First Digital Camera

I've decided that I'm finally going to delve into digital in 2015. My story is not unlike many of yours, I assume. At this point in my life, I'm simply not able to spend as much time in the darkroom as I'd like. For three years, I've been telling myself that I'm going to spend more time in the darkroom, but unfortunately it's an hour from my apartment and the inconvenience of getting there has put my photography as a standstill of sorts, since I only have a film camera. I'm under no illusion that digital is cheaper, so this is not a financial maneuver!! I've considered just buying a scanner and continuing to shoot film, so that's an option - or just buying a digital camera and one prime lens and a printer. Or I can just buy a scanner and printer… I'm not sure what do! Regardless, I want to print for sure.

Some points about my photography interests. I only shoot black and white (which is also why i've steered clear of digital, since it's mostly color photography). I print small, never bigger than 8x10 in the darkroom, so I don't necessarily need full frame. I'd be looking to make serious, high quality prints, yes, but nothing large at this point. I shoot mostly landscapes and nature-type photos.

From everything I've read, even the newer 4/3 cameras are capable of making high-quality images at this point, and aps-c is great. A friend is telling me that you can't get good dynamic range of out of these smaller sensors, so don't bother with them. I keep reading that the new fuji x-trans sensor has the best b&w conversion, ect. A year ago, everyone was going nuts over the fuji x100, now all i read is, don't buy the x100, buy the x100t, the x100 sucks. It's overwhelming trying to decide what to do!


Now, tell me precisely what I should do! Any advice you have would be much appreciated.

I use a D800 and I love the image quality. The resolution is nice, but the dynamic range is what really sets it apart. I would base my camera choice on the lenses that are available. For me that rules out the Nikon and Canon DX DSLRs since the selection of primes is lacking. If I didn't have Nikon lenses I'd look at the Fuji cameras. The lens selection looks nice, and the image quality seems good. Micro 4/3 also has a decent selection of lenses. However so far none of the cameras I've tried have felt right.

mporter012 said:

I've decided that I'm finally going to delve into digital in 2015. My story is not unlike many of yours, I assume. At this point in my life, I'm simply not able to spend as much time in the darkroom as I'd like. For three years, I've been telling myself that I'm going to spend more time in the darkroom, but unfortunately it's an hour from my apartment and the inconvenience of getting there has put my photography as a standstill of sorts, since I only have a film camera. I'm under no illusion that digital is cheaper, so this is not a financial maneuver!! I've considered just buying a scanner and continuing to shoot film, so that's an option - or just buying a digital camera and one prime lens and a printer. Or I can just buy a scanner and printer… I'm not sure what do! Regardless, I want to print for sure.

Some points about my photography interests. I only shoot black and white (which is also why i've steered clear of digital, since it's mostly color photography). I print small, never bigger than 8x10 in the darkroom, so I don't necessarily need full frame. I'd be looking to make serious, high quality prints, yes, but nothing large at this point. I shoot mostly landscapes and nature-type photos.

From everything I've read, even the newer 4/3 cameras are capable of making high-quality images at this point, and aps-c is great. A friend is telling me that you can't get good dynamic range of out of these smaller sensors, so don't bother with them. I keep reading that the new fuji x-trans sensor has the best b&w conversion, ect. A year ago, everyone was going nuts over the fuji x100, now all i read is, don't buy the x100, buy the x100t, the x100 sucks. It's overwhelming trying to decide what to do!


Now, tell me precisely what I should do! Any advice you have would be much appreciated.

Click to expand...

Now, tell me precisely what I should do!references
Asking this can only lead to discussions without end. Sorry, you will need to figure this out based on your specific needs and preferences.

hardware: Don't agonize over this, especially for your first camera. Any recent vintage camera with a sensor 4/3rds or larger can yield stunning 8x10s. Buying used from a reputable dealer like KEH is a good option. Make a prioritized list of features important to *you* before you start shopping.

B&W conversion: typically done in Lightroom or Photoshop. In-camera conversion means canned profiles and less
creative control. It also means JPGs, not RAW files. If in-camera b&w is critical to you, I guess you want a Leica Monochrom at $8,000 (body only)

What kind of film cameras do you have? Are you using 35mm right now? If so yours are like mine case and I decided to get a full frame camera that can use the same lenses that I have for my film cameras. Full frame because when I bought all those lenses I had in mind what kind of situation I would use which lens. Getting a full frame camera preserve that. While APS-C of the same brand can use the full frame lenses from your film cameras but the situation which you use them would be significantly different and it may not what you need.

