Well, here you go. The problem with big apertures and long focal lengths is that the lens gets pretty bulky and heavy, not to mention crazy expensive. I was surprised that Canon even makes an 85mm f/1.2, but they do. But it will set you back CAD $2,700 and it weighs nearly 2.3 pounds, certainly not an onerous weight, but not a lightweight lens either.
I mean, I know. I used to own a Canon 85 f/1.2. (When the original 5D came out, I bought one, and I almost jumped ship to Canon, but I held on to Nikon, and the D3 came out, and I was glad I stayed pat, for the most part. In that time, though, I bought an 85 f/1.2 and a 24-70 f/2.8L lens.) I’m very bad about selling my equipment, though – I gave all that away to a fellow photographer who I knew would make great use of it.
I actually really miss the darkroom days - though I had access for a number of years to a darkroom via either school or work and was allowed to process my own black and white stuff, so I wasn’t paying for much.
I really liked the whole hands-on process and watching a print develop was like magic.
Could you screw up your development process and lose some film? Sure. But there are DSLRs out there that won’t tell you that you don’t have an SD card inserted and you can shoot away all day and end up with nothing. Surprise!
Sitting at a computer running through digital shots isn’t nearly as fun either. I know some people spend considerable time altering their photos using software. I don’t care for that at all.
I also know a few people who spend a heap of money on gear but aren’t good photographers. I wish there was a way to diplomatically tell them their money might be better spent on a basic photography class, but I sure haven’t figured that out yet. Maybe it’s just a status thing.
Heh, I’m not going to bother reading the rest of the thread, because I used to be a fine arts photo student. You’ve summed up so much of how I feel about digital photography. It’s taken quite a bit of the magic out of photography for me. But dammit, I don’t have to convert a bathroom into a darkroom, and I’m not wondering what I’m going to do with all these negatives.
Digital photography sucks, except in all of the way it rules. Sometimes I do still miss loading color reversal paper into an oatmeal can, though.
And in the end, always remember: If you have more than one lens, you are almost always guaranteed to have the wrong lens on your camera for a particular shot.
Back in my enthusiastic childhood, and before anyone even dreamed of digital photography, I had an improvised darkroom set up in the house. It had an enlarger, supply of print papers, safelight, the necessary trays and chemicals, and a cool developing tank for 35mm film. You had to open the film cartridge in total darkness and spool the film into a reel that fit inside the tank, designed to keep the film surfaces from touching each other.
Then you screwed on the top, and, magically, you could turn the lights back on. The tank was cleverly designed to let you pour in the developer, stop bath, and fixer, and pour them out again, without letting in any light. Yes, there was a magic to pulling out the developed film and hanging it up to dry, and later turning on the enlarger and making my own prints in the dim glow of a red safelight. A pleasure that kids today with their noses stuck in their iPhones will never know.
Different strokes. I’ve been using Photoshop since version 2.0 (1 level of undo, no layers), and to me, the idea of fumbling around in a darkroom, inhaling god-knows-what fumes, sounds miserable to me.
I actually gave up photography when all I had was a film camera. I shot slide film and loved the results, but the time and expense totally put me off. When digital came out, I jumped back in with both feet and never looked back.
nm
Whoops something weird got pasted in.
My long post basically said: Yay digital. I don’t miss film photography or a wet darkroom at all.
It’s sort of like cooking. I like that very much too; some people can’t stand it. It’s messy, sometimes stinky and occasionally kind of dangerous. I don’t mind that at all. I like seeing what a bunch of ingredients thrown together can add up to.
I’m very familiar with all the iterations of Photoshop; I had to use it for work for years. It’s useful but I do not find it enjoyable. I just had to spend hours dropping backgrounds out of photos for a project I’m doing and I am soooo over it at this point!
Now imagine doing that in the darkroom. With Photoshop, it’s often as easy as “select background - delete.” Or “select subject - invert - delete.” You don’t even have to manually make your own masks most of the time using paths or whatever your preferred masking technique is. (But that’s what we used in the 90s). It’s incredible how automated the tools have become.
Buy a used X100…try for x100f. The suffix letters are for (s)econd, (t)hird, (f)ourth, and v for five.
I have had every X100 up to x100f, stopping here for a few years, as they have added all of the awesome sauce I wanted and they have begun adding things that don’t fit the aesthetic…no flip screen for me on an x100.
It has an excellent fixed lens that is a little wide for some tastes, but is a good all-around lens. The optical viewfinder is fun to use, though I still usually go for the digital viewfinder. For those who haven’t seen one of these cameras, there is a little lever that you flip that switches between true optical viewfinder with digitally drawn parallax lines, and a regular digital viewfinder. They flip a prism in and out as you flip the switch.
The reason I went to x100f from the earlier ones was because it not only has the phase array focusing with focus peaking, but they include a couple of the best film simulations not available on the earlier ones: Classic Chrome and Acros (sweet B&W in camera). Though, a look at the talk about the x100v tells me that model has a nicer lens and even better film simulations available. Tempting.
These days I’m using it along with its big brother for recording YouTube videos–not its strongest suit, but definitely far better than other gear I have for the task.
I don’t have to imagine it. I’ve done it. I’ve also done compositing.
I’ve done photo retouching by hand (which really is an art - I could never do more than the most basic stuff, like fixing dust and scratches and adding a little color here and there - now that is something I am very glad to have software for!).
I wish it was always as easy to drop a background in Photoshop as clicking a few buttons, but it’s just as likely to be a pain in the ass.
Anyway, we’re getting too far afield from what this thread is supposed to be about, so that’s all I am going to say about that.
I could complain about the subscription model Adobe’s gone to instead, but it’s actually not bad if all you want access to is Photoshop and Lightroom.
I’m getting too old to invest a ton of money in a new camera, but I may pick up a used full-frame mirrorless Nikon at some point. Still not cheap, though.
I have a bit of good news to share about my OP gripe related to this. I downloaded Adobe’s free DNG Converter program and can now use my Lightroom 6. It’s an extra step, but not much of an inconvenience.
No monthly ransom payment for me.
mmm
Yeah, I just use PS and LR and the subscription model is fantastic for me! I always have the latest and greatest goodies that I use all the time. It’s cheaper than constantly upgrading, it’s more up-to-date and I personally could not go back to the last non-subscription version of Lightroom. Just the new auto masking tools are worth thousands of dollars in saved time for me. AI generative fill has also become a major time saver when needed.
Back in the early '60s I was in High School and photographed basketball games etc. for the school paper. I’d finish the game, use a changing bag to load the developing tank, then develop the film while traveling home on the subway. Anyone remember Uni Bath? Combo developer/fixer. When I arrived home I’d wash the film and print the photos the next morning at school.
I played with Uni Color for a while but decided it wasn’t worth it.