with film improves your skill and knowledge much better than shooting digital. I don't think that's true.
CSSHEGEWISCH
I still shoot film and I've had some luck with available light shots. Experience helps and I believe that shooting with film improves your skill and knowledge much better than shooting digital.
I don't think that's true.
Shooting film you have to stop and think about composing the shot, consider the lighting, focus, shutter speed, film speed, and lots of other things, because you will probably get just one or two shots before the scene is gone. Even auto-wind cameras have a limit. You'd better have the settings close to the ideal before the scene appears. You probably won't have time to make adjustments between rapid shots as the scene transforms. And even at that, you have no idea if you had the focus or the aperture, or the shutter speed right until next week when the photo developer sends back an empty envelope and a note saying the film was fogged.
Or, worse, I heard of a family that took photos of their dog during a St. Patrick's Day parade and the film developer gave up trying to get the dog the right color... seems when they got the human flesh tones right, the dog came out green! They didn't know the family had dyed the dog's fur green for the parade! So they didn't print any of the photos.
Shooting digital, you can shoot much faster and the cameras often have automatic bracketing of the shots... you set one setting and the camera will take 3 photos, one step above your setting, one at your setting and one below your setting. You can then immediately see the results and take some more before the scene is completely gone.
It is too easy (thankfully for us duffers) to shoot digital and correct things on the fly than to think ahead and get it right the first time. Different disciplines, but one teaches you so much more about the process and the other helps us duffers take casual shots that are good enough for boring our relatives to death.
Kind of like shooting a muzzle-loader. It takes effort to get that shootin' iron ready, and then you've only got that one shot, so it better be good!
zugmann ChuckCobleigh The other important thing about Link was that he was not just capturing an image, he was telling a story. That had to stem from his commercial photography experience, where the advertisement art had to tell a story about the product. Relative to that goal, he succeeded far beyond most of our abilities. I'm not denying his stuff didn't take a lot of equipment or time, and I'm not denying that it doesn't tell a story (I think I got that right). I'll agree with you that it is iconic. I just don't care for the staged look of it all. Just my personal opinion.
ChuckCobleigh The other important thing about Link was that he was not just capturing an image, he was telling a story. That had to stem from his commercial photography experience, where the advertisement art had to tell a story about the product. Relative to that goal, he succeeded far beyond most of our abilities.
I'm not denying his stuff didn't take a lot of equipment or time, and I'm not denying that it doesn't tell a story (I think I got that right). I'll agree with you that it is iconic.
I just don't care for the staged look of it all. Just my personal opinion.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
ChuckCobleighThe other important thing about Link was that he was not just capturing an image, he was telling a story. That had to stem from his commercial photography experience, where the advertisement art had to tell a story about the product. Relative to that goal, he succeeded far beyond most of our abilities.
Murphy Siding You just know that somewhere down the road some dernded fool will try to colorize some of his photos. I wonder what color they"ll make the locomotuves?
You just know that somewhere down the road some dernded fool will try to colorize some of his photos. I wonder what color they"ll make the locomotuves?
Yellow, with purple polkadots!
OWL's photographs draw me in and hold my attention for more than a few moments. They're more than train shots..they're a window into another time that is now long gone. Often the locomotives aren't even the most important element in the photograph..one that springs to mind..the articulated locomotive crossing a street.. the storefront and the lone cop who is walking his beat make the photograph and give it depth and character. This is what hardscrabble Virginia coal country looked like in the 50s..
BaltACDAnd still, with having, 'the run of the railroad', he would have no idea if he would need 'another runby' after capturing shot 1. I suspect he would have set up multiple cameras in multiple locations to be remotly triggered when he featured it was 'time' to take the shot on his prime camera - thus increasing the likelyhood of getting a satasfactory image.
O contraire! If said train was making too much smoke he would call the dispatcher and have it back up.
.
zugmannI love available light shots. Not as crazy about night shots with flashes. If not done right, you get a very flat image (remember the alien bee craze a few years ago? Lots of flatness abound). Years ago, I tired my hand at night shots. Never found much luck in painting with light. Always was better with available light.
Link spent a bit of time coming up with his night rig, such that he was able to provide the available light that looks like available light. This was with multiple reflectors, large flash bulbs and many yards of connecting wire from the camera to the flash locations. Strobes were not a viable option in the fifties, so he had to spend time with one or two assistants to set the shots up. Since he had cooperation of crews and N&W management, it was slightly easier for him. The skill part of the art was to end up with a picture that would print and look like the lighting was natural, available light. My take is that he succeeded for the most part.
