Ed Justice Jr. BLOG

I'm still asked questions by fellow photographers about making the transistion from film to the digital world of photography. There are a number of questions that come up and it shows that their still is a little confusion about this subject.

First some answers to some more general questions. Since most professionals use either Nikon or Canon, I'm going to limit it to these two makes of cameras. I shoot Nikon; I have for almost 40 years. When I bought my first Nikon, Canon was really not even on the radar screen. Today Canon is a major player in the pro world. Whichever you choose, you can shoot both bad pictures and good pictures. Ultimately it is up to you, the photographer, more than the equipment in many cases.

Should I shoot my photos in a RAW format or JPEG or both?
There is no real right answer to this. I know pros that shoot in RAW only, JPEG only and RAW and JPEG at the same time. This is really your call. I will give you some points to consider in making your own decision. The RAW format, when 'developed' can result in better pictures because there is more to manipulate than with the JPEG image. Don't take my opinion alone, read any of the pro level photo magazines, there are repeated articles showing the advantages of shooting in the RAW format. The JPEG format is quick and ready, meaning in many cases you can use it straight out of the camera with a little manipulation. This is why many use it. This doesn't mean, by any chance that the images are as good as a properly 'developed' RAW image. But if time is more of a factor and you’re satisfied with the result you get with JPEG, it might be your choice. This is why some, including myself, shoot in both RAW and JPEG format much of the time. You get the benefits of both. Again, I know the best pro's that shoot in all 3 modes. A drawback of shooting in both modes at the same time is it reduces the amount of images you'll be able to fit on your memory card. I guess this would be a good time to say, your memory cards can never be too big for a pro.

Does viewing a JPEG file reduce its quality?
Viewing alone will not reduce a JPEG's quality. You have to re-write the images file to compress it again. So if you open up a JPEG in Photoshop and 'tune-it up' then save it as a JPEG, you are losing some of the image quality by re-compressing it. So how do you get around it? Re-save the image when you are done as a TIFF, and never re-save it as a JPEG. You can re-save TIFF's as many times as you want with no negative results. Every time you re-save a JPEG file you are losing some of the image quality.

Will my old lenses work on the new digital camera?
In most cases yes. You may not have auto focus and auto exposure, etc. but if you don't mind shooting 'old school' fashion, many times you can make the old stuff work. You need to check this out at your local camera shop to make sure.

Do I need to buy a $4,000 plus digital camera to make this change?
I personally don't think you do. I own a Nikon D200 (actually more than one) and I think this camera does a great job of recording images. I also own a Nikon D1, their first 'factory' attempt of a completely Nikon camera for digital. The D200 blows-away the D1. You can own two D200's for the price of one D2x and have some change left over. So am I saying that there is no difference between the D200 and the D2x other than price? No that's not what I saying at all. What I'm saying is that the D200 is a fully capable camera for shooting images of race cars, etc. that can be published in any magazine or book. The same comparisons hold true for Canon and some of their cameras.

Can my old flash unit be used on my new digital camera?
Unfortunately this is a question that I can't really give a definite answer to. In many cases you might be able to use your old flash unit, but I also have to tell you that there are some big benefits to upgrading to a 'matched' flash unit for your new camera. This falls under the category of checking this out at your local camera store.

By no means do I think that I have answered all the questions that can come up, but I have answered some of the most common. Again, what appears above is my opinion and is meant as a guide to you making your own decision. If other questions seem to be hanging around, I'll address those in the future.

Posted by Ed Justice Jr. at 7:25 PM | Permalink

. . .but years back it was something special to own a camera that was capable of shooting a rapid fire sequence of racing action. The original cameras that racing photographers would use to capture this type of photography came out of aerial reconnaissance in World War II. I've always understood that one of the first sports sequences ever published was the horrific fatal crash sequence of Rex Mays (an Indy 500 standout of his time) at the Del Mar racetrack in 1949. If it wasn't the first sports sequence published it might have been the first auto racing sequence published. It ended up being used as a 2 page spread in LIFE magazine.

A rapid fire sequence camera is by loose definition in between a still camera and a movie camera. A typical movie camera shoots 24 frames per second or as they say in the industry 24p. Traditional video cameras shoot at 30 frames per second or 30p. The photo pictured above shows a World War II recon camera in the hands of a (unfortunately unknown) photographer that captured an incredible sequence of an early NASCAR driver by the name of Russ Truelove. Russ had a spectacular crash about halfway through the 1956 Daytona Beach race. (This race was on the beach, 3 years before the Daytona International Speedway was done in 1959 and ran it’s first race.) Anyway, back in the day, a photographer would have to lug around a big ole' camera like that pictured to shoot still photo sequences.

In 1970, at the early part of my photo career, I bought a Nikon Photomic Tn with a motor drive unit. This was the first factory motor driven camera by Nikon. It was supposed to list for about $817.00, but I was able to buy it for $613.75. A sizeable sum of money for a 15 year old boy. (Maybe in a later blog I tell the complete story of how I paid for it and other details).

This camera was able to shoot at a maximum speed of 3 frames per second. A very impressive speed for that time and still respectable today, but Canon just released a new professional level digital camera that will shoot at 10 frames per second! Of course it's not uncommon today to find your average Joe with a camera that can shoot rapid fire shots. It's just another example of how technology has brought what was once only available to a few and placed into the hands of many and at a much lower cost too!

So if you're lucky enough to own a camera that is capable of shooting sequences, give a nod to those before that didn't have it quite so easy.

Posted by Ed Justice Jr. at 7:32 PM | Permalink