Canon G9: The New Polaroid?
Back in the day, when the earth was still cooling and dinosaurs still roamed the plains, film-shooting photogs used to have to proof on Polaroid backs. Wasn't cheap, or convenient: $2.00 a pop, and two minutes to pull a print. That doesn't sound too bad until you realize how fast light can change at, say, golden hour.
I was talking today with Grayson Schaffer, an associate editor with Outside Magazine, and the subject of shooting film came up.
He surprised me by telling me that about 20-25% of their photographers still use film. Then he told me that many of the film shooters carry a Canon G9 to use as a Polaroid back.
Makes perfect sense: It has a wide range of lenses built in, can go full manual with aperture and shutter and has a PW-friendly hot shoe. Plus there's that big, juicy screen on the back.
Grayson said the photogs shoot piggyback with the G9, which shows them what they are getting on their (usually) 120 format film. This is especially important when lighting a photo. Seriously, how would you like to shoot film and go without that little helper on the back of your DSLR for a while?
(Me, either.)
Plus, they can email the digital "Polaroids" to the magazine while they are still on assignment, to let them know what's coming. Cool beans. Gotta tell you, the conversation gave me thoughts of dusting off the old Hassy.
I know we have some folks who still shoot film on this site. Any of you using a G9 (or similar camera) as a proofing back for the analog camera? Tell us how it's working for you, accuracy-wise, in the comments.
-30-
Get the Full Monte: Follow Strobist on Twitter.
Now Shipping from USA and UK: Strobist Lighting Seminar DVDs
Feed your brain: My Favorite Lighting/Photo Books
by David, at 12:09 AM.
90 Comments:
I've been using a combo of D300 chimping with an RZ67 and it works perfectly for lighting portraits. I recently ordered a polaroid back for my Bronica ETRSI just for kicks, something to hang up on the desk.
Actually, the Earth is still cooling.
Except for here in Arizona, of course!!
So they are emailing professional quality files to show what professional quality film will be arriving? I wonder what percentage of the time the difference would be noticeable, were they never to replace the digital with the film.
"Here's that film."
"Oh, right ... actually, we're good."
The Canon G9 definitely is one of the best point-and-shoot cameras. It's sort of an expensive Polaroid. I would like to get one but just can't justify the purchase. My smaller, cheaper Canon camera works fine for snap shots. I may need to wait for the G10 or G11. Just think how cool those cameras will be? I still have a Canon G3 with a whopping 4MP in a closet collecting dust. Anyone have an idea what I'm supposed to do with it?
RL
http://www.photographyandthemac.com
Hey DH,
So glad to see the subject of Film Strobin' on the main site. We had a bit of an off-topic talk this week at the Flickr Group about using old film rangefinders and strobes, good stuff inside.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157605980753942
I've been tempted into setting a separate, silver-based Strobist group for some time.
I use either my Yashica RF, Rolleiflex or RB67 + some digital for proofing on my college studio, it works just great. I'm about to get my first DSLR soon, and plan on using both mediums altogether. The high-speed sync combined with a stepless shutter (which can sync at all speeds) in some cameras is a real plus in the studio.
I initially bought my d70 to use like a digital polaroid. I'm still a huge fan of film and will use my DSLR in tandem with my medium format or large format camera in the studio. Maybe I'll post two photos side by side, one digital and one film to show how well it works.
I like the idea of the G9 but it's image quality is really not that great, however, if I were lugging a bunch of medium format or large format gear I'd definitely reconsider. I'm glad to read that so many people still shoot film.
Seriously. Stop reading my mind!!!! I've got this purrrty 120 camera from 1918 that I'm going to run a roll through this summer and I'll be using my G9 to get me in the ballpark.
Gee, I thought I was a little strange for having a tiny little G7 and a big Mamiya RB67, but I guess I'm actually just doing what all the other cool kids are doing.
It works much better than an SLR because you can just put it in your pocket, since the good picture will be taken with the medium format film camera.
There's a lot of subtle nice features that the G7/G9 have that make them work so well. Things like the 3 stop neutral density filter, the spot meter, and the live histogram.
Funny this topic should come up. I've been using my Canon 5D for just that purpose. Not primarily, of course. The digital photos are great by themselves. But once I've got everything looking the way I want on the 5D, I substitute my venerable M645 or RB67. I still love the look of film. Digital and film, together, make a great combination. I thought I was weird, the universe going digital and all, so I'm glad to see others doing it to.
