DSLRUsers.com

This may have come up before but I couldn't resist starting a new thread after this issue was raised by Gerry in this thread.

I have copied my response to see what others think. Maybe you can share your journey in a few paragraphs (whether you are amatuer or pro although this may apply more to one than other)

surenj wrote:

biggery wrote: These were back in the days when I had only one lens, the 18-200mm, and shot mostly in jpeg, certainly made the whole experience easier imo.

True on both counts. I reckon most amateurs go through a few stages.

1. one lens/ one body/ JPEG simple workflow
2. Few slow zoom lenses / RAW workflow
3. second or third body (mostly unused)
4. Expensive 2.8 zooms + some primes
5. all primes (now zooms unused)
6. all third party manual primes
7. sell the whole lot
8. large sensor compact/ one prime lens - ?RAW
9. SLR (or whatever they are called these days) with one prime shooting JPEG
10. back to JPEG
11. One camera that they use with one lens.... Not so obscessive about technicalities anymore... Grainy/ OOF who cares!

Almost like a great story I am sure some have heard.....
A rich investor goes to a tropical third world small island on holiday. While he is lazying in the sun, he notices a fisherman who goes about his business everyday. He goes fishing for a few hours everyday and brings back some fish enough for his family and a little bit to sell. He finishes work at midday and goes home for a siesta. He spends his afternoons with his wife, family and in the evening visits the pub daily. At night, they gather around a fire singing songs and dancing. This repeats most days.
One day the investor pulls the fisherman aside and suggests a way to improve things. The suggestion is as follows.
1. Work in the afternoon as well
2. Ear more money for a second boat
3. Hire some employees
4. Eventually he will have enough for a fleet.
5. As the fleet grows he will be able to export to other countries
6. He will be the CEO/ founder of a large co-operation
7. He can move to the USA and expand
7. Eventually it will become big enough for an IPO and sell for a large sum of money

The fisherman listens to this idea and thinks for a while and says "But senoir what am I going to do with all that money?". The investory says "well, you can retire to a small island in the tropics, just have one little boat, go fishing everyday for a few hours, catch a few fish, have a siesta, spend time with your family, enjoy the pub and sing around a fire at night"
Well you get the picture.

A lesson I learned a while ago is that we always seem to be returning to the same point in our journey. But it is not really. We look at it with experienced eyes. And we learn the same thing again but on a higher plane. It is as if our journey through life is a spiral.

If you hadn't noticed, a Kodak Instamatic, ( can you still get film for them? Maybe not. Make it a phone cam instead) in the hand of a master will produce a better result than a Linhof in the hands of a tyro.

Oh I'm scared now...my journey is not unlike that described above.....except I dont really sell

1 - DSLR + Slow Zoom Lens / JPG
2 - Semi Pro DSLR + 2.8 zooms / JPG
3 - 2nd body / RAW
4 - add primes, 3rd body
5 - add third party manual primes (zooms mostly unused)
6 - add 4th body (converted to IR)
7 - add premium compact
8 - sell?

1....Folding 120 film viewfinder camera, built-in lens
2....Pentax screw mount film SLR with standard lens, later expanded to another body and a few primes. I think they all died.
3....Nikkormat presumably with standard lens, later expanded to 5 bodies, 7 primes, 3 zooms and a teleconverter, some lenses third party. Used all or most of the bodies with different films.
4....Cheap enlarger, later 5x4 condenser enlarger, 35mm/ 6x6 colour enlarger, 5x4 colour enlarger
5....Cheap tripod, large wooden tripod (both broke), huge studio tripod, carbon fibre tripod
6....Twin lens reflex (from 1937)
7....5x4 studio camera with 3 lenses, later added field camera and 4 more lenses
8....35mm panorama camera with revolving lens
9....6x17 panorama camera
10...Digital superzoom (jpeg only), later purchased one that shot RAW.
11...A4 printer, later A3 then A2 printer
12...Computer, twice replaced, currently NEC monitors and Drobo, laptop
13...First Elements, now Lightroom, Photoshop, HDR, panorama and other 3rd party programs
14...FX body, later purchased another body, 8 primes, 2 wide angle zooms and 2 teleconverters, all Nikon. Still use one of my old lenses. Always shoot RAW
15...DX viewfinder camera with fixed lens as complement rather than replacement to DSLR system

I don’t think I fit the paradigm. My last acquisition is a little like my first but few of the stages apply much.

Never had a slow zoom lens (and don't have a current normal or telephoto zoom). Always mainly shot primes and still use my current zooms. Can’t imagine going back to jpeg. I think film was on balance much cheaper and much less complex though also much less reliable. Probably won’t go back to film. I don’t think I’ve ever sold anything much though I’ve given stuff away. Don’t really have any commercial ambitions.

aim54x wrote:Oh I'm scared now.

