We agree that film and digital have very different properties. My point is that we should therefore conclude that workflows that worked very well in the days of film, may not be ideally suited for digital.
-
-
There are many different types of photography. Many people are familiar with 35mm SLR film photography. In that case, the first step was choosing which film to load into the camera. Many photographers would choose a target exposure, and pick a film that matched that exposure. if they were shooting with a lot of available light, they might choose ASA 64 slide film. If there wasn't as much light, they might choose a lower exposure, and choose a correspondingly faster film.
Of course, while this was common practice, it certainly wasn't the only possible workflow. Thank you for describing your workflow, rather than just claiming others were wrong, without any additional information.
-
And also no audio analogies, they should be avoided like a medieval disease. While I learned more on dpr about film processing than I ever knew being a minilab customer, I find that not very useful understanding digital photography
-
I don't understand. You said, "With film, you start by choosing the exposure." I don't. Many others don't. Not a single pro I was shooting with does. Ask french Picto printers, many of their clients didn't, they brought back film that was extremely hard to print, requiring "tremendous maquillage", and that includes major names in photography. What does "many different types" have to do with this? Film has latitude, film processing is a variable, printing is art, to ask the group I'm shooting to stand looking in particular direction is not a problem, I use Hasselblad and change film magazines, and so on, and so forth.
Totally unnecessary and in poor spirit, if you ask me.
-
I see the disconnect. You are talking about experienced, high end, professional photographers. I am talking about beginners.
High end professional photographers understand that f/4 is always f/4 in terms of exposure, and they also understand that f/4 will give them very different depth of field on a 35mm SLR than an 8x10 view camera (and different grain in an 8x10 print, even if both cameras have the same film and same developing).
Beginners shooting a roll of film, generally start by picking a film stock, and then trying to hit the same matching exposure (as reported by their meter) for every frame.
-
Equivalence isn't about using the camera in hand, it's about comparing different formats on the basis of five visual properties: perspective, framing, DOF, motion blur, and noise. So, we don't walk around thinking, "Hey -- I want to shoot this scene with a 27 degree angle of view with an aperture diameter of 10 mm". But, if we want to understand, for example, why a 24-70 / 2.8 on FF will produce rather similar photos as a 12-35 / 1.4 on mFT, then Equivalence explains why it is so.
So, in terms of practicality, let's say you wanted a 12-35 / 1.4 for mFT, but there wasn't one. Well, there is a 24-70 / 2.8 for FF (a lot of them, actually). So, maybe you want to consider a FF system to complement your mFT system. On the other hand, let's say every 70-200 for FF is too big and heavy for you. Well, there's a 35-100 / 2.8 for mFT which is way smaller and lighter than all the 70-200s for FF. And while, sure, it is equivalent to a 70-200 / 5.6 for FF, you can't get a 70-200 / 5.6 for FF, so maybe consider complementing your FF system with mFT.
-
Once in awhile I will use it for times that I am using in camera crop factor for increasing the cameras buff size or for frame rate ;)
-
Once in awhile I will use it for times that I am using in camera crop factor for increasing the cameras buff size or for frame rate ;)
-
See, I said
No, I didn't mean pros only, or I'd say so.
I'm talking about photographers taught right, you are talking about poor souls taught misconceptions, and generalizing how people are taught by saying "With film, you start by choosing the exposure".Many that I know were taught the right way, to start with pictorial requirements. Even the amateur exhibitions and clubs I visited had pictorial factors listed under the print, such as - f-number, shutter speed, lens, sometimes flash, light modifiers, filters, film stock could also be mentioned; but I never saw references to ISO/EI/processing.
Your opening with film only shows that the exposure triangle isn't the first terrible misconception in photography.
-
In a way, it is - because we crop ;)
-
One of the things I love about m4/3 is how you can have a 70-200mm equivalent lens you can hide in one hand.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYYfAgp00UM
Ok, it fails on most of the equivalence parameters, but there ain't no 70-200mm full frame lenses you can store in your glasses case 😁
-
I love that too. I have one of those. Goes in a little belt bag along with the body and a standard zoom. Room for one more lens too.
It doesn't fail. It does what it does admirably.
-
Oh yes, it's a splendid lens and very sharp. But some FF diehard is sure to come along and say it's not f/2.8.
-
It's funny, 'cause the 35-100 / 2.8 really is f/2.8, but it really isn't a 70-200. : ) But, we all know what people mean when they say "it's not f/2.8" -- they mean just as the effect of 35-100 mm on mFT is the same as the effect of 70-200 mm on FF in terms of why we care about focal length, the effect of f/2.8 on mFT is the same as the effect of f/5.6 on FF, in terms of why we care about the aperture.
Still, for sure, it's best to be accurate and simply say that the 35-100 / 2.8 on mFT is equivalent to a 70-200 / 5.6 on FF. So many mFT shooters take that as a pejorative statement, though, when it isn't. I mean, I bet there are many FF shooters who would love a 70-200 / 5.6 that was as small and light as a 35-100 / 2.8 on mFT!
-
Mine isn't f/2.8. It's f/4-5.6. I suppose that makes it completely unusable :-(. If this diehard says it's not f/2.8 then he's a a fool. If on the other hand he says it's doing the same job as an f/5.6 would do on FF then he's only telling the truth. But then sometimes you don't need what f/2.8 would do on FF, and having a little lens that gives the reach is just right.
-
Mine's not f/2.8, it's f/4-5.6 and it's really compact.
-
Well, FF most definitely doesn't have anything to compete with that, and never will! This is what has always befuddled me -- that so many of the mFT crowd take Equivalence to be anti-mFT. Equivalence is pro or against any format! It simply puts the numbers on a level playing field so that the pros and cons can be more easily assessed.
And the funny thing is, whilst the the Equivalence battles were/are raging, smartphones came and took over most of the industry. : )
-
- By bobn2 on April 24, 2023, 6:52 p.m..
