Digital
Dilemmas
Hugh McLean-bsme, thb.
I call this article ‘digital dilemmas’ because of the numerous and often frustrating experiences of moving with the tide and completely converting from film to digital media. Some of these experiences ‘dealing with digital’ that I have experienced, are relevant enough to be noted. There are a number of ‘dilemmas’ that I think most of us have to address when considering the direction that photography is headed and where we fit in the overall scheme of things, and which are ‘factors’ that should be addressed.
● Psychological
● Learning curve
● Equipment changeover
● Cost
● Peripheral equipment requirements
● Business considerations
● Comfort
● A New Look
● Evaluating Equipment
● Fun
Psychological Factor.
Personally, I think one of the big reasons why photographers are reticent to get their feet wet with digital, is really a psychological one. I am only going to mention this briefly, because it is a ‘sore spot’ and I do not want to intentionally be irascible - if indeed that is possible.
One of the distinguishing characteristics that has separated the ‘amateur’ from the ‘professional’ in times past, is equipment. You are ‘professional’ because you use ‘medium format’ or ‘large format’ equipment while the rest of the world uses 35mm or less, and that difference delineates you as ‘professional’ whether or not the content of the images justify it or not. I use the term ‘content’ instead of ‘quality’ because we have grown accustomed to accepting the concept that a larger negative produces better images and have directly associated that size comparison with the distinction between ‘professional and amateur’ and used it to justify our status as professionals. I think it is a bit intimidating when shooting an event and some dude comes up to you with better equipment than you have. Many of today’s digital cameras look very much like 35mm cameras, or even use conventional 35mm bodies - so the ‘equipment’ distinction is considerably minimized. My contention is that we as professional photographers, should not let equipment be an association ‘crutch’ that says, I shoot with a Hasselblad, therefore I am a professional. Does anyone doubt that Ansel Adams would have been recognized as a monolith in photography even if he had not used a Hasselblad, or that Yousef Karsh could have used a different media and still have been considered - at least by me - as one of the greatest portrait photographers of all time?
Along comes the digital cameras - some of which don’t even look like cameras - and the thought becomes “If I get a digital camera, my professional ‘image’ will be diminished considerably”. Really?
The Learning Curve.
So you bought your first digital camera and you go to the camera store to get a lens for it, and you ask the camera salesman ‘what is a good lens for this camera?’ He shows you a couple and recommends a brand you have never heard of, so you ask him about the quality of the lens and he replies “it’s just as good as a Nikon”. Well heck - it has to be good if it is ‘just as good as a Nikon’ - right??? How else can you determine if it is? Do you get what you pay for or are ‘all lenses created equal’? The lens selection was easy when you had the ‘blad’. Just determine the focal length you wanted, get a second mortgage on the house and buy it. Nothing was better than Zeiss - so you bought the best and paid through the nose. But now it is a whole new ball game. Third party manufacturers of lenses that fit your mount make selecting the lens you need - a bit of a dilemma. I have a bunch of anecdotes about lenses and not enough time or space to insert them. As a result of numerous lens problems, I developed a lens resolution testing chart and a lens depth of field chart that is easy to use and makes it easy to compare one lens to another. I can now demonstrate with numbers -not just subjective opinion that a lens is or is not - ‘just as good as a Nikon’.
Comments and kvetches to
misterdigital@comcast.net