Why don't NG photographers use, at least pictured on the "On Assignment" Section digital cameras?

For magazine articles ultimate resolution is not necessary and procuring, transporting (x-rays, et al), processing, loss, , expense, and damage (wet) of film would be a non-issue. In addition, one could self-edit and transmit to DC while on-site. I think NG digitally processes the photo's anyway.

They carry crates of equipment anyway, so a hundred(s) or so extra batteries is no problem.

I'm thinking about a trade-in.

Hugs and Kisses,

Allison

-- Allison Reese (a_b_reese3@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002

Answers

They want the best possible image. In addition to the magazine, they also display their work and publish books and calendars. A chrome will surpass digital in image quality.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 06, 2002.

I am thinking that the didgital camera is not as durable as the conventional 35mm. Living in Oregon, this was a factor against a high priced digital - rain. John

-- John H Osterholm (Barjo4@attbi.com), May 06, 2002.

calenders/books=same magnification. have you seen digital Fuji Frontier prints recently. Have you tried loading film in the rain?

READ, THINK!

-- Allison Reese (a_b_reese3@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

Allison,

Have you shot with any of the current high-end digital cameras?

There is much more to consider when shooting digital than just resolution. For one thing, reliability is a huge concern. I recently was shooting with my D1's and after only an hour or two of working in a light rain, with the camrera under a rain cover, one of them completely died. So it's off to Nikon repair for a month or so. Luckily, that camera was one of my paper's pool cameras, because mine was already in the shop after developing a banding problem that cost me some very nice images.

When it comes to image quality, it is quite good with the newest generation of cameras (D1x, EOS 1D, etc.) But the images have a different look from those captured on kodachrome or my favorite, tri-x. While it is true that the small exposure latitude and dynamic range are similar to shooting chromes, there is a difference. When overexposed areas blow out, for example, they do so in a less elegant way than with film. Film is smoother in transition. The shadow areas are, in my personal experience, not as well defined as with film. Often with D1's, shadows turn into a murky mess with visible banding.

I've had digital photographs published in news magazines, (including the last page of this year's LIFE's year in pictures), and they hold up fairly well. But NG has always prided itself on it's high repro standards, and this requires the utmost quality of the original images.

Quality issues aside, shooting digital is a whole different world. Not every NG photographer carries crates full of equipment. The ones who shoot lieca tend to keep it simple. Shooting digital may not be all that different from other AF SLR's but it is much different from a Leica M. The cameras are large, somewhat noisy and they tend to attract more attention than the diminutive M-camera.

The Nikon digital cameras have a much longer shutter delay than their film SLR's, and certainly longer than an M6. They also have an annoying habit of going to sleep at the worst possible moment.

It is also difficult to shoot with digital without a reliable power supply, which can be an issue when travelling. I went to Nigeria a few years ago, and we went days on end without having electricity. With digital, you really need to be able to dump your cards and burn CD's on a laptop, since the CF cards are easily lost and/or damaged. You also need to charge the batteries, no matter how many you brought with you. The cards are also expensive, which leaves you more vulnerable to theft. (Most people won't steal exposed film, since it's not worth much to the average person.)

Digital certainly has it's place. It's wonderful on tight deadlines and it makes my life easier on a daily basis. But if I'm going to spend months or years on a story, I'll stick to my M's and lots of film.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 06, 2002.

Sorry, one more thing to add to the novel I just wrote.

I've loaded film in the rain many, many times, with no problems. You have to learn to do it by feel, and then simply change film under your shirt or rain jacket. Easy. Much better than when your digital wonder stops working mid-assignment.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 06, 2002.

Imagine Allards "Portraits of Americans" on digital cameras.

I think that's probably all I need to write to make my point...

-- dave yoder (dave@daveyoder.com), May 07, 2002.

How do you think a NG photographer somewhere in the middle of nowhere for many months would charge his batteries?

Also they useally shoot many, many shots (they carry over 200 films sometimes) and after they return do sit down and select the best n shots. Useally they don't have the equipment locally (you will need at least a laptop (power again) with bright screen or something like that) and if they have one the run the risks it breaks down in some african swamp. Note that to get the quality that comes close to the required one, they need to store in RAW or maybe TIFF format, using a 6MP camera, creating files of over 20MB Say 200 shots (average one succesfull shot per film of 36) that's worth saving for further analysis at home times 20-30MB is about 400- 600GB. Now asume he on average wants to save 2 or 3 shots per film... It's terrabytes we're talking here

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), May 07, 2002.