I'd stayawayfrom scanning negatives but get myself an entry-level digitalSlr.Youget much better quality that way.Anyof the contemporary photo printersfrom EPSON OR Canon are very good.I made the move ayear ago and never reggreted it!

"Stunning" is a word that is often overused with digital—especially black and white. If you are coming from large format you are usually more concerned with making excellent prints with subtle details that you spend real time with.

Not knowing your budget, I'd recommend something like a Nikon-3300 or 5300 and good lens or two, and a tripod. The Fuji you mentioned is a good option too.

I've been testing prints on the epson 1430 with 6-channel gray inks for the past few months (and larger printers for the last 8+ years). But one of the things I have always been interested in is the best prints for people on a tight budget. The printer and ink combo will be under $500.

With digital and great black and white prints it isn't about having a great camera, great printer, or lots of inks. Those things on their own just wont get you there, but when you get all the pieces to work together you can get exceptional prints. The critical factor is paying your $10 per month to Adobe and learning Photoshop—especially if you are used to burning and dodging in the darkroom—the burning and dodging tools in lightroom don't cut it. There are a few things to learn in Photoshop—curves adjustment layers, layer masks, and the brush tool—and you will have all the flexibility and control you will need (these tools alone are worth the $10 a month—the free crap out there isn't worth the aggravation). Then as you start to advance you just build on those basics and start to introduce other features. The point is not needing to relearn different software as you progress.

For you and what you said in your original post, I'd say don't bother with the scanner/printer route. A good scanner and learning to use it isn't worth it unless you are committed to shooting large format and drum scanning—and those are much larger cans of worms.

PS: Take a look at my site. These are the kinds of things I am hoping to help people with in making the darkroom/digital transition.

I shoot both a D700 and m4/3 Panasonic GX1. I have made darkroom quality b&w 11x14 prints from the Panasonic using my Epson 4800 printer. One thing I like with the m4/3 system is that you can use your old glass with an adapter. Something you can't do with the Fuji I believe. Used D700's can be picked up for cheap and are great, but heavy. If weight and size are a concern keep to the m4/3rd's systems. Don't get to swayed by mega pixels.

A good scanner and learning to use it isn't worth it unless you are committed to shooting large format and drum scanning

I'm not suggesting the OP follow this course -- it's neither easy nor inexpensive. But it certainly can yield high quality prints from smaller formats. If you have film equipment you enjoy using, and especially if you want to make digital negs for alt process prints, this is a commonly practiced workflow . Large format negatives and drum scanning are not required.

Using a dedicated monochrome ink set for inkjet b&w is definitely the way to go, but there are significant expenses and plenty of challenges with this, too. I believe Adobe has posted CS2 as a free download. This has everything you need and it runs on your computer, not from the cloud.

Chan Tran said:

What kind of film cameras do you have? Are you using 35mm right now? If so yours are like mine case and I decided to get a full frame camera that can use the same lenses that I have for my film cameras. Full frame because when I bought all those lenses I had in mind what kind of situation I would use which lens. Getting a full frame camera preserve that. While APS-C of the same brand can use the full frame lenses from your film cameras but the situation which you use them would be significantly different and it may not what you need.

Click to expand...

I'm currently only using 35mm Nikons. I've spent the last year delaying my intense desire to buy a Hassleblad! I see your point though - If I'd go with full frame digital, then I can use the same lenses. The only issue I have with doing this is that I HATE the look of almost all dslr's. The df would be a nice option in that regards, although I'm not crazy about the way it looks either.

Richard Boutwell said:

PS: Take a look at my site. These are the kinds of things I am hoping to help people with in making the darkroom/digital transition.

Click to expand...

Thanks Richard, I'll take a look at your site.

pschwart said:

A good scanner and learning to use it isn't worth it unless you are committed to shooting large format and drum scanning

I'm not suggesting the OP follow this course -- it's neither easy nor inexpensive. But it certainly can yield high quality prints from smaller formats. If you have film equipment you enjoy using, and especially if you want to make digital negs for alt process prints, this is a commonly practiced workflow . Large format negatives and drum scanning are not required.

Using a dedicated monochrome ink set for inkjet b&w is definitely the way to go, but there are significant expenses and plenty of challenges with this, too. I believe Adobe has posted CS2 as a free download. This has everything you need and it runs on your computer, not from the cloud.

