[rollei_list] Re: to Michael Eric.

First off, I just want to let you know that I've been following the rollie list 
for nearly four years now,  and I've probably posted a total of 5 times if 
that. This is the first post since my last which was about two years ago. I 
must say that in my opinion your post hit it right on the nose. SPOT ON. I am 
just a humble photographer myself who has shot with a 2.8 F an M2, 4x5, various 
film slr's  and now with a D200. I love shooting with film for play but to keep 
with the pace of todays standards in the retail part of the photo biz, this is 
where digital shines. Digital does have its flaws, but when you have deadlines 
to meet and the studio is waiting for your day's work, film is just 
impractical.  I'm not bashing film or digital either, I'm just speaking from my 
experiences and I can completely relate to what you've said about digital 
feeding your family. Don't have a family yet myself, but digital definitely 
gets my job done and pays my bills too. I just have to keep reminding myself 
that a lot of posters here are not WORKING photographers like you and I and to 
put up with such rubbish about digital vs film is just unprofessional and I 
DON'T mean you. After reading what you had to share with us, it compelled me so 
much that I had to write this myself. I think you just became my own personal 
jesus christ. Thanks for sharing with us a slice of reality from a working 
photographer's viewpoint. 
Happy shooting. 
Regards,
Michael Eric Sta. Maria  
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Eric Berube <pj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:10:07 
To:rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: FREE Tri-X


Will you agree with me that comparing APS-C sensor output and 4X5 negs 
is comparing apples and oranges?

Kodak is sending me two rolls of TMax one will be 100 ISO and the other 
400 ISO, both will be 35mm. What I said was my D300 will blow these free 
rolls of new TMax away at 1600ISO in a 16X24 print. Sure this was a bit 
cavalier and off the cuff, but I will not back pedal from it as an 
exaggerated claim. I stand by what I've said. I've seen the quality of a 
D300 at 1600ISO and know the grain in a two stop pushed roll of TMax 
400. A D300, properly exposed, will produce a better (sharper, cleaner, 
more defined and better colour/tones) image at 1600 ISO than any 
properly exposed 35mm film at 1600ISO on the market today or ever. 
Period. (and has the advantage of shooting in both colour and b&w at the 
same time.)

You felt the need to add that a D300 image wouldn't stand up to a 4X5 
neg at any sized print and something wonderfully macho about "kicking my 
ass around the room" and then suggested that I'd "back peddle and claim 
digital is faster and cheaper." I didn't (and wouldn't) try to claim 
that an APS-C DSLR could hold up to the quality of a 4X5 neg.

Amateurs may think in your 'digital default mode' (Hel, most of them 
think that their 12MP digicam is "2" better than my 10MP D200!) but any 
working pro who has shot digital for more than one season realises that 
Digital capture is most certainly not faster, and in no way is it 
cheaper (again, for a professional.) Digital's primary advantage is its 
superior quality in low light use and the far greater control that it 
offers me over my final product. IF I were a hobbiest with a 'real job' 
or a Fine Art photographer, I may have all the time and money in the 
world to spend in a darkroom on one or two prints a day, but I am a 
Wedding photographer and occasional Photojournalist. I need to create 
consistent work in marketable quantity and quality usually from less 
than ideal lighting situations (dark churches, no flash allowed.) If I 
were still shooting film and relying on a lab to produce this work for 
me, it would definitely be faster (drop my film off and pick it up when 
it is done) and wouldn't cost me nearly as much (considering the time 
spent in post = lots of money) BUT I'd also have little to no control 
over two thirds of 'my' photographic process and my low light photos 
would not meet my or my client's quality expectations. Basic economics 
simply do not support souping my own negs and printing my own prints, 
nor even having someone else soup and scan the negs. In the quantity 
that I'm called on to produce from the available darkness that I'm 
called on to work in, using colour or b&w film in any format is simply 
impractical.

I'm not here to bash film nor digital either. Nothing to feel threatened 
about or really to argue over.
Digital capture feeds and clothes my family and I LOVE film in both my 
Rollei MX-EVS and my Leica IIIf RD (and Retina IIIC and Ziess Ikon...) 
My local lab does a decent job of souping and scanning negs for me to 
play with one or two rolls once in a while.

I just can't feed my family using film in this market any longer as it 
doesn't meet my needs. That's all. :)

Peace be with you,
Michael Eric Berube
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: