David,

It is a fairly balanced article, but I finished reading it with the distinct feeling that the killer issue for David Noton and his Chilean jaunt was power. He had to struggle to give a split decision on the quality round, and workflow preferences are just that - preferences.

There's no doubt that it's a lot easier to carry a few extra sets of Lithium AAs than worry about a charger and power point, but Michael has reviewed gizmos like the DigitalBattery (think that was the name) which might (not tried one myself) be a viable option, if you are going to be the ass-end of nowhere.

Regards,

I question the balance.

First, film won in one case because he failed to clean his sensor before shooting.  (Would digital have won if he had forgotten to load some film?)


Second, he piles on the digital costs:  
 350 pounds (~$525) for a portable storage device.  One can get a perfectly adequate PHD for $200.
 "(S)tacks of 1 gig cards."  Hardly necessary if one is also carrying a portable storage device.
 Laptop.  Again, not a requirement, but a luxury in the greater scheme of things.  (Remember that there is no option for reviewing your film shots in the field.)
 BTW, did he include the cost of a film scanner?


Third, editing time.  This one both bothers and amuses me.  What do film shooters do, just snap and forget?  

If that's your approach just set up some batch sharpening, etc. routines and let your digital files run quickly through.  Then send off your files, unedited as you would with transparencies.


Last, batteries.  I've been traveling for three plus years with digital, including trekking in Nepal.  The battery issue is way overstated.  Opportunities for charging are more common than many would suspect.  Remember that one can charge from a vehicle, and few photo trips go more than a few days away from transportation.

The 300D/dRebel takes approximately 600 shots per battery charge (without flash).  That's approximately 17 rolls of film.  Using the author's cost of 6 pounds, ~ $9 per roll, one would spend a bit over $150 on film per charged battery.  I don't have the performance data for upper end dSLRs but suspect that it's far cheaper and lighter to carry some extra batteries.

I don't think it is fair to either support or detract from this article based on the technical merits of the argument. While it appears that such decisions are made based on a some analytical reasoning process, that is normally not the case.

I feel he has a gut or knee-jerk reaction to digital, and he is just not comfortable with it in his world. He could have, and perhaps should have, just said "It's not for me.", but for unknown reasons felt the need to justify his decision. As with many arguments, the facts and figures are assembled to justify a point of view.

It is interesting to note that we are all in the position of having to justify our photographic decisions these days. Whether you choose digital or film, there is always someone who wants to know why you didn't go the other way.

g

With film it is not called editing, but retouching, and it is a very skilled job. Before you get there though the printer works that part of the process. Both are able to change the image.

Just because you have the tool ... don't depend on it!

Some interesting points in David Noton's current column. (It's a frame - for full site click here.

He's no idiot and no Luddite, but he makes some interesting points.  I had some similar last minute doubts on the cost-effectiveness of digital, and I'm a total amateur - I get through maybe 50 roll of 35mm a year.

And listen to this: "I'm not going to get into camera test mode here but I had assumed the full frame sensor 11 megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds would have a clear advantage over the D1X and S2. I'd heard it delivered image quality comparable to medium format. Not so."

And you've only got to look at his galleries to realise he has some idea of what he's talking about. David Noton actually makes a living from landscape photography....

His article is interesting -- it makes you remember that no "rule of thumb" works for everyone. I mean, this is a guy who has to deal with "a months trek in the Annapurna Himalaya"... ee-gads! He's got issues to deal with I can't even imagine (hmm.. how do you keep your eyelashes from freezing to your viewfinder?). Me, I prefer to only shoot within walking range to a pizza-by-the-slice joint.

I'd totally agree that digital may not be for everone. It works for me, but that's because I am a designer as well, and I have been doing digital work for a long time. But for someone who who rarely works on a computer, it could be an uphill slog. It all becomes a question for each artist to find the tool that best fits their hand and their artistic sensibility.

  Me too, and a few other points. Yes the battery comparison is nonsense when you compare the cost and bulk of batteries for a long trip in a "technology wildnerness" to the film supply you need (not a lot of Velvia available in the wilderness). I am also far happier travelling by air with batteries and flash cards than with film!

  But my new grievance is his lens cost comparisons: he adds on a Nikon 12-24DX for the S2 to regain wide angle coverage, but does not subtract off the longest lens no longer needed for the same reasons. Scaling down from 400mm to 300mm or 300mm to 200mm or whatever at the long end offers a cost and weight advantage more than offsetting the 12-24mm.

  However, the cost saving is not there if you have the longer lenses already and are not ready to change entirely to APS format DSLR. That is his only really persuasive argument: the effort and uncertainties of getting to the other side, not that life is worse once you get there.

Hardly. He seems to have tried out just about every pro level DSLR on the market. And not just in a shop.  He's also not being religious or dogmatic.  I have to say I was recently on a quite arduous trek in the Carpathians, and the load of Canon T90, 2 lenses (135 F2, admittedly a brick, and 20-35L) + carbon fibre tripod was too much.  A DSLR with batteries etc would probably have been about the same weight, although I suspect some of the knocks the T90 brushes off would have totalled a 300D or 10D.  Ok, Noton's F5s are not feather weight either, so maybe this is not an issue for him.  But still, I think it is useful to hear his (experienced) point of view.

Oh how could you just let the photo get used with out editing! Don't ever take the picture just right, perfect in the camera. Many a good photographer been doing that for years!

Why not try it, may even improve you photography.  :D

(I hope I'm reading your post correctly, the wording is a bit awkward.)

In the days of film one had no way of editing their transparency or negative prior to submission.  The raw piece of film was submitted and someone else did the editing prior to printing.  For many photographers editing was "out of sight, out of mind".  Only those who ran a wet darkroom did their own editing.

I would guess that most of us do as careful a job with digital as we did with film to produce a perfect shot in the camera.  But with the ability to edit now placed at our fingertips we've become more careful viewers.  We look at our work, see the minor improvements that could be made and labor to perfect our work as much as possible.  Editing has largely moved from the custom lab and publishing house to our desks.

As for the image quality comparison the author appears to be
in the minority (if I remember Pop photo thought the same, though), but he is careful to qualify his methods and findings.

The rest of the article, from the perspective of a travel
adventure photographer sounds just right.  In fact, it
exactly echos a conversation I had one year ago with the
stock agency with which I work for adventure/travel subjects.

As for the rebel needing a charge every 600 frames, I wouldn't
rely on that data if I was planning to buy batteries for my trip.
And I suppose that  if I was used to F5s, I'd want a 1Ds, not a rebel,
and I don't know that their batteries are cheap nor light.