It wasn't meant to label ayone! I was keen for everyone to share their journey from a gear point of view.

Mr Darcy wrote:A lesson I learned a while ago is that we always seem to be returning to the same point in our journey.

I heard a joke to that extent. Wife to doctor: "I've been married to the same man for 35 years" Doctor: "If that's true he can't be the same man".

Murray that's a nice account of your experience! Do you feel now that digital has surpassed film interms of enlargability? How about dynamic range?

Mr Darcy wrote: We look at it with experienced eyes. And we learn the same thing again but on a higher plane. It is as if our journey through life is a spiral.

I think that is a wonderful point and makes a very important distinction between the typical circle that alot of people assume we travel in.

I think its just all about your experience and learning process, I remember when first getting a camera, a s_ony P&S the main thing I knew was that just about any modern camera will let you get 90% of the good photos, its the other 10% where you really need he expenisve gear, filters, etc.

As for my journey

1) Get P&S and shoot jpeg, purely from a record point of view
2) Get another one when the first gets flogged.
3) Purchase D80 with single superzoom, shoot jpeg. very large learnign curve between DSLR and P&S, ie took better pictures with P&S for a while!
4) Purchase all types of lens, 95% secondhand, shoot raw with the intention editing, start looking for those perfect shots (still looking). Learn PP.
4a) take lots of pictures..
5) Purchase d7000...

future, will prolly streamline kit with specific lens based on what I have experienced.

Ok here we go...

1. Instamatic
2. 35mm rangefinder
3. SLR
4. Medium format
5. very basic digital P&S
6. Good digital P&S
7. D70
8. Added lenses
9. 7 years later and only 5500 clicks on the shutter, still D70, still waiting to outgrow it

If memory serves me correctly:

1. Pouva Start, with fold-up frame finder and 120 roll film
2. Exa 1a, 35mm, waist-level finder and 50mm lens
3. Olympus XA P&S, motorised film transport (!) and external flash module
4. Kodak Disc camera - the ultimate bling camera, negative size very similar to Nikon 1 sensor size
5. Nikon F50 with 35-80mm f/4-5.6 kit lens
6. Tamron 70-200mm f/slow-slower zoom for F50
7. First fast lenses, 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 AF Nikkors
8. SB20 Speedlight
9. Nikon FE with MD-12 motor and 55/f3.5 Micro Nikkor
10. Traded F50 for 180mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor
11. Nikon EM as "backup", never used much
12. More Nikkors, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 55/2.8 Micro, 35-135/3.5-4.5, 135/2.8, 300/4 AF, most 2nd-hand
13. Sold FE, bought FE2 (wow!)
14. SB27 Speedlight and flash-sync cord
15. First digital P&S - Kodak DC290
16. Nikon D2H (FE2 sold soon after)
17. Signed up to DLSRusers
18. First DX lens - 18-200 AF-S VR
19. SB800 Speedlight
20. Various ink jet printers, Bibble Pro, Aperture - printing remains a frustration (expensive and extremely time-consuming)
21. Sold many lenses incl all zooms
22. D40 with two kit lenses for my son, but I get to use it too once in a while
23. Phottix 3-head lighting kit (very nice)
24. 10.5mm DX fish-eye and 17-35/2.8 AF-S zoom
25. Nikon D7000, MB-D11 battery grip
26. 40mm f/2.8 DX Micro-Nikkor for son's D40 - interesting lens, I may borrow that a fair bit
27. Farewelled D2H.

I'm not detecting any cycles in there yet, but maybe I'm too close to see it.

Cheers
Steffen.

1. Early ??pentax (didn't know type!!) rangefinder (no meter) and waste entire rolls of film as underexposed etc 3 yrs
2. Minolta Vectis APS film camera - joys of a small sensor , printed EXIF data in the back of prints, small size and annoyingly expensive rolls of film and development costs! 3 more years
3. Canon A40 -JPG some manual control 2 yrs
4. Canon 350D + 18-55 - JPG
5. 17-85 + 50 1.8 - RAW
6. 430EX
7. Ebay radio triggers for Strobism + Ebay studio lights
8. 10-22
9. 17-85 breaks so replace with Tamron 17-50 2.8
10. Coupla manual macro tubes for 50mm
11. Canon 60D (desperate for video, flip screen , dissapointed by noise) + Another harddrive!
12. Perhaps 70-200?

Steffen wrote:printing remains a frustration (expensive and extremely time-consuming)

Not expensive compared to Cibachrome. wrt time-consuming: Are you profiling your monitor with a good colorimeter and do you have a reasonable monitor?

Interesting thread. My (short) timeline goes like this...