And ofcourse the above posts hit another point. How would a digital camera survive an african swamp. Just like a CD burner.

-- Reineir (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), May 07, 2002.

The battery issue isn't that good of an argument. Yes, you can carry a year's worth of M6 batteries in a film canister. But by NG's own admission, Leica users are in a minority at the magazine (just as we are everywhere else). F5/EOS1n users go through battery packs just as readily as D1x/EOS1D users. I suppose that you could use AA's with the film versions. But I can't think of any working pros who use the AA's. And there is probably a AA battery pack you could use with the digital versions as well if you really wanted to.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), May 07, 2002.

Digital is great in my opinion when either time or cost is a critical factor (i.e. reportage & wedding photography). The cost of a digital camera, and disadvantages, are insignificant compared to the time (reportage) and film development costs (events). NG has neither constraint - of the hundreds of rolls shot over many months only a handful make the spread. Shooting & developing E-6 is cheap and reliable, and easy to review afterwards.

I think the real reason is the alleged 'archivability' advantage digital supposedly has over film. I always run into the: 'cd's will be around for 100's of years, while film may be subject to fading' types of arguments. I don't buy it. A year or so back I had to try & recover some late-80's Lotus 1-2-3 files - couldn't do it. Today's jpegs, and cd's for that matter, will be tomorrow's Lotus files and 5 & 1/4" floppy disks.

I'm sure there will always be a way to scan my slides if need be.

-- P. McEnroe (pattymac88@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.

No one is claiming anymore that CD's will be around 100's of years. CD's are prone to a number of problems. It has been found that the substrate has a long term chemical reaction to light that can cause information drop out. Laser rot can cause the same problems after repeated usage. As well re-rightable CD's use an amorphous material (a substance that is chemically changed to give it the properties of another substance) that has been found to revert back to its original state, with again, information loss. Most manufacturer's of CD's now state that they should be reburned at least every 5 years or so to avoid these problems. I have 25 year old negs that print up just fine, and I have no doubt they will continue to do so 25 years from now.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.

"Why don't NG photographers use digital cameras?"

In a word, quality. The fact that they can shoot anything they want and they choose film says it all.

You don't have to sell posters or prints to notice it; even at full-page NG size the difference between current digital pix and film is very clear (they printed a digital pic an issue or two ago--from a nonstaff scientist--and the sucko quality just leaped off the page at me).

You crop/enlarge a film photo, you get grain. Do the same with digital, you get pixels. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather see grain than pixels.

-- Terry (tcdvorak@aol.com), May 07, 2002.

Josh,

The battery issue is huge. First of all, I know many working pros, myself included, who use cameras that take AA's. Personally, that's what has kept me from switching to Canon for my longer lens work. (Of course, I use leica M's for all but long lenses.)

The F100 can work for days on end with 4-AA batteries. Furthermore, AA's are available nearly everywhere in the world. I'm lucky if I can shoot a whole 160MB card (about 111 images) on my D1 with one fully charged battery. And the batteries are large and bulky.

One other issue that hasn't been raised is wide angle photography. When I put my Nikon 28/1.4 on my D1, it effectively becomes nearly a 50mm lens because of the 1.5x magnification factor. So to get a true wide angle with current digital cameras, you have to go to a superwide. The nikon 14 is great but prone to flare. And alas, no one makes a 14/1.4 yet. The canon EOS 1d is slightly better in this regard, with only a 1.3x factor. So if you like to shoot available light with a fast wide lens, you're out of luck.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 07, 2002.

Film is default, so unless digital has a clear advantage for a particular application, film wins.

This isn't news photography, it's a high-quality coffee table magazine, shot in remote locations, frequently in harsh climates, and the photographs need to be available to be republished again 50-100 years from now. Its a no-brainer.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), May 07, 2002.

Good points, especially Noah. I'd known that regular lenses could be fitted to the digital camera, but did not know about the magnification issue.

I recently read an article where a woman NG photographer stated that the majority of a months long assignment are logistical and setting- up for a shoot rather than the actual shoot.

I thought that instant feedback (did I get the shot?), self editing (no I didn't, let's try try that again or do something else), and transmitting would be valuable.

I didn't think batteries would be an issue, as mostly (Megatransept, sp?, excepted) they bring crates of camera equipment with them.

When I look at the print in the magazine up close, I see pixels.

Even just one digital camera lens combo acceptable, just to see, please?.

-- Allison Reese (a_b_reese3@hotmail.com), May 07, 2002.