I've been using my 20D as a meter to shoot slide film with a Mamiya RB: Provia & Velvia mostly.
And, I've had some pretty fantastic luck... I've been able to pretty reliably nail the exposure... much more so that with a light meter, which hasn't been so lucky.
In truth I'm new to this film thing... I'm a digital kid, born & bred.
I've been thinking about picking up something small to make it easier than my DSLR.
Also, I figure the next year or two is the last chance to shoot film: the one place in my province that still processes E6 120 only does it once every few weeks... and with less film being made...
I've used my G9 in this way when shooting film before. I kinda figured I wasn't the only one, but hadn't actually heard of anyone else doing it. I've also used my DSLR to check exposures when shooting 16mm motion picture film. Both work great, and give me a much better idea of what I'm going to end up with than an incident or spot meter.
I often wonder how accurate this method really is, and whether the digital camera is really showing me what the film is going to look like, but so far my (totally unscientific) results have been positive.
I am a photography major. So I have to shoot film for my classes. If I am using my strobes, I use my D300 to get it looking great. Then switch to my F100, with uses the same lenses and everything. Works perfectly.
I started to use canon G2 as digital polaroid with eos 3 when shooting 35mm film. then went full digital with 1Dmk2 until I bought Hasselblad 500c/m. I use both cameras depending what I want and with Hassy + flashes I do digital polaroid with 1Dmk2. but still use light meter too to get me right ballpark fast and fine tune with digital.
exposurewise it depends on the film how well digital version equals to film. slide, color negative and B&W all have their personalities. however if you use couple film types frequently you learn to adapt to the difference.
Heh, I just bought a Mamiya 645 and was plotting to do just this, albeit with my Olympus E410 or an old Olympus C770 point and shoot (Gotta love the flash shoe ;) ).
Certainly saves shelling out for a metered finder (or handheld meters), then polaroid back, then trying to stockpile the last remaining packs of polaroid film around these areas.
I've been using this technique in the studio and in the wild for a few years, though "just" with a DSLR to get the precise settings for my medium format cameras. It's not a new idea, but if you're carrying a load of medium format gear then a compact with manual settings (or at least one with an EXIF read-out) would definitely be a good idea, to save lugging two sets of kit around.
This makes even more sense when using a LF monorail - my G7 cant come close to the quality and control you get with the monorail - but for setting exposure and lighting you can't beat it!
Cool to see the usage of film being discussed here. I think more people should at least try to shoot film once. It's fun and if good, it's very satisfying, after such process.
It might sound a little decadent, but when shooting film with the Hasselblad, I use my Canon EOS 1D mkIII with a relevant lens. With this method, I'm always sure to have a good back up photo. (sometimes I use outdated film, which can be risky).
People, the difference between film and digital is sometimes HUGE. Can't you really see this? Not mentioning variety of darkroom techniques which greatness can be understood only in print of course. Even on the screen you can usually feel the air in scanned film. Air, air, air is the difference. Go see a slide show and you will instantly know why people still shoot film. Not to mention the uniqueness of some analog prints. Try to achieve uniqueness of digital print haha
Did you know that one can make huge, poster size polaroids? There's only one copy. No more. Like painting. Tell me it's not important.
There's totally different world in film photography. When you touch the analog print it's almost like you were in place instead of photographer. Imagine this. there's direct link through chemical and physical processes between you, the photographer and his subject. Digital? There are 0s and 1s, thats all. It's maybe still a great photo of course but it's lacking this particular feature. It's photographer's choice if he wants to embrace this philosophy or not. One fact is that you are deprived of this in digital. Of course you may not care about this. I wonder how many today's 20 year olds never even seen an analog print. Or visited photography gallery with quality analog prints displayed...
