you Understand the process, and the options available for creating an image. The 'palate' expands enormously for your vision and creativity.

Film cameras on their own did not do anything to the image. It is a box to mount an optic to and a film transport machine. Or, a front and rear standard with a light blocking bellows between the optic and the film holder/plane.

FILM CHOICE, age of the film, Filtration on the lens, EXPOSURE, time of day, daylight or tungsten light, lens age/coatings, PROCESSING all influenced the final image. Everything influences the negative (or transparency) when you shoot film.

Frankly, outside of super techies and hardcore lab techs, Nobody cares about the medium or process of creating an image. If someone looks at your image and is more concerned with the 'how/technology' of the process the image was captured I would question their sanity.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. That's like asking who is the better painter: left-handed or right-handed.

if you keep the NEF files that your Nikon records you do have the original 'negative'.

which ever camera system you use is 'THE' system. Each has its own pluses/minuses.

The camera is a TOOL....asking which is better is like asking a carpenter which HAMMER is better: CRAFTSMAN, TRU-VALUE or VAUGHN. Just duck when he throws one at you.

You learn to get the best results with what you use, and in the end nobody will ask you which system shot the final image.

My work appears as color or b/w. Coming out of the camera it is color and I work the original RAW file as a color image. Even if I know the final use will be B/W.

For B/W I do tweak shadow and highlight detail a bit, depending on subject and final usage.
I save BOTH versions and archive the full shoot and finals. I can go back a year later and print the exact same image, OR can make as many new adjustments or effects as I want. Options are unlimited.

Clients like their ability to move to either Color or B/W under their control, and they are not restricted or limited in making the image work either way.

No negatives to lose, or have damaged/destroyed. Transfer of images/files incredibly fast and nondestructive. Archiving digital files is painless and secure. There are almost no downsides.

ANSEL ADAMS was known for spending DAYS making one print. Actually he had a B/W PRINTER do the work which he then critiqued and made notes on.
I read that HALF DOME took the printer four days to get the final print done.

Had DIGITAL been available for Adams (digital came way after he died) it would have offered him the greatest control to shoot a RAW file and then make adjustments on the RAW image.

There is a point where the 'technical magic' in the darkroom takes a backseat to the digital world and unless you like getting your hands wet....there is no longer a premium on printing from a negative. In fact, digital allows you More control, faster control, BETTER control -and most importantly-you can SAVE the corrections/adjustments rather than starting from scratch (or reading notes) on a new print.

I've been shooting digital since 1992 (commercial photographer since 1970) and would NEVER go back to analog/film. (Just a personal preference in that)

THAT WORKS.

OK, first- your transmitter and your receiver are NOT SYNCED.

get a set of POCKETWIZARD triggers (TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER- RECEIVER) from someplace like B&H or ADORAMA...or POCKETWIZARD direct.

they are the 'BEST', and have the longest range.

OR- get a set from PAUL BUFF/ALIEN BEES.

I have used CAPTURE 1 for years...as a TETHERED PROCESSOR for RAW images. With the D800 I shoot directly to the screen and can make adjustments on exposure, color, detail, sharpness color balance and the Most important thing is I have a real time Exact view of the image.

Rather than shooting and relying on the screen on the camera I see a full sized image and can zoom into any part of that image to check focus, etc.

CAPTURE 1 creates a separate folder for each shoot, which I can label when it is created, and I can then transfer the entire folder or the CAPTURE folder (within the master folder) that contains RAW FILES to my work computer for processing in BRIDGE (I HATE LIGHTROOM). SAVE OUT THE FILES as jpegs or Tiffs or PSD files and then work on those in Photoshop. Saving as JPEGs saves a lot of space (PSD saved files can create a Huge folder) and are just as good as final PSD files.

THIS IMAGE WAS SHOT USING CAPTURE 1 and then final crop/processing was done with BRIDGE and PHOTOSHOP.


CAPTURE 1 and the new version can be used as image processing and retouching but I have used Photoshop so long that I prefer using that.

Since I updated PHOTOSHOP AND BRIDGE I was forced to upgrade the OS to CATALINA. Doing so killed any and all profiles and drivers for EPSON products, along with having major issues with some 3d party graphic applications.
Not happy.

Contacted APPLE SUPPORT, which from experience denies Any problems, and they said 'sure, in CATALINA all Epson drivers are now gone. Bye'.

Telling this story brought me to investigating the 'NEW' OS BIG SUR. Again, contacted APPLE and the tech I dealt with said that BIG SUR is really targeted for the new tablets and laptops with the brand new processors (I run 3 27" IMacs, plus a few older laptops- (all are three years or greater older). The tech said that the BIG SUR update would not really add to my performance baselines. AND- some graphic software (3d party plugins for PS) 'may' have issues. OF course, EPSON will still be screwed up. EPSON says that drivers will be 'updated' on a rolling schedule...and that is a Slow Roll.

SO- I would caution anyone who thinks about going to BIG SUR. ESPECIALLY if you are running a Mac that is older than 1 year.

Just my impression.