|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| . | |||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rangefinder
Magazine Digital Photography: by
John Rettie
I was recently
perusing a forum on www.robgalbraith.com when I came across a photographer
who said he’d gone back to using film. It wasn’t that
he was upset by the quality of images obtained by digital cameras
as much as he couldn’t handle the change in his workflow. On the other hand, the majority of photographers who have switched to digital enjoy the change in workflow. Labs are no longer needed since images are “processed” immediately on capture, and if prints are required, these can be done on a low-cost printer. For those who enjoy the artistry involved in photography, digital is a godsend since images can be retouched and modified with much less fuss on a computer than in a darkroom.
I guess it just goes to show that there are two sides to a debate beyond the obvious. I have not had one regret since going fully digital four years ago. I have only had to shoot four rolls of film since buying a digital SLR back in July 2000. Although my old Canon EOS-1n film camera has not been fired since June 2002 I don’t really want to sell it—just in case I get an urge to shoot a roll of film for nostalgic reasons or I have a client insisting on film. There are still some companies and magazines insisting on film—particularly many stock photo agencies. However, it is fascinating to read that Corbis has stated it will no longer accept anything other than digital submissions from its photographers after October 2004. It is not precluding photographers from shooting on film, but they will have to scan images and submit digital files. What’s more, Corbis is saying that scanned files need to be much larger than ones obtained directly from a digital camera. The company claims scanned files tend to have a loss of quality compared to ones obtained directly from a digital camera. It has various minimum sizes ranging from 50MB for high-end scanned images for fashion and advertising to any size for news images. I believe this claim indicates that image quality is no longer an issue with digital imaging. There are now enough digital cameras on the market that supply high enough image quality for all the different facets of the marketplace. From here on out, features and pricing will determine one’s choice in digital cameras, as much as anything. The quality of pixels will become more important than the number.
This phenomenon was brought home to me while I was testing the new Canon EOS–1D Mark II a few weeks ago. As you can read in “First Exposure: Canon EOS 1D Mark II” (page 66), the camera impressed me. It delivers on everything one needs in a digital SLR camera. It’s incredibly fast, totally responsive and ruggedly built. Yet it does have some shortcomings. As I noted in my review, Canon has added some new features to make life easier for the pro, such as image magnification on the rear LCD and video out for viewing on a TV screen. It’s interesting to find these features being adopted on a professional camera after they’ve been available on consumer cameras. I guess pros didn’t see a need for the new features until they’d experienced them on consumer cameras and discovered how useful these “consumer” features can be, so now designers of pro cameras have added these features. As an aside, I remember a few years ago that an engineer told me pros would never want a LCD monitor on their camera to review images. “After all,” he opined, “pros are more confident in their ability to get the image right first time, so they don’t need to check an image right after capture.” Nowadays, most of us will agree that chimping is one of the most important attributes of a digital camera.
One feature on the Mark II that I find awkward is changing the ISO. On a digital camera, one can change the ISO rating from frame to frame if required. Consequently, many photographers are changing ISO in difficult light situations rather than adjusting shutter speed or aperture. This is much easier to do on the much less expensive EOS-10D camera than on the Mark II. It’s my belief that Canon needs to introduce a high-end pro camera with features tuned to operate most efficiently on a digital camera rather than just be bound by tradition to make a camera identical in operation to older film models. I met up with a wedding photographer back in May who told me she uses a couple of 10D cameras regularly for shooting. Although she has a 1D, she finds she only uses it as a backup camera because she does not like the weight of the 1D and finds it less intuitive to use. Image quality was not an issue. In fact, she is more than happy with images captured on the 10D. At the same event, Douglas Kirkland gave a demonstration on glamour photography using a 10D with it hooked up to a TV monitor for displaying images live to the audience. The 1D does not have this option, and he had not yet gotten hold of a 1D Mark II. Nonetheless, he had no problems using the 10D instead of a 1D. Apart from the increased ruggedness and operational speed of the 1D Mark II, I feel that for many photographers there is not a need to spend another $3000 for a Mark II compared to a 10D. Incidentally, I conducted an interesting test with a selection of photographs I took at the same time on the Canon EOS-1D Mark II, my own EOS-10D, a Fujifilm S20 Pro and an Olympus E1. I produced 8x10 prints on an Olympus P-440 dye sub printer (see images on page 64) and asked three people which print they liked best. I also did a blind test myself. I was amazed—all of us picked the photo captured on the S20 as the best one, followed by prints from either the 1D or the 10D. I realized that the Fuji camera produced the “best” image because it was the sharpest-looking one! It’s a consumer camera, and sharpening is automatically applied in the camera—whereas the other three are pro cameras, which produce unsharpened images. I then sharpened the images in Photoshop and printed them out again. This time it was an even split between the S20 and the Mark II cameras for the best print. Although it was an unscientific test, it proved to me that if you’re going to make regular prints or reproduce images up to letter size, a six-megapixel camera is adequate for the job. Once I zoomed in on the images on the computer, it was immediately apparent that the Mark II produced the best image detail, followed by the 10D, the E1 and lastly the S20. We have to remember, though, that when people view a print they are not normally studying images at the pixel level. Image Rescue For added peace of mind, it’s worth spending $39.99 to have Image Rescue at the ready. It works on any brand or type of memory card and will work on a Mac or a PC.
Quick Book Review:
Considering the cost of membership is about the same as the price of a couple of good books on Photoshop, a NAPP membership is a good value for anyone wanting to move beyond the basics of Photoshop. John Rettie is a photojournalist who resides in Santa Barbara, CA. He has been using a camera as a professional for 34 years, a computer for 24 years, and has combined his knowledge of both for the past 11 years. Readers can contact him by e-mail at john@johnrettie.com or by snail-mail c/o Rangefinder. Further Information: Image Rescue Photoshop User |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The
association also has a web site (www.photoshopuser.com) packed with information
and benefits available only to members. There are plenty
of tutorials and useful forums. Members also get a $100 discount on the
attendance cost for the Photoshop World conference held twice each year.
Having attended one last year, I can vouch that it is a valuable event
for anyone interested in maximizing his or her knowledge on Photoshop.
The next one is in Orlando, FL, September 1–3. 