I love digital but one have to know the differences. They are there and always will be. They are in terms of experience, quality and philosophy. When I say quality I do not even mean picture quality but more like artistic quality. On the average they are marginal or unimportant
Ok, sorry about that post but it's all thruth no matter what anyone thinks or would like YOU to think. Only difference is if you can see/feel this or not and/or decide if it's imortant in the paticular case or not. Tell me, why do people buy paintings? It's cheaper to buy a print in shopping centre. There's sometimes something similiar with analog and digital. We are culturally used to the thought that painting has more to do with art then the cheap reproduction. With photography this difference is way more subtle and sometimes exists only as the theory behind the picture so it's no suprise it raises so much debate. People who will tell you it's all rubbish are the people who do not see the difference between the panting and the reproduction. Or they are people who make money on reproductions;) BTW I'm 29 not 80, ok? And I shoot digital. Mostly. Oh, and G3 is GREAT camera! Anyone knows why did they stop making them with tilting screens?!! This is stupidest thing ever! What is the point of having liveview with fixed screen?! g10 will probably have tilt screen to make you all buy them even if your g9 is still perfectly ok.
I second Geowulf...Phoenix is crankin ' out the heat man!
Had been using 40D in same way for M645 to shoot portraits and landscapes. Bought a PdS prism for M645 just recently ... love 120 film. Also using *Bay trigger on the M645 hot shoe - very cool.
I still use a lot of film but of the 35mm variety. I have used my DSLR or my A590IS to check exposure/ratios/placement on strobed shots or the natural/tungsten balance on twilight scenes. (I know a cell phone camera works about as well on those but the screen is so small and my eyes are so old) I thought I was one of the very few who did this but apparently not.
Although I understand the G9 is a great camera, the Nikon P5100 makes more sense as a Polaroid back (which is what I personally use it for) because it's smaller and it actually has a square format shooting mode ... so the image I see on the LCD of the P5100 looks more like the 120 roll film image I'm going to capture.
In fact, there have been several times that I liked the square format capture from the P5100 more than the film image I captured!
Cool.
I too figured others were doing this, but I hadn't heard of anyone else.
I still love film.
Talking about film & digital
Strobist newbies are getting confused with the use of ASA as opposed to ISO in your tutorials. I've always taken ASA100 = ISO100.
Would be nice if you blogged with ISO values or both (if needed).
Google searches on 'ASA to ISO' causes newbies problems.
I'm presuming most of our community are using/prefer the letters 'ISO'.
Your thoughts ?
I love my G9. I plan on using it for location scouting.
When I was in my first photography classes way back when digital photography was still out of reach for the masses (circa 1998), I had to learn the whole poloroid proof process. Then the instructor pulled out this massive digital SLR and said, apertures are apertures, and shutter speeds are shutter speeds. We tested the digital exposure against the poloroid and saved each to test against the film version later.
I would have asked "Why bother shooting film when you've got that perfect digital exposure right now?" but we were using the 4"x5" view camera with all it's tilt/shift glory.
Now I only shoot black and white film on an RB67, but I shoot much more color with my D200. (I never convert color images to b&w. Why bother trying to make something look "filmy" when you can just shoot film?)
Guilty.
I use my Pentax K10 though.
I'm thinking about a G9 just for portability's sake.
Great timing on this post. I've just bought a used F100, and were thinking of using my D80 for the very same purpose, but I couldn't really find any info of other people doing it.
So sad.
Back in the day, I used 4x5 polaroids while shooting large strobe-lit interior sets to insure corner to corner sharpness, and to make sure that there weren't any unwanted reflections in windows or whatever. Same goes for tabletop product photography.
However, in the field, and all other situations, I relied on my education and experience (umm and my light meter) to help me make decisions on exposure.
Yes, I'm 40 years old and I love digital, but it bums me out that the "craft" of photography is gone.
And to reply to poster named "chance," the G9 is a great camera but is not going to produce "professional quality" images that are suitable for color separated, offset printed, rotogravure or fine line-screen printing.
I'm not saying anyone should change, I'm just reflecting on a more satisfying time in our industry.
Someone just suggested using a D80 to proof when using their F100.
Sigh.
Film.
Wide exposure lattitude and dynamic range. Amazing color saturation. Archival by default. The only way to shoot B&W. An excuse to play with chemicals. What's not to like???
I do the same with my DSLR.
I was a die-hard film only guy until about three years ago, and used an old g4 for proofing.