Click to expand...

I am drawn to the aesthetic of film. Two of my favorite photographers are still shooting film, Michael Kenna and Nick Brandt, and both are good examples that film is alive and well, or at least alive. Kenna still prints in the darkroom. Brandt shoots film, but prints digitally. The darkroom is the real roadblock in my workflow - I just don't have the time. Clearly, having a printer in my living room will increase how much I'm able to print, so I don't so much care if I continue to shoot film and just buy a scanner and printer. I mean, for the cost of a full frame DSLR and lenses, I could buy a scanner, printer, inks, and Ricoh GR, and still make out in the positive, and with the GR, open up the door for working with digital negs.

Just thinking this through out loud -

Thanks -

mporter012 said:

I'm currently only using 35mm Nikons. I've spent the last year delaying my intense desire to buy a Hassleblad! I see your point though - If I'd go with full frame digital, then I can use the same lenses. The only issue I have with doing this is that I HATE the look of almost all dslr's. The df would be a nice option in that regards, although I'm not crazy about the way it looks either.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with you. I bought the Df and while it looks good it doesn't look as good as my F3HP or FM. I do have an F5 bought new but rarely used.

I had similar wishes when I decided to go digital. My own preference is for black and white but it took me quite a bit of work to get there.

Black and white printing in the digital darkroom is quite a bit different from the chemical darkroom and it took me a lot of time, a return to the college scene, and a couple of workshops to reach the point where I think I know what I am doing.

Phillip is right, the hardware is not the important part of this journey if you are serious. Learning the software and mastering a workflow that produces what you like is critical. Buy a digital camera or a scanner and prepare to spend some time in front of a quality computer screen.

I started like many do, with the camera, then another, then a higher priced one. It took awhile before I realized that I had started in the wrong arena. So this is my advice.

1. Buy a digital camera that works with the lenses you already own. An Nikon digital body will get you started just fine. Just make sure you can use your lenses but a DX will be all you will need for quite awhile.
2. Nice, large, flat panel screen from NEC or Eizo, doesn't really matter. These are expensive, but it is an important purchase, so be prepared to shell out the money. And discuss this directly with a good technician on the phone. B&H Photo or Adorama can give your the low down and what type of computer hardware you need.
EDIT - Forgot, buy a good color calibration device with software for the monitor. Data Color Spyder or X-Rite Color Munki, doesn't really matter. They all work. Important point, buy one and use it.
3. Buy a Wacom Intuit digital tablet. This isn't strictly necessary but you will be doing some detailed local adjustments in your software and these tablets are worth their weight in gold. You could spend quite a bit here but my advice is to buy inexpensive now. Later, when you know what you like and don't like, buy whatever you want.
4. Buy a decent printer. Epson, Canon or HP, in that order. I use Canon and like it, but Epson has been the most serious about black and white so you have more options here down the line. If you only print 8x10 now I would recommend getting one that can handle up to 13x19 or so, just in case you want to give it a try at some point. The additional cost will not be much but be prepared to devote some counter real estate.
5. Buy Lightroom and Photoshop, either through the cloud or on computer, it really doesn't matter a lot at this point. There are certainly other options but these two are kind of state of the art right now and give you the best options.
6. Go to school! Time to learn. Best way, go back to college. 2nd best way, take an on line course. 3rd best way, rely on the on-line tutorials. I can't tell you how to do this but spending time in school will get you up to speed faster than anything else I know.
7. Practice...a lot. The only way you will really learn is by doing it a lot. Shoot a few photographs, import to Lightroom, edit in Photoshop, print from Lightroom. Change it and print it again. Freestyle is your friend. Buy a lot of inexpensive, double sided, matte, Arista 8x10 photo paper and do it over and over again. Use the same paper over and over again. Buy it by the case. Don't change paper for at least a year. Only by forcing yourself to do this will you actually reach the point where you know what you like, and what you don't, and how to get from what you don't like to what you do. Once you reach that point then you can experiment. Change papers, use different inks, play with different ink profiles.

Another Edit, sorry - Buy the book; "Mastering Digital Black and White: A Photographer's Guide to High Quality Black-and-White Imaging and Printing" by Amadou Diallo, but only after you finish school.

Now, that was as specific as I want to get. But feel free to ignore any or all that you aren't interested in. I did for quite awhile, but I didn't seem to get any better either.

