Dogman
Veteran
As sitemistic said, you ain't gotta shoot hundreds of frames just because you can. Maybe in the process of learning about exposure the ability to review that exposure is a good learning tool but the best learning tool I ever used was a 4x5 view camera. Slow down, do it once and get it right because large format transparency film is expensive to buy and expensive to process. It was a wonderful incentive to really learn the craft.
photogdave
Shops local
For your next point and shoot consider the Pentax Optio W30 or whatever replaces it. Totally waterproof, shockproof, condensation-proof etc. and IQ is just as good as any other camera in its class!sauerwald said:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
They usually degrade into circular "film vs. digital" points and counterpoints?pesphoto said:
We should all remember Hal-2000. Digital implemented by purely-analogue-minded people is a recipe for disaster.
The real question should be: does liking any sort of photography really save you money?
Buying 100 Big Macs isn't cheaper than buying 10 Godiva chocolates. The savings can only be dictated by your priorities.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Dumb digital user - machine gun everything, hope for the best.
Dumb film user - forgot to load film.
Smart photographer - film or digital, make the best of each shot.
Dumb photographer - spends all his (definitely a guy) time arguing about one vs the other.
Dumb film user - forgot to load film.
Smart photographer - film or digital, make the best of each shot.
Dumb photographer - spends all his (definitely a guy) time arguing about one vs the other.
photogdave
Shops local
If there's anything to learn from this thread it's: figure out what's right for you and go with it! What more is there to say?
We have an amazing choice of photographic mediums to work with and none of them is right or wrong.
Personally I shoot about 75-80% film over digital. The main reason is that it allows me to continue working with cameras I enjoy using