Though I am a traditional fine artist (painting, drawing, & sculpture) I have always used photography as an integral part my process. Of course it is a form in itself for me as well, and that touches upon a question someone asked earlier: whether there is any benefit in shooting film when you've just taken a high quality digital image. That depends on how that image is going to be used, for most publication purposes no, it won't matter that much. But if it is going to be a real "flesh and blood" print, say as a piece of fine art, then there is absolutely no comparison if you appreciate the unmatched subtle nature of real film, transferred to real papers with light. It is the difference between getting a "Hallmark E-Card" and opening a beautiful hand written note from someone you care deeply for. One is the interaction of physical things with each other- The other is but ones and zeros arranged in a line. Both can be amazing and both have their purposes. Those purposes are just very different. If standing in front of a Sargent or Rothko doesn't affect you more deeply than looking at them in a book or on a computer screen, then go for the digital. It doesn't matter to those who dont need or see the difference.
I'm not a fan of the G9. I got one, then decided that if I wanted all the manual controls, I'll use my 40D. For the purpose in this article, I guess it's a winner. For regular shooting, not so much.
Yep, good buddy of mine who shoots black and white in 5x7 and 8x10 (I'd tag along and "play" with my DSLR on weekend mornings) has been using a P&S for years to help do initial scouting and framing.
Put it in B/W mode and you even have a decent proxy for what the scene's going to look like without all of that color getting in the way too.
I always use my D200 to check lighting on table-top shots where the final image needs heavy perspective/focus correction that only the 4x5 can provide. Film does surely still have a draw in an of itself though... I have been thinking of adding a Hasse to my kit. 6x6 negs do have a LOT more detail than a D200 file, and a different look that just cant be replicated.
Though I haven't touched film in more than five years, both your "Polaroid" posting and Mike Johnston's "Befriend a funky forgotten camera" article have got me itching to run a few rolls of 120 through my ancient Agfa Viking funky folding medium format
The "Polaroid" that I'll be using with the Viking? A trusty ol' Nikon D200.
I find the limited range of f-stops on the G9 to be an annoying limit when trying to do this for my large format shooting. Converting from f4 to f32 is a pain. I understand that with a sensor that's diffraction limited starting at f5.6 you don't want to use anything past f8 for image quality reasons, but as a light meter I'd really like to be able to simulate that 2 seconds at f32 exposure. I'll probably hand hold it, so it's not like I expect the result to be sharp.
To the person who commented about sending professional quality digital files to be followed by professional film... I've got a G9 and a 5D. There's no way I'd consider the G9 professional quality. Resolution is about like a 6-8MP DSLR, and dynamic range is limited compared with the bigger cameras. It's awesome for the web and smaller prints (e.g. newspapers), but it's not in the same league as the professional (or semi-pro like the 5D) DSLRs.
I do this all the time in my studio at school, especially when using the big 4x5 monorail cameras. Especially when you're still learning lighting, or trying a new technique, I'll pop out my D70s, experiment for a while ot get the light I want, then pop in the 4x5 to record a nice high-res shot.
I shoot with a hassy and 120 film about 99% of the time. I use a polaroid back to test my exposure but if I've run out of polaroid film I use my Nikon d80 as a exposure test for using strobes.
I find that the film tends to be roughly a stop brighter then the d80's lcd screen.
For some pictures check out my flickr: I often upload the polaroid shots aswell as the final film shots. There's some examples of this on page 2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jshearsphotography/
On a recent Grand Canyon trip I brought 1/2 film and 1/2 digital. The film was for either scenics shot with a Pentax645 or time exposures (something digital just doesn't do well for 10 hours, especially with the nearest AC 50+ miles away) shot with an Adox 120 folder, Kiev60 120 SLR and even an Olympus 35RC rangefinder. I used the D70s as a digital lightmeter for the scenics and matched f-stop and shutter speed. I shot high ISO and a 50mm f1.8 for constellations and then used those exposures to guestimate the long exposures. The reality was the film cameras set for f5.6 or f8 worked fine. The digital was for all the action/people and shooting a D200 w/5fps of 7 boats in 10+ big rapids basically paid for the camera in saved film costs. I even used a Canon A540 as a waterproof video camera as I rowed through the rapids. I was very pleased with the results from both the film and digital cameras. They each still have their place.
I've been using my D50 to proof for my Rolleiflex 3.5 and it usually works pretty well. The shutter speeds on the 'flex are a bit slow (I think; it happens over time), so I have to compensate down 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop with the aperture. Otherwise the analogy is perfect-ISO 400 on the D50 correlates with Tri-X or T-Max (400) dead on.
Just use the sunny f16 rule and bracket, why do people have to make life complicated and be so equipment orientated?