Finally! OP asks a question that has the "what they are trying to do enclosed within." Both Michael Kenna and Nick Brandt shoot images which have a lot of smooth tonality in them. Michael Kenna's pictures in the fog are an excellent example.

1) Personally, I would easily choose film over digital if I wanted the delicacy of fog. I don't think digital does it very well.
2) I would suggest you stay away from 35mm, in either methodology. It's like going in to the process with 2.75 strikes against you. Large format is wonderful, and med format is excellent as well, especially for the size you are looking for. Both of the photographers in question shoot medium format.
3) Both photographers shoot carefully considered images vs quick street shots, and either could be done with a 4x5 or larger camera. More than the quality, most photographers that shoot large format express that they like the way of working with it, a bit slower, and yes, more considered. It's way easier to learn exposure and development with large format.
4) Drum scanners are not that expensive, especially if one looks for a usable 4500. Of course, one has to develop film, and that's a pain. I use a Harrison film changing tent and a Jobo in the bathroom. I do look forward to the day when digital gets more reasonable (cost) and better in quality, especially for b&w. A drum scanner might be overkill for a 10 inch print, an Imacon might do fine...
5) I agree with pioneer's ideas about using the same paper all the time, or for a long period at least, and the Wacom tablet. I would suggest that you find someone who is an expert at printing, and prints like Michael Kenna or Nick Brandt and pay them to look over their shoulder while they asses an image.
I would also add make the paper something like Hahnemuhle PhotoRag, Crane Portfolio Rag or Kozo. A good matte surface will give more texture to your images, which would be in that style.

Lenny

Richard Boutwell said:

"Stunning" is a word that is often overused with digital—especially black and white. If you are coming from large format you are usually more concerned with making excellent prints with subtle details that you spend real time with.

Not knowing your budget, I'd recommend something like a Nikon-3300 or 5300 and good lens or two, and a tripod. The Fuji you mentioned is a good option too.

I've been testing prints on the epson 1430 with 6-channel gray inks for the past few months (and larger printers for the last 8+ years). But one of the things I have always been interested in is the best prints for people on a tight budget. The printer and ink combo will be under $500.

With digital and great black and white prints it isn't about having a great camera, great printer, or lots of inks. Those things on their own just wont get you there, but when you get all the pieces to work together you can get exceptional prints. The critical factor is paying your $10 per month to Adobe and learning Photoshop—especially if you are used to burning and dodging in the darkroom—the burning and dodging tools in lightroom don't cut it. There are a few things to learn in Photoshop—curves adjustment layers, layer masks, and the brush tool—and you will have all the flexibility and control you will need (these tools alone are worth the $10 a month—the free crap out there isn't worth the aggravation). Then as you start to advance you just build on those basics and start to introduce other features. The point is not needing to relearn different software as you progress.

For you and what you said in your original post, I'd say don't bother with the scanner/printer route. A good scanner and learning to use it isn't worth it unless you are committed to shooting large format and drum scanning—and those are much larger cans of worms.

PS: Take a look at my site. These are the kinds of things I am hoping to help people with in making the darkroom/digital transition.

Click to expand...

Dick, Ilooked at your site again and don't understandhowa bunch of treestumps and Google Earth clippings help withthe darkroom todigital photography transition nor do I see that as stunning photography,sorry

mporter012 said:

Thanks Richard, I'll take a look at your site.

Click to expand...

save us from hours of searching.what is the great revelation on your site?

mporter012 said:

I'm currently only using 35mm Nikons. I've spent the last year delaying my intense desire to buy a Hassleblad! I see your point though - If I'd go with full frame digital, then I can use the same lenses. The only issue I have with doing this is that I HATE the look of almost all dslr's. The df would be a nice option in that regards, although I'm not crazy about the way it looks either.

Click to expand...

what does it matter what the camera looks like.

Ralph, what are you going on about? The guy has a site, I'm sure he's proud of what he's done, just like anyone else. Not everything is related to digital, but I see no reason to denigrate anybody. Three posts? You didn't think you got your point across in the first two?

The OP asked what to do, not how to transition into digital. There's some reasonable info on that site... we should all get along...

Lenny

Ralph and I just can't get along—God knows I've tried. Since I'm not one to air dirty laundry in public I'll just leave it at that.

If it wasn't painfully obvious, I was referring to my bwmastery.com site, not my site for my personal artwork, which I realize might not be everyones' can of beer. There is a whole lot out photography out there I don't care to look at either.

