Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Bill M · 6th September 2006, 11:23 PM

First let me say that I worked my way through college as a commercial photogapher, news, product, fashion and architectural. I used 35mm mostly, 2 1/4 square for weddings,4x5 and 8x10 for architectural and product.

I had a Nikon F. I got the Nikon F Photomic metering system when it first came out. I had stainless steel everything for processing.

All the top photographers had similar setups. This was in the 1960s.

One day I tried a Konica SLR autofocus. Cost maybe 25% of a simllar Nikon setup. I loved it. I sold all the Nikon stuff and replaced it with similar Konica. It was much easier and much faster than the Nikon. Just as durable. Lasted a long time.

I replaced the stainless steel developing equipment with plastic. Worked better and much smoother.

My customers never complained. They were very discerning and paid me a lot, so if they could have seen a difference, they would have let me know pronto!

I realized that the small 35mm negative could never give the resolution that a larger fromat would. Also no matter that super expensive lenses would work better as far as technical camera tests, it made almost no difference in outcome of pictures. The limitations of the 35mm film format resolution overweighed the super sharp lenses. Pictures made with the Konica were just fine.

What mattered was getting the right focus, angle, exposure, lighting, "instant of capture" --- NOT a super-expensive camera and lens.

Then I got involved in real estate for many years.

My recent return to the world of photography has been digital. I will never return to film. I could buy a whole Nikon setup, but I won't. My Panasonic DMC FZ-20 with a 12 to 1 optical zoom lens (36-432mm) does just fine.

One of my sons bought a Nikon DX2 12.4mb camera. A masterpiece of engineering. Big deal. I'd as soon take pictures of it than with it. Is it superior to my Panasonic? Sure! Is it ten times better? Hell no! Cost ten times as much. Are the pictures even twice as good? NO.

Shooting at the same 5mb with both cameras, I made pictures with my studio strobes and asked him to tell which were made with my Panasonic and which were made with his Nikon. He could not tell the difference, In fact he guessed wrong several times.

Let me be clear on something. Alan Maisey's pictures of his keris and other items are absolutely superb! Some of the finest work I have ever seen. But this has little to do with whether he is using digital or film. Alan is a perfectionist and his work is damn near perfect.

I don't use a tripod. I use White Lightning studio strobes that fire at something like 1/750th of a second, so I don't need one. I can move in close for a macro and out for a overall.

My lighting color temperature stays constant. Outside lighting changes.

My exposure is constant. Same aperture and same shutter speed. Never a difference in light quality or output.

My bottom line is that good photographers take good pictures. If you spend more time taking pictures and learning how light, focus, angle and timing impacts your media, you will become a better photographer than if you spend the rest of your life poring over technical reports.

It does take a good camera, but I think that you can do a great job with one and you don't need a great camera. Good is enough.

6th September 2006, 11:23 PM	#36
Bill M Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Georgia Posts: 1,599	Regarding film vs digital First let me say that I worked my way through college as a commercial photogapher, news, product, fashion and architectural. I used 35mm mostly, 2 1/4 square for weddings,4x5 and 8x10 for architectural and product. I had a Nikon F. I got the Nikon F Photomic metering system when it first came out. I had stainless steel everything for processing. All the top photographers had similar setups. This was in the 1960s. One day I tried a Konica SLR autofocus. Cost maybe 25% of a simllar Nikon setup. I loved it. I sold all the Nikon stuff and replaced it with similar Konica. It was much easier and much faster than the Nikon. Just as durable. Lasted a long time. I replaced the stainless steel developing equipment with plastic. Worked better and much smoother. My customers never complained. They were very discerning and paid me a lot, so if they could have seen a difference, they would have let me know pronto! I realized that the small 35mm negative could never give the resolution that a larger fromat would. Also no matter that super expensive lenses would work better as far as technical camera tests, it made almost no difference in outcome of pictures. The limitations of the 35mm film format resolution overweighed the super sharp lenses. Pictures made with the Konica were just fine. What mattered was getting the right focus, angle, exposure, lighting, "instant of capture" --- NOT a super-expensive camera and lens. Then I got involved in real estate for many years. My recent return to the world of photography has been digital. I will never return to film. I could buy a whole Nikon setup, but I won't. My Panasonic DMC FZ-20 with a 12 to 1 optical zoom lens (36-432mm) does just fine. One of my sons bought a Nikon DX2 12.4mb camera. A masterpiece of engineering. Big deal. I'd as soon take pictures of it than with it. Is it superior to my Panasonic? Sure! Is it ten times better? Hell no! Cost ten times as much. Are the pictures even twice as good? NO. Shooting at the same 5mb with both cameras, I made pictures with my studio strobes and asked him to tell which were made with my Panasonic and which were made with his Nikon. He could not tell the difference, In fact he guessed wrong several times. Let me be clear on something. Alan Maisey's pictures of his keris and other items are absolutely superb! Some of the finest work I have ever seen. But this has little to do with whether he is using digital or film. Alan is a perfectionist and his work is damn near perfect. I don't use a tripod. I use White Lightning studio strobes that fire at something like 1/750th of a second, so I don't need one. I can move in close for a macro and out for a overall. My lighting color temperature stays constant. Outside lighting changes. My exposure is constant. Same aperture and same shutter speed. Never a difference in light quality or output. My bottom line is that good photographers take good pictures. If you spend more time taking pictures and learning how light, focus, angle and timing impacts your media, you will become a better photographer than if you spend the rest of your life poring over technical reports. It does take a good camera, but I think that you can do a great job with one and you don't need a great camera. Good is enough.