I was talking with pro photog Joel Grimes a few weeks ago, and we were discussing the merits of the G9's 2000th sec. flash sync capability. He was able to produce some really neat bright daylight photos with just some basic lighting. This being the Strobist, I figured I would mention it!
I have used my NikonD40 to check the exposure settings for my $20.00 Holga!! Now thats a switch!
I almost feel like going back to the old times of photography ...
D70 plus 5x7 monorail for product photography, works great!
Gee! you guys use really expensive light meters. ;-)
No really but I have been using a 20D (Canon) to check settings for a brownie box (120 roll film) from circa 1950 and a Yashica SLR from circa 1960. They are both such fun cameras each in their own way.... god I love that manual film wind lever on that SLR.
I shoot film with my holga 35mm and 120 and i proof my shoots with my pentax k100d, kinda large to be carrying around in comparison to the holga, but they all have different purposes :D
ill soon start using my pentax super ME as well in tandem with all those lovely film camera :D hurrah!
I assisted strobist Daron Shade on an automobile shoot a while back and was completely blown away by the quality of a 100meg scan of 4x5 Velvia as compared to the digital polaroid from his Nikon. I had sold all of my film gear a few years ago to afford to go completely digital but I now own a 4x5 Horseman and a Mamiya 120 system again. I have also started to soup my own black and white film in prep for digital output. I was amazed by how much I missed film now that I am back to it.
I think that the day of the hybrid photog is at hand. Great capture on film and scan to digital output. You can buy great film gear right now for so cheap there is no excuse not to try it. I'm happy and busy and making a few bucks scanning for people.
I was told by my local vendor that the G9 is no more. No longer available--so if you want one, get it now. I love mine. But I use my eyes,brain, and meter to shoot with my Mamiya 6.
I have never posted here before but have been lurking around almost since the inception..love this site..it is great and recommend it too plenty of people..
I bought a G9 yesterday, have taken a fair number of shots as real world as I can get with it in the last day or so, and think it is a disappointment. Seems like a damned expensive web camera.
I am a working pro, well sometimes working, but have no day job. Was a big jump for me to go to this machine, and am somewhat disappointed. Bummer. Five hundred bucks, on sale, but the upside is that Future shop has a fourteen day return policy. Might take them up on it. One more day perhaps.
Nice work on the site David, and real great too see you have hooked up with McNally in a big way. You seem to be each others number one fans..cool..
Dear David,
I have always used a Dxxx (a D300 these days), to proof a Yashica 124G TLR, medium format camera. I prefer photographing with the D300, but if its very high resolution I want, then the Yashica is dusted off and rolled out.
I use the D300 for proofing, because, the Yashica has a light meter which uses a quirky and not so available 1.35 volt battery. I have started to not rely on it too much these days, instead the D300 or a Sekonic L308s meter does my metering.
Ronnie
---
http://www.propix.in
>>> Seriously, how would you like to shoot film and go without that little helper on the back of your DSLR for a while?
I have no problem with that. Shooting film is nothing mysterious if you know what you are doing and have a flash meter and a polaroid back. I've shots thousands of photos with studio flash and a no polaroid and have great shots to show for it. The main advantage of digi over film is the ability to know the shot is in the can. I have had the lab screw up a roll - or yours truly not load the film back right and not get any shots - so for those reasons digi is better. I'll take the latitude of film over digi any day.
If all you want a digital is to judge exposure then why not use a Canon A470?
Much cheaper and lighter than a Sekonic.
AS a matter of fact I use my sony alpha to measure "distance" before I shot my Rollei 35 whenever I'm not preety sure of the distance to the subject when using small apertures. That means that the DOF will be really swallow and I won't like out-of-focus images and even worse, to notice until I develop the film.
This is funny! I use my DSLR while helping my high school daughter in her film class. My daughter finds the shot she likes, then I shoot it with my DSLR and tell her what to set her film camera at. With multiple flashes popping, it's just an easy way to check stuff out before the film is exposed.
Bill Lawson
i just use my Canon 40D for checking the exposure when using the hassy or mamiya tlr. i always have it with me so it's not like it is extra to carry per se... otherwise it would be one heavy lightmeter
I use my 20D to nail the exposure with my Holga and 120 HP5. I'm making contact sunprint cyanotypes with the Holga- it's a lot of fun!