I once heard Kent Kobersteen from NGS speak at a NPPA (Nationl Press Photographers Association) Flying Short Course. This same question was put to him and he said and I quote "That if Eastman Kodak EVER announced that they would cease to make transparency film that the NGS would buy EVERY ROLL that Kokdak had!"

My personal feeling is that is a very big "IF" on Kokaks part and that they will continue with transparency film for a long time. I think Kobersteen believes that as well. But his statement if a strong vote of confidence for film!

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), May 07, 2002.

Sorry for the Kodak typos....I guess my "K" finger was too excited (AND I should proof read)!

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), May 07, 2002.

Allison wrote, "When I look at the print in the magazine up close, I see pixels."

Actually, those aren't pixels; they're dots, part of the four-color printing process for decades and unrelated to digital capture technology (check a pre-1990s magazine or book if you don't believe me).

When you see pixels in NG, be sure to let us know. That day will surely come, but until the numerous battery and storage problems are solved and cameras are in the 15-20 megapixel range, I think we're going to see mostly film in NG.

But the underlying theme of this whole thread really is, if you're thinking about a trade-in (from film to digital) becausee YOU can't see a difference, by all means go digital. The NG photographers (and many of their readers) CAN see a difference, and they're sticking with film.

....

-- Terry (tcdvorak@aol.com), May 07, 2002.

Good Point, Terry.

"Even just one digital camera lens combo acceptable, just to see, please?. "

Does this mean YOU want to switch to digital? If so, I guess my dream setup would be a D1x with an 18/2.8, or an EOS 1d with a 24/1.4. Of course the lens is purely personal preference. Keep in mind either setup will set you back around $7k. And don't forget another couple grand worh of cards, software, a fast computer and CD writer, etc.

On a budget, you could try the Canon D60 or forthcoming nikon D100, but these aren't really made to pro standards. And with all of the problems I've had with my "professional" D1's, it leaves me wondering how much worse the amateur cameras could be.

IMHO, the best digital camera is an M6 with a Nikon LS 4000.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 07, 2002.

I stand corrected on part of the battery issue. I had really been thinking about my F5 and the speed that it ate AA batteries. But I still think the point as a whole is not that important in the digital/film discussion. If you really felt that you wouldn't be able to charge your camera battery packs. I can almost guarentee that you would be able use some sort of AA battery pack/insert solution for a D1/EOS1d etc.

The lens magnification issue is a much larger one. I too am a big fan of wide and fast lenses. And as much as I have loved shooting with my digital SLR's, this is their biggest drawback by far. Thankfully, I am sure that it is one that will be corrected in the next few years as prices drop on full frame CCD or CMOS chips.

If you want to be an early adopter of new technology, you are always going to have to put up with high prices, bugs in the system, and other annoyences. For me it is worth it. Obviously, for NG, it isn't yet. And as much as I love digital, I don't blame them.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), May 08, 2002.

Lots of opinions presented as empirical facts in this post. Digital is there in terms of practical use for many professionals. Both Canon and Nikon make fast wide lenses that work with the 1.5X and 1.3 factor. And no X factor is just around the corner. Battery consumption is more pronounced with a digital camera verses a conventional one. But I found 3 or 4 does a days' worth of contineous shooting. I then recharge them over-night where ever I'm staying ( I've yet to shoot in a place with no power source like a NG shooter may encounter ). I've shot with a D1-X in the rain to no ill effect (any more than any other camera save an EOS1-V with rubber seals). CF cards aren't any easier or harder than film to lose or misplace. You don't need a lap top to down load images, Digital "Wallets" of 10 gig or more are small and portable alternatives. CF card prices are falling daily, while the transfer speeds are raising. Yes, digital is less tolerant to over-exposure. but way,way,way more forgiving of underexposure than film. Digital is direct from camera to screen where film requires scanning. Most of all, for color work I process the digital image, where a lab is an extra step where errors can and, far to often, do happen. Labs are under the gun these days, and the general quality has visibly deteriorated. IMHO, the lab quality situation is a bigger threat to film than Pro-digital cameras. Direct processing and the responsiveness of digital images to PhotoShop correction equalizes the resolution situation compared to film. Everything in the same domain ( camera, processing, printing ) has its' obvious advantages. All that said, I still shoot film because of my Leicas. And film still offers way,way, way more alternative emulsions for different lighting situations and creative approaches. So, film is hardly dead,but to only tout the disadvantages of digital is sticking our collective heads in the sand.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 10, 2002.