I started my digital black and white site last year with the intention of creating video tutorials and more consistent writing, but right now I only work on it while there are lulls in my paying scanning/retouching/printing work—I have about 30 posts and 10 short lessons that are in final draft form and just need finishing up with final editing and formatting, like optimizing and embedding images, keywording, etc. The initial writing is the easy part, its all the rest that takes forever.

Pioneer makes excellent suggestions about how to go about it. The majority of the work is burning and dodging, and the knowing where to stop.

"It doesn't matter what it looks like": spoken like a true retired corporate engineer. A point about liking the camera you are working with—even if it is just the way it looks: If the camera affects how you feel it will affect how you photograph and how often you pick up the camera to make a picture. A basic older Hasselblad and a Bronica (or Rollie 66) might have the similar specs, but i'd much rather use the hass every time., just like I'd rather use a sony a7r than a D800e (for looks alone too).

Richard Boutwell

Richard Boutwell said:

Ralph and I just can't get along

Click to expand...

Oh well....

Richard Boutwell said:

The majority of the work is burning and dodging, and the knowing where to stop.

Click to expand...

Now that's funny. I do almost no burning and dodging at all. A tiny bit at the end, if at all. I do most everything with curves and masking.

Lenny

lenny said:

Now that's funny. I do almost no burning and dodging at all. A tiny bit at the end, if at all. I do most everything with curves and masking.

Click to expand...

Me too. Its all curves adjustment layers and masks and painting with a white soft-edged low opacity/flow brush. I just refer to it as burning and dodging since its what I've used to in the darkroom and talking to clients (what they are used too also). I never use the "burn" or "dodge" in the tool bar (o). One of my posts in the pipe is why not to use the default burn and dodge tools (and not using a softlight/overlay burn or dodge layer like lots of people recommend too).

Richard Boutwell said:

Me too. Its all curves adjustment layers and masks and painting with a white soft-edged low opacity/flow brush. I just refer to it as burning and dodging since its what I've used to in the darkroom and talking to clients (what they are used too also). I never use the "burn" or "dodge" in the tool bar (o). One of my posts in the pipe is why not to use the default burn and dodge tools (and not using a softlight/overlay burn or dodge layer like lots of people recommend too).

Click to expand...

Richard, glad to hear it. I can also appreciate how someone would want to call it that... all those good memories in the darkroom and all. Of course, I don't agree so much, I tuned my exposure and development so I didn't have to burn and dodge, I got exactly what I wanted without it. I only burned and dogged only when I messed up - it was more of a negative for me than for some others. That's just a personal preference, however, I did plenty of burning and dodging for my clients.

Regardless I advise against using the term(s) in such a broad sense.

One of the things I notice most is that in many forums (not this one) people answer questions who have no business doing so. A while back when trying to figure out an issue I was having some guy posted a very authoritative answer that made no sense to me. I looked up his site and found out he'd been doing photography for 3 weeks.

I find the answers given to questions on photo.net, for example, rife with ill-informed advice, and often totally wrong. Constantly. I find myself jumping in to correct things so the newbies have a chance. I think accuracy is very important.

Just my 2 cents.

Lenny

I am all for clarity and accuracy, I just don't know what else to call it that doesn't sound intimidating to new users. Maybe I can coin a term and get internet famous. There is the guy who came up with the iSGM. . .

I can understand the approach to burning and dodging as proof of messing up in the exposure and development stage. It is similar to the "cropping is an admission of failure to see clearly at the point of exposure".

Personally, I see burning and dodging as nothing more than localized contrast control (coining it the ilCC method), and is just as valid a compositional tool as choosing where to stand and what to include in the picture. This isn't meant to be a "my way is better" argument in the slightest. I have worked for both types, and I see how people approach it differently. As for myself, there is no such thing as a straight print.

As for Ralph's comment about my photographs lacking (something?) or not being "stunning", or whatever he wants to call it. It is not completely invalid if one doesn't see past what appears to be the subject matter. It isn't about the tree stumps and it isn't about the map; it is about the things that make up the trees and maps. I love the way the OPs "what do I do" thread gets turned into the metaphysical make up of subject and photograph... Time for the single malt.

Thanks for the advice brother!

Hey Lenny, thanks for the thoughts. I've posted enough times on APUG, where I failed to articulate exactly what it was I was attempting to do, so I'm learning!