I was actually doing some modeling not to long ago, and that's what the creative director was using to scope places, and lighting then would give the photog some of his ideas when he wasn't shooting.
Granted the photographer was shooting digital, I thought it was a great idea, and I'm in the market for a PNS cam and I think the G9 is going to be it.
...i shoot film sizes from 35mm to 8x10 inch..(digital is cool but i don't like the look)...i was never a great fan of polas and now use instead the Canon D5 for doing all the fine tuning especially i have Velvias in my P2... ;-)
I started using a digital camera as a proof for a few months now and love it. It is cheaper than polaroid and i have a digital back up with all my info on it so I dont have to write it down. I love film and with using my digital to proof the prints, I feel I get the biggest bang for my buck.
Hi There Dave,
Nice blog this time, again, but more interesting than usual, at least for me. I use a Canon EOS5 for the silver quality stuff (much as you use the G9 which I can't afford) and an EOS5D for digi, (which is why I can't afford the G9, but it is for sure next on the list!). All I need now, apart from the G9, is a couple of 580EX2's or 430's. Oh yes, and to be good like you lot are!
This thread is a riot!
I use my Hassy to remind me just how much of a complete HASSLE shooting film is; how inconsequential any resolution advantage it USED to have is; and how much time and money I used to waste. I shoot a roll every time I read threads like this just to remind myself of the beauty and creative freedom digital allows me... of course, I have a friend nearby with an old Polaroid Land Camera taking shots of me enjoying the heck out of my 1DS Mk III.
Cool idea, I used my family's G3 for this and a 4x5. I loved the previsualizing in BW.
I have used my 1dII about a year ago to do the same. Have found that to match the view to film you need to adjust the settings contrast settings, etc to match the film. Astia needed things at neutral, low contrast, and screen at 5 on brightness.Velvia was opposite..
Somehwere I had a cheat sheat to help me out. It just to heavy to do that with a dslr, so hearing that the g9 is good, I will have to jump back in.
Chris P
I had been just about ready to e-bay my film cameras when I bought a DP1. The images reminded me of what I really like about film and now I once again have a high film / developing expense. I primarily use an xPan and to a lesser extent MF. I use the DP1 and a Hoodman Loupe to check composure, lighting, exposure, shadows etc. What I haven't used since April is any of my Nikon DSLR equipment (except for speedlights).
I have seen other photographers use G9s and have to admit coveting the LCD screen if not the images.
Charles Maclauchlan
I've used a Nikon D200 as a very expensive lightmeter for a couple of Hasselblads (203FE, SWC). In general, I have found it to be in accordance with the Hasselblad meter in the 203FE.
Recently bought a G9 after hearing only good things about it. Easier to carry although I'm still getting used to the shutter lag and delay. Will probably leave the Nikon home now.
To parsenome I also find the limited f-stop range a bit annoying although I think that's what the ND filter option in the G9 is for. Anybody has experience using that option?
Definitely. I use a Rebel XT as a lightmeter for 4x5 (and soon, 8x10). The tonal response is VERY close to Astia. If I'm shooting color negative film, I set the ISO of the XT a stop lower (I tend to rate C41 a stop lower) and know that if I'm seeing a little clipping in the histogram, I'll be fine.
Digital images are fine for the web and small prints, but I wouldn't go any larger than about 10x15". The tonal quality you get from large format is still totally unsurpassed. Scanning 8x10 at 2400dpi on a cheap flatbed scanner gets you a 450 megapixel image. If you need more, you can do a drum scan. :)
Wait...how am I supposed to do emulsion transfers with a G9?
I just picked up a G9 and love it! Nice little camera.
A while ago at a protest in London I say a photojournalist with a 1D on each shoulder whip out a G9 to take photos. Seems that it's not just a Polaroid replacement, but a work horse for some.
Anonymous said:
_________________________________
"I use my Hassy to remind me just how much of a complete HASSLE shooting film is; how inconsequential any resolution advantage it USED to have is; and how much time and money I used to waste."
_________________________________
As it has been said already, if your motivation is cost consideration in commercial application, then of course, digital is the way to go.
