digitally confused....

anaanda

Well-known
Local time
2:56 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
210
Location
San Diego
To make a long story short..I recently got back into photography after my soon to be wife decided we should get a really nice digital camera. I was all excited ..did my research..and for price and value... decided on D70s Nikon. Started shooting and then it hit me. I don't like this process! All these choices!...multiple menus...white balance three types of exposure, image size, quality, raw, jpeg.. multiple ways of autofocusing ...all these different modes etc....finally I said the hell with it and just put it on auto. (which is quite boring)..( I still haven't mastered the different ways to use this camera)...

After remembering my days with a contax G1 in the mid nineties, I started on my rangefinder quest and have happily ended up with an Xpan, a Canonet and a Yashica GT. Now I can choose different films, developers, papers. print digitally or traditionally in the darkroom. And the best thing is that I always have a negative to go back to!!

Its not just about the image.... its about the process that brought you there as well...If you enjoyed the process it will show in your photograph....Now I relax and enjoy the simplicity of film and rangefinder photography....... and beauty I might add...

anybody feel the same?
 
Last edited:
11001010001 000100100011010100100
010010010010 10010010010 101010100110
0100100100100 🙂 1001000101010010
0100 10010001 0100100 101001 0100101010 1001 🙁
01001 0100101000100 10010

enjoy 🙂
 
I enjoy both film and digital. I don't see that one has to "pick a side" on this simple kind of stuff. Enjoy each media and let a peaceable kingdom reign.

OTOH, I am a Yankees fan and think the Red Sox are beyond evil! 😀
 
Technology doesn't necessarily advance, sometimes it just gets different. Remember that patents are issued for improvements of, and new applications to, old ideas as well as new inventions.

Sometimes technology goes backwards, like digital thermostats, speedometers, clocks, audio, prime factors, dialing telephones or any other device where the size of the scale is not given forthright.

With film the scale is predictable, the speed of the film is directly proportional to aperature and shutter speed. With the training, exposure and depth of field decisions often can be handled much faster than pecking at menus. The costs and disadvantages of ability to do everything can negatively far outweigh the economy and simplicty of doing a few things well.

I HATE dark room work, but if one has ever had to slog through many RAW images or any large digital image, (as from medium format or larger) the time at the computer is GAWDAWFUL and is an improvement over the dark room only because it doesn't smell bad. And, it surely it is no more cost efficient in the long run after paper costs are considered if prints are an issue.

The satisfactions of digital is that it is the Supreme Polaroid (posesses instant gratification), and can be shared so conveniently with little noise by an internet and computer.

The best audio artists still record in analog on tape, then digitize so the D/A conversion can be mastered. Many are quck to point out that because film's emulsion has to reside on some media that scanning can never be as good as a direct digital sensing. However, I still would rather choose film types than be stuck with the same sensor. I hope that film scanners will continue to improve and that is the analog to digtal conversion that I am most happy with.

I luva my Leica and have for nearly 30 years. Yes, I have extensive digital experience but I grab that camera first, and happily spend $2.50 to have a roll of film developed.

One can possibly shoot more photos conveniently with a digital camera so the odds of getting The Good One are bettered, but I am quite sure that there are fewer of The One That Got Away with skilled photorapher packing a good rangefinder.
 
I can agree that I enjoy the process involved with shooting film in that I enjoy the simpler controls available on the older cameras I am using. I do not think for a minute that you were putting digital down just stating a preferance for a process you enjoy more. I do use a digital camera but it leaves me cold although I can't complain about it's output.

Nikon Bob
 
Yes its true I wasn't putting down digital...I am sure some people prefer the process of digital..there are a lot of benefits for sure with digital. I am sure if there was a simplfied (inexpensive) digital rangefinder I would definitely own one! ( I am sure that won't happen but its possible)...
 
Copake,

This is completely OT and just a joke, but :

I lived in Boston from 2000-2004 and starting liking the Red Sox. After 9/11 the shirts which they sold outside of Fenway changed to the following:

We love NY, but the Yankees still SUCK!!!! 🙂

Best,

Ray
 
Nikon Bob said:
I can agree that I enjoy the process involved with shooting film in that I enjoy the simpler controls available on the older cameras I am using. I do not think for a minute that you were putting digital down just stating a preferance for a process you enjoy more. I do use a digital camera but it leaves me cold although I can't complain about it's output.

Nikon Bob

I am right along with you. I too enjoy digital but love the older, simpler film cameras as well as B&W film.
 
copake_ham said:
I enjoy both film and digital. I don't see that one has to "pick a side" on this simple kind of stuff. Enjoy each media and let a peaceable kingdom reign.

OTOH, I am a Yankees fan and think the Red Sox are beyond evil! 😀
Yankees?

Dude, we gotta talk. 😀


- Barrett ("Let's go...." Well, you know)
 
harmsr said:
Copake,

This is completely OT and just a joke, but :

I lived in Boston from 2000-2004 and starting liking the Red Sox. After 9/11 the shirts which they sold outside of Fenway changed to the following:

We love NY, but the Yankees still SUCK!!!! 🙂

Best,

Ray

Ray,

I am shocked - deeply shocked that a fine and decent RFF'er such as yourself would root for the Red Sucks!

OMG - is there no decency left! 😱

All in good fun of course....well, then again..... 😛
 
amateriat said:
Yankees?

Dude, we gotta talk. 😀


- Barrett ("Let's go...." Well, you know)

Kweens! You want me to root for a team from Kweens?

OMG, you're not for real are you?

And here I thought you were a nice guy - even if you do live in an "outer borough"! 😀

All kidding aside, if da' Metsie get into the WS and the Yankess don't - I'll root for the home team - otherwise - fugghedaboutit! 😀
 
copake_ham said:
All kidding aside, if da' Metsie get into the WS and the Yankess don't - I'll root for the home team - otherwise - fugghedaboutit! 😀
Hey, i'd do the same for those pinstriped guys. (The Boss probably knows where I live.)


- Barrett
 
BrianShaw said:
Mr. Moderator... this thread is obscene, offensive and getting ugly. Please close it down... ASAP. Thank-you very much.

Sincerely,
Mr. Boston-boy
Chill, Brian...I pulled for your guys when they made it into the Series, big-time. Know how dangerous it is for a Mets fan to do that, 'specially with certain Yankees fans just a train-hop away? 😉


- Barrett
 
BrianShaw said:
Mr. Moderator... this thread is obscene, offensive and getting ugly. Please close it down... ASAP. Thank-you very much.

Sincerely,
Mr. Boston-boy

No way dude,

Keep it open if you don't wanna get "hurt"....

Manhattan Man

😀
 
copake_ham said:
No way dude,

Keep it open if you don't wanna get "hurt"....

Manhattan Man
I'm still looking for the "obscenities". Perhaps Jorge inadvertently coded some Coptic curses in binary? I don't see anything obscene here...not even the trivialization of the word itself is. :bang:
 
Honus said:
ah..GO GIANTS!

There, that's better 😀

Wait a minute! Honus Wagner played for the PITTSBURGH PIRATES!!!!

Either you change your team or you change your name! 😀
 
Back
Top Bottom