1. Early 2009 - 450D twin lens IS kit.
2. Didn't using the kit until August 2009 when I added a 10-22mm, 50mm f1.8II and joined this forum.
3. Discovered Lightroom & Photoshop and began shooting RAW.
4. Jan 2010 - Upgraded to a 7D and added a 24-105 and 580EXII.
5. Between now and then I've added 100-400mm, 100mm IS Macro, 70-200mm IS II, 50mm f1.2, 430 EXII, PW Flex & Mini setup and various accessories.

-- The Future --

6. Spend a lot more time with my gear!
7. Learn and experiment with flash.
8. Do more people based photography eg. portraits, street photography etc.
9. Keep all those lenses. I like the flexibility of zooms. I can't see myself ditching them for primes.
10. Body upgrade one day. Keep the 7D as a backup and for my girlfriend to use.

surenj wrote:Murray that's a nice account of your experience! Do you feel now that digital has surpassed film interms of enlargability? How about dynamic range?

I nearly replied earlier when power dropped out and I lost the post.

This is a much simpler question to ask than to reply to.

I don’t think anyone in their right mind now would print colour in a chemical darkroom. If you’re starting from film then that involves scanning to a digital image. The resolution you can get from digital printers is fine. I had a 5x4 image that tested that well. I took it from the top of a cliff in Ultimo, overlooking a pier where part of the wharf had fallen into the harbour and there was also a sunken ferry ringed by buoys. A normal sort of Sydney Harbour scene. On the edge of the next wharf, probably 200 metres from the camera, was a No Parking sign for boats that you could just read on the 16x20in glossy Cibachrome print with a loupe. I duplicated that some years ag in a digital print even though I would have lost a fair amount of resolution in the scan.

If you’re shooting film for black and white then the most likely method is to shoot colour, scan and convert digitally. However, the cheapest route to quality photography is to shoot medium format or better film and print in a darkroom. Cameras and enlargers are easy to come by, you just need space for a darkroom or access to a community darkroom. Not the easiest, not the quickest, probably not the best quality but the cheapest.

So in practical terms, shooting film these days is likely to involve scanning to a digital file. The scanning is a major bottleneck here. Velvia, correctly exposed using a tripod and all the best techniques resolves about 4,000 dpi whereas even the best consumer flatbed scanner (Epson V700) resolves probably no more than about 2,400 dpi (notwithstanding claims based on theoretical dpi). Nikon film scanners let alone an Imacon cost a lot more.

It’s possible to get good images with anything that can produce an image but in conventional quality terms I think 35mm film is obsolete. The equivalence is probably to a digicam. Loosely speaking, the potential for image quality in a good DSLR is probably roughly equivalent to medium format film (and probably better for a top full frame DSLR) but large format (including 5x4, 6x17 and larger) still has greater image quality than even a D3x. Digital cameras are easier to get a correct exposure on, much better for low light, much more responsive and much more scalable. Stitching changes the equation too, for static images at least. There’s nothing like the meditative process of large format though and that can translate into image quality.

Dynamic range comparisons are a touch tricky. Slide film only had about 5 stops for taking the exposure but stored a much greater range of tones in the film than negative film. Which is why slides were the favoured format for magazines. Dynamic range varies greatly by camera and by film size or sensor size. It also varies by ISO though digital has it all over film here so this is not relevant for the comparison. A D3s or D3x or even a D7000 has probably better dynamic range than medium format film; comments above on image quality broadly apply.

As a broad generalisation, digital has left film well behind in technical terms. More important factors, though, include good picture taking technique, good darkroom or post processing skills, imagination, vision and motivation.

Murray Foote wrote:

Steffen wrote:printing remains a frustration (expensive and extremely time-consuming)

Not expensive compared to Cibachrome.

I got this ->| |<- close to buying an R3 processor once

Inkjet printing in itself a sinkhole for money. First, you need at least a 6-ink printer, then those inks cost more than the priciest champagne, then it takes multiple tries until you're satisfied (at larger than A4 this means half your ink is gone). But instead of printing sparingly you have to do it frequently or else the ink cartridges or print head dry out and clog… The whole system is designed to keep your funds short

wrt time-consuming: Are you profiling your monitor with a good colorimeter and do you have a reasonable monitor?

Yes, that's the other side of the money eating coin. Colorimeters (I used Optix XR and now ColorMunki), scanner/printer profiling for all combinations of papers and inks, expensive monitors (I drew the line at Apple Cinema Displays) - all to realise that you'll never truly print what you see on screen. Actually, Cibachrome had a much better chance of getting close there.

I've eventually decided to forgo home printing, got myself a colour laser for day-to-day printing needs and take the occasional print-worthy shot (as in once a year or so) to a professional lab for printing. The not so print-worthy ones I print at the self service machines at Paxtons or Big W.

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:a 6-ink printer

I use 10!

Steffen wrote:inks cost more than the priciest champagne

Nope. You need an awful lot of champagne to make a good print with it. (At least a case per viewer!)