That is not what people are talking about. They see and appreciate the difference between the subtle, organic, "realness" of film, ass apposed to the sterile, limited nature of digital. There will always be clients who see and appreciate the difference and want film for those reasons. It is about the intrinsic aesthetic quality and "organic" authenticity that is not possible with digital. With film you have natural physical substances and forces interacting organically on a molecular level. Not so with digital, where you have a limited number of little squares or dots that have to be specifically assigned only one of three colors. (RGB or CMY). Please don't misinterpret me; I love digital- for its appropriate purposes. The fact is that digital cannot provide the same qualities as film. They are not the same media, they are fundamentally different.
It comes down to this: if you cannot see or comprehend a difference, or you do not care about the aesthetic motivations, then it doesn't matter. Just realize you don't understand the difference.
@ Anonymous:
"I use my Hassy to remind me just how much of a complete HASSLE shooting film is;"
PLEASE feel free to send me that utterly ussless piece of crap Hasselblad of yours!
Some of us still appreciiate the artistic quaility of film.
@ everyone else:
I think some 'left brained,' e.g. non-creative minded people simply look at this issue from a logic standpoint, and not from an artistic one. I absolutely LOVE the look of a good Hasselblad 6x6 image.
I think
I haven't been using P&S for proofing, but I have been carrying around a Canon A590, a Zeiss Ikonta 6x6 folder, and a handheld meter for the Zeiss. Two days ago, it occurred to me that the meter in the Canon is remarkably good and put the handheld meter back on the shelf. Duh!
This is in response to BTR's comment:
You are mistaken in your understanding of digital photography.
The CCD and CMOS image sensors inside digital cameras are actually ANALOG devices that respond to light and produce an analog signal which is digitized and converted into an image file (hence the phrase, digital photography).
To say it's nothing but 0's and 1's simply isn't true.
This being said, I don't judge an image by the medium used to create that image.
A great photo is a great photo is a great photo.
This is a really cool idea, I've used my D200 in the studio but never thought of a digicam on location. Ricoh GR digital and Contax 645 it is :) The Ricoh has proper apertures too which is a bonus.
Do anyone think a new one will be announce at Photokina? Life span seems about right.
Cheers!
Damon
http://photoinduced.com
i'd like to have a g9, but for now i just use my canon digital body as a "polaroid" to my canon film body. the advantage is, the same lenses work on both.
although the digital body (w/o lens) is bigger and heavier than the g9, it does the same job as the g9 would.
but - the g9 would be much handier if i was just out and about and didn't want to lug a whole system.
dave
davewrightphoto
I'm still using my G7, even to the point of "forgetting" to haul my brace of Nikon DSLRs out of the cupboard. Canon have built a true classic with this series.
I have a G9 and love it. I don't shoot much film anymore unless it's in my Holga, but the G9 is easy to carry around and take on trips and doubles as both a snapshot camera and a camera I can get damn nice photos with, my flickr page is full of photos I shot with it and it was my main camera on my trip to Italy this summer. I choose it because it was my honeymoon and I didn't want my wife to grow impatient with me working while on vacation. Turns out I can do well enough with it that I still did a good piece of shooting though.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/66312989@N00/
I have used it a couple times at work. I shoot Nikon and used a flash cable with no mods and a SB800, and I've used it with remotes also. The high-speed synch rocks.
Response to DW:
Of course the sensor itself is an Analog device. All physical energy (sound, light, etc.) has to be recorded by an analog receiver in order to be sensitively recorded. The crucial point is, as you said, it is then translated into a digital format.
It does not matter what the original source of an image, the instant it is translated into digital format information in the image is fundamentally changed and lost. The resulting image, regardless of how many megapixels, is recorded digitally and IS comprised of 1s and 0s. There is NO way around this. Yes, of course a great photo is a great photo. No one is arguing that. I have seen many amazing digitally taken or produced images. That, again, is not the point. The point is that you loose an organic quality and possible range and subtlety with digital as apposed to Film. It is a question of the purpose for the image: it all about application. If you cannot achieve certain results with a certain media, then you MUST make judgment on how that image is produced.
Once again- if you do not know the difference, or cannot see it, or don't care about it, or it doesn't affect your purpose, then by all means use digital.
I have used my 40D alongside my Yashicamat-D & Rollei in leiu of a light meter, but it is cumbersome to carry both. I've been kicking around the idea of a G9 that I could carry everywhere, if I could use it alongside my TLR's, that would be very helpful.
