jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

[quoteHey, I know what he has. I used to have one too. It's a 4x5 single lens reflex called a Graphlex. It took either took holders or a "septem" film back that held 6 or 12 septem film holders and you reached in with a leather "glove" and grabbed the one you just shot and pulled it out and moved it to the back. You had to focus through the long hood with the lens wide open and then reach around and set the diaphram to the proper f number, and don't forget to rewind the focol plane shutter.
Heck I shot with a speed graphic over thirty years including the old graphlex. What fun! Oh how I enjoy my Nikon 7000.[/quote]

I had to use this beast several times when I was in the Navy. Took me some time to to convince my bosses that my Rollei 2.8D would do a better job. What broke the logjam was my demo that my 80mm Planar could easily get better depth of field than the Graflex 150mm.

I was assigned to shoot a photo interpreter checking aerial photos as he looked down through glass. My light was two #2 photofloods.

I fixed two positive transparencies - using Kodalith for contrast - and got under the glass with the Graflex. I quickly found my closest focus was at about the top of the interpreter's head, not on the transparencies, the 3d viewers OR his face. I hauled out the Rollei and did the job ASAP.

Score one for Rollei and zero for Graflex.

BBNC

Well, interesting question. Looking back, not being tied to expensive rolls of film with a limited number of images on each, and then waiting for the lab to show me where I messed up, is a good thing. On the other hand, one learned to use in camera skills to a greater advantage because of roll film's built in limitations.

Being able to review each image as shot, time permitting, is a great advantage. The closest we could come to that in the film era was using a Polaroid to do a pre-shot to check lighting, composition, etc., before exposing our precious film.

I'm getting the feeling that digital imaging, coupled with excellent photo editing programs is moving us away from photographic excellence and towards post processing excellence.

Pete Wright Loc: Washington State

Score one for Rollei and zero for Graflex.[/quote]

Yeah. Shorter lens, greater depth of field, regardless of coverage area or anything else. Pure physics. That's why I think the "point and shoots" should have a quick way to set focus at hyper focal. That would take care of the lag while you wait for autofocus.

Pete Wright Loc: Washington State

I'm getting the feeling that digital imaging, coupled with excellent photo editing programs is moving us away from photographic excellence and towards post processing excellence.[/quote]

Yeah, with the transparency scanner as the bridge. I have a lot of large format studio stuff from 30 years ago, most of it B&W, a lot of it shot with limbo lighting. Mars (my wife) says it was like I shot it all just waiting for the computer to come along so I could turn it all into something else.

Now a lot of what I shoot is with an eye to combining with something else.

"The camera doesn't lie" was wrong when first babbled, and hopelessly wrong now.

It is all art, and always has been. Just that some is better.

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

I would like this capability on my DSLRs also. As I recall, this focussing option existed on my old Canon EOS3. It was very helpful.

tinosa Loc: Grand Rapids Michigan

I waxed poetic shortly after buying my first digital many moons ago.
ODE TO THE DIGICAM

If you were human digicam
you'd make my list of heroes.
You change the pictures that I take
to streams of ones and zeros
and pack them in a space so small
I can hide it with my thumb,
then faithfully reprodude them
when the time to share has come.

No more film or Photomart,
no more money down the drain,
for pictures less than perfect
that I'll never view again

Experiment from dusk to dawn
and never spend a buck
until I get the pic I want
by skill or maybe luck

Some love their cat,
some love their car
This we know is true
but what I'll say dear digicam
is thanks for being you.

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

John Brown Loc: New Mexico

I have some Kodachrome, Agfachrome and Ektachrome slides...just about 30,000 in all. Some are almost 50 years old and the colors are still good. And many of them I processed myself.
In defense of film, there is not one slide that I can hold up that I did not know what it was all about. It is sure hard to hold up a CD and see any images. Think of all the other equipment needed just to view a CD.
On the other hand digital is great for that instant view plus no more stinky darkrooms, but then that acetic acid smell could be a sign of distinction.
Overall, digital is the now thing...I wonder what will be next...maybe holograms in color with sound, odor and touch. Hmmm!

gizzy.whicker Loc: Cumberland Co., Illinois

Great response! And a very astute observation.