The other important thing about Link was that he was not just capturing an image, he was telling a story. That had to stem from his commercial photography experience, where the advertisement art had to tell a story about the product. Relative to that goal, he succeeded far beyond most of our abilities.
BTW, the flashbulbs he probably used were about the size of a 100-watt bulb and had normal Edison bases. The flash equipment and supplies were packed into a trailer that he dragged behind his car.
CSSHEGEWISCHI still shoot film and I've had some luck with available light shots. Experience helps and I believe that shooting with film improves your skill and knowledge much better than shooting digital.
Semper VaporoMost of you don't understand night flash photography. You don't have to time the opening of the shutter with the flash... you open the shutter and start gathering light on the film... whatever there is of it... stars, streetlights, moonlight... very little is available, but you have the iris closed down so that the depth of field is very wide/deep, not much will reach the film. Then at the moment you want to capture some moving item, POW! you fire off the flash. That flash must provide all the light you need with that depth of field caused by the small iris opening. (Thus the dozens of flashbulbs that Link used!)
I love available light shots. Not as crazy about night shots with flashes. If not done right, you get a very flat image (remember the alien bee craze a few years ago? Lots of flatness abound).
Years ago, I tired my hand at night shots. Never found much luck in painting with light. Always was better with available light.
I've seen images by Link that were captioned to note that there was a flash failure. I would imagine that if it looked like all the ducks lined up it would be considered a good run. I'd pretty well bet, though, that any image involved several exposures.
Most of you don't understand night flash photography. You don't have to time the opening of the shutter with the flash... you open the shutter and start gathering light on the film... whatever there is of it... stars, streetlights, moonlight... very little is available, but you have the iris closed down so that the depth of field is very wide/deep, not much will reach the film. Then at the moment you want to capture some moving item, POW! you fire off the flash. That flash must provide all the light you need with that depth of field caused by the small iris opening. (Thus the dozens of flashbulbs that Link used!)
My brother takes photos of humming birds. He uses a black background and takes the photos on the east side of a building in the evening so there is little ambient light. He can open the shutter and wait for the bird to show up, then pop a 1/1000 second flash and get photos of the birds in flight and the wings are totally unblurred, you can even see the individual veins in the feather shafts and the "feathering" of the tips.
I used to "paint" a photo at night with a small flashlight. Put the camera on a tripod, close down the iris, focus on the subject, open the shutter ("bulb" setting) and then use the flashlight to shine on the parts I wanted to show up in the photo. I even walked in front of the camera while shining the light on something to the side (where I was not between the camera and that part of the scene). As long as I didn't let the side of the flashlight get in the view you'd never know I walked right in front of the camera shining the light on the scene.
I learned this technique at a Kodak Photo Seminar where the 2 presenters were Kodak employees that toured the world taking photos for Kodak (dream job!). One of them was in India and wanted photos of a 2 story building that had multiple arches on both floors. This was in a city that had no electricity for illumination of buildings. He put the camera on a tripod, opened the shutter and with his portable flash unit walked to the bulding, pointed the flash unit at each pillar between the arches and popped it once for each one. Then went up to the 2nd floor porch and standing behind each pillar up there, popped his flash unit at the ceiling. When done he went back to the camera and closed the shutter. Note, this was in a crowded plaza with people wandering all around, even stopping in front of the camera to peer into the lens. He had to watch the camera when setting off the flash unit to be sure someone was not between the camera and the part of the scene he was flashing light onto.
In the photo the building is beautifully illuminated! Careful study of the marvelous image does reveal that many people in the plaza were smoking... you can see reddish curved streaks where the lit cigarette was carried as the person swung their arms as they walked. There were also brighter red spots where they took a puff on their "adult binkie". But other than that, no people are visible in the photo!
Night flash "FILM" photography is fun... but like was stated here earlier, you don't know if it worked until you get prints back from the developer! I usually had the shutter open for 1 to 2 minutes and surprizingly, mostly got good results using the technique of:
"Gee, I guess I have painted the scene enough! Maybe I'll close the shutter now."
I have been unable to perform this type of photography in Digital... I don't have a digital camera with a "bulb" setting on the shutter!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.