And the fact that this is the Strobist blog, I can switch out my Cactus transmitter from the G9 to the TLR after I've got the lighting just right (or be a big spender and get another transmitter).
This is a good idea. Please read an excelent article about this (How to Use a Digital Camera as an External Light Meter):
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/meters-digicam.htm
I use my D70 as a polaroid for my 4x5 -- here's a link to a car photo I shot strobist style, both the final image and the 'polaroid' --
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daronshade/2455070695/
Without the screen..
Someone do seem to have the idea in this camera, though it says "separate chimp-screen".
I've found the G9 to be a great "always" camera, and first read about it right here on Strobist. When I finally do make some attempts in the film world, I'll chimp with my G9 before I waste any film.
Just before I took off on a motorcycle vacation, the G9 won out over the 5D for space's sake. It won again when I went to NYC this past weekend. Definitely a great buy, and a lot easier to haul around than a full SLR.
Hey y'all! Well, I am an audio guy, but one night the shutter bugs got me and I started snapping pictures like there was/is no tomorrow. After very quickly out-growing a couple P&S's I got a D50, but then I wanted a P&S I could carry, but still "teach myself" photography basics and play with manual controls etc.....
BAM! G9!
I got a G9 and was initially not super happy with image, but tweaked till I was happy and confident with it. I did notice that the colors on the LCD during preview do not really match what I see on my monitor at all sometimes....
Then I found the handling to be awkward and noticed a grip and thumb piece which I was looking at...
Then I noticed dust under the glass in the lens. I took great pains to handle it with care and protect it all times etc...I was baffled as to how this could have happened. I was freaked....I could not get the dust out...I have owned many P&S cameras and never had an issue like this...then I spend 4 bills on the G9 and in like 4 weeks I have a spot on all my images....THEN I noticed another speck of dust inside the lens several days later!
Then I found this http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=27198906
I have sent my G9 in and I hope they fix it, but now I find myself "afraid" to use my G9! That is not conducive to picture taking.....
So while I love the G9 and it seems to stand alone in many areas, I feel like normal operation causes a critical issue and I find myself back to the DMC-TZ3.....hmmm
Hey y'all! Well, I am an audio guy, but one night the shutter bugs got me and I started snapping pictures like there was/is no tomorrow. After very quickly out-growing a couple P&S's I got a D50, but then I wanted a P&S I could carry, but still "teach myself" photography basics and play with manual controls etc.....
BAM! G9!
I got a G9 and was initially not super happy with image, but tweaked till I was happy and confident with it. I did notice that the colors on the LCD during preview do not really match what I see on my monitor at all sometimes....
Then I found the handling to be awkward and noticed a grip and thumb piece which I was looking at...
Then I noticed dust under the glass in the lens. I took great pains to handle it with care and protect it all times etc...I was baffled as to how this could have happened. I was freaked....I could not get the dust out...I have owned many P&S cameras and never had an issue like this...then I spend 4 bills on the G9 and in like 4 weeks I have a spot on all my images....THEN I noticed another speck of dust inside the lens several days later!
Then I found this http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=27198906
I have sent my G9 in and I hope they fix it, but now I find myself "afraid" to use my G9! That is not conducive to picture taking.....
So while I love the G9 and it seems to stand alone in many areas, I feel like normal operation causes a critical issue and I find myself back to the DMC-TZ3.....hmmm
Hi,
I shoot mainly 4x5 film and have for a long time used a pretty bad Olympus Evolt camera for proofing. It works pretty well for daylight and fairly well for daylight mixed with strobe, which is the main lighting I do when daylight isn't enough.
I just bought the G9 yesterday and was quite disgusted to find that it only goes down to f8? I hardly ever shoot this wide open, so I'm frustrated that I'll now have to sit and still figure the exposure out in my head. Beyond that, when shooting with daylight and strobe, I often have the strobe powered above f8, so this camera will be of no use to me for proofing in this situation. I will go back to the Olympus I guess. That's all I use that Olympus for anyhow. It's a really bad camera otherwise.
There aren't any customs settings on that g9 that allow the f-stop to go above f8 are there?
I think the G9 (as well as other point-and-shoot cameras) is restricted to f8 due to the density of the pixels. No point in having smaller apertures as the diffraction would ruin the photograph. Even in a 1DsIII the diffraction starts blurring the photo at f-stops above 8.
Post a Comment
<< Home