I am allergic to film developer. It is something I discovered in school. I was allergic to most of the oils used in metal work as well. The latter did not matter; I never became a metal worker. I did become a professional photographer.
Part of the process was always denied to me, but I was happy with a Leitz projector and Kodachrome Professional.
I used to be a Canon fan. Then one day I sold my Canon FD system and went purist for a while. No lugging a bag of lenses around - just a rugged "compact". A Nikon compact - with a stunning 35mm lens. That and Kodachrome made me money.
Then, eventually, a long time after I got a job with far higher remuneration than your average professional photographer, I decided I missed the options of a decent 35mm SLR and lots of lenses. So I looked at the options: Leica is nice - in the same way as a Rolls Royce; love to have one, but not for everyday use. Contax - I have used professionally with loaned kit - very good, but not state of the art. Olympus - at the time had lost their way. Pentax - not for pros, not these days anyway, Yes, it was Canon or Nikon.
So I tried them out - top of the line. ASM, decent metering, mirror lock-up, depth-of-field preview. Both are good brands. Canon had a wider range of newer lenses. Nikon could use virtually anything with a Nikon mount. Nikon's MMI was more traditional - that is what swung it for me.
So I bought an F5. I have several lenses - the best are Nikon; the others are oddities not available in the Nikon range.
In the meantime I had discovered scanning and Photoshop. Kodachrome had given way to Royal Gold and Supra [negative film has a higher latitude than positive - and if you want it, you can get the slide "look" by manipulating curves]. I was finally in the "darkroom" - albeit digital.
However, something has now happened to "wet film". It is hard to get it developed well. The pros have mostly gone digital. A little while back I costed it out; a new scanner [Scan Elite 5400 II] and three years of film at my current low, amateur, usage versus a new D2x. Did not justify a D2x.
So I wait six months and Nikon annouces the D200 - at a compelling price even before it hits the streets and gets lowered. Time to go fully digital? It seems so. So courtesy of Grays [where else?] I have tried out the D200. Well it is lighter than the F5, and smaller, and almost as solid. It has a stunning imaging chip and all the on-board controls you could need [with the exception of vertical controls that you can get by adding the dual battery pack].
BUT
I don't like the viewfinder. I don't like the screen with the little AF boxes; I miss a proper eyecup; the titchy pentaprism seems too close to the lens [especially with a big, fast, "pukka" lens]. Don't believe everything you read in the press - try before you buy.
I want a D2x. I don't want to pay twice as much as a D200 for it*. I will consider a little more than the list price for a D200 with MBD200. If Nikon brings out the rumoured D3h and prices it between the D2x and the D200 I might just run to it - once the street price starts to bite. Bugger, 'cause I also want one now!
[*On this subject why does eBay continue allow so many scammers? - just ban email addresses inside postings and put these little shits out of business]
3 comments:
this was so interesting.
I loved chemicals but my mother would throw away my stained "badge of honor" darkroom clothes. aw, I would still have them stored. my favorite had my personally silkscreened Krazy Kat cartoon on the reverse.
I'm a huge fan of Canon consumer digital for the last 16 months when I feel they really conquered the power management problems. That issue was key to my spend my hard earned money. carry two extra nimh AA and never fear.
The one dark spot in the overwhelming use of digitals is that a long-standing skill no longer gets taught to budding photographers -- developing your own film. Rugrat is in a photog course this year semester. They all run around taking black and white 35 mm shots of assigned topics. Then they develop the film, there's a step somewhere that involves contact sheets I believe (I'm not the photographer) and then she selects a couple of shots to make photos from.
I like that they are learning it all, and doing it themselves. There's a satisfaction there for rugrat in following the whole process from film to finished photo. And they can't rely on the digital monitor to tell them if the shot is right, they have to go through the whole process to see the finished product.
Update: I cracked and bought a Nikon D200 plus dual battery pack AND the Nikon parts to convert to an F5 like eyecup. It'll do and I saved myself $2000.
fellahere - yes the Canon's are good (I was very impressed with a friend's 350D). I prefer the slightly retrograde interface of Nikon (less menus, more dials and individual buttons)plus I have an investment in Nikon glass.
spring (tipped off by Starlet) - you absolutely right about understanding the whole process - which is how I discovered my allergy. I started photography with fully manual Dacora Dignette (sp?) - a German clone of the Ilford Sportsman 35mm (not very) compact. A real camera! I went from that to a Canon A1 (the F6 of its day). Finally I have gone (fully) digital - it is the image that counts. There may be nostalgia in wet film, but the photographer really only wants to capture or express what they see and feel before them. Whatever works!
Post a Comment