Steffen wrote:it takes multiple tries until you're satisfied

Its taken a while, but I am getting very close on the first go these days. Profiling monitor and printer and paper makes a huge difference. I used to have a lot more goes with Cibachrome. Strip prints. Usually several until I got into the ballpark, then usually a couple until it was spot on to my vision. That's assuming I didn't blow the timing, which happened regularly. Or failed to use fresh chemicals. Or got a hair on the paper. Don't even think to get me started on the enlargers, and the special drums, and the thermostats and the squeegees and cleaning the carpet when I dropped a bottle and it spilled. And the divorce settlement when the carpet cleaning wasn't up to SheWhoMustBeObeyed's standard.

Steffen wrote:But instead of printing sparingly you have to do it frequently or else the ink cartridges or print head dry out and clog… The whole system is designed to keep your funds short

Cant argue with you there, but you don't have to print quite as often as the printer manufacturers would have you believe.

Steffen wrote:I drew the line at Apple Cinema Displays

Good. They are crap. There is better ( and cheaper!) out there. This from someone with three macs several iPoods & an iPhone. I have an Eizo monitor these days.

I used to print Cibachrome. Way more expensive than my current setup. And a lot less convenient.

Steffen wrote:I got this ->| |<- close to buying an R3 processor once

I've still got a CAP40, though I've given away the enlargers.

Steffen wrote:Inkjet printing in itself a sinkhole for money. First, you need at least a 6-ink printer, then those inks cost more than the priciest champagne, then it takes multiple tries until you're satisfied (at larger than A4 this means half your ink is gone). But instead of printing sparingly you have to do it frequently or else the ink cartridges or print head dry out and clog… The whole system is designed to keep your funds short

It depends what your last printer was. Clogging used to be a problem with Epson printers but not for about 5 years. I had a problem when I had an R800 that appeared like clogging but was due to letting air in the lines when I left it too long to change inks. My later two printers haven't had that problem no matter how long I left it. No more metamerism or bronzing in any practical sense these days, either. If you want to be cautious you can just run a piece of plain paper through each month as a head check with little effective cost. In practice I don't even bother to do that and sometimes don't print for months at a time.

Steffen wrote:Yes, that's the other side of the money eating coin. Colorimeters (I used Optix XR and now ColorMunki), scanner/printer profiling for all combinations of papers and inks, expensive monitors (I drew the line at Apple Cinema Displays) - all to realise that you'll never truly print what you see on screen. Actually, Cibachrome had a much better chance of getting close there.

I wouldn't have thought you'd have much chance at all to match your computer screen with Cibachrome, though admittedly I never thought to tape a slide to the CRT monitor and give it a white backlight (of probably unknown colour balance).

No, when I look at my old Cibachrome prints, my success rate was nowhere near what it is now and too many of them I didn't really get right.

There used to be a lot of dodgy instruments and software packages for both monitor profiling and print profiling. I have an Optix XR which I used with ColorEyes (the ordinary Optix software was not much good. Optix XR Pro was OK but is unsupported these days, eg for Win7). More recently, I've used it with NEC Spectraview II. I got a Spyder 3, initially for my laptop, but I'm not convinced and I'll probably get an I1pro soon. I have EZColor which is a waste of time except for scanning but I got Pulse which is fine for printer profiling and I see no need to replace it currently.

It is possible to get carried away and excessively technical with printer/paper profiling but I don't take it that far. Like Greg, I can usually get pretty close first off, at least unless there are lots of out-of-gamut colours (some live music images). Where I need more critical accuracy or impact, I find Lightroom very good for test prints. I generally find that seeing what you really want is a greater problem than knowing how to get there.

Steffen wrote:I've eventually decided to forgo home printing, got myself a colour laser for day-to-day printing needs and take the occasional print-worthy shot (as in once a year or so) to a professional lab for printing. The not so print-worthy ones I print at the self service machines at Paxtons or Big W.

Whatever works for you, of course. I think volume of output is a big factor here. I calculated a few years ago when I was producing around 30 A3+ prints per year for Photographic Society competitions, it didn't take very long for a printer to pay itself off. However, there are two main reasons I have a printer. One is quality. I feel sure that I should be able to get better quality even than a custom commercial printer, taking the time to get it right where necessary. Ony caveat to that is that they may have better knowledge of different paper options. The second is ownership. To me, it's not really my work unless I print it myself.

Murray Foote wrote:One is quality. I feel sure that I should be able to get better quality even than a custom commercial printer, taking the time to get it right where necessary.

Murray Foote wrote: The second is ownership. To me, it's not really my work unless I print it myself.

Two excellent points.

Mr Darcy wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:One is quality. I feel sure that I should be able to get better quality even than a custom commercial printer, taking the time to get it right where necessary.

Murray Foote wrote: The second is ownership. To me, it's not really my work unless I print it myself.

Two excellent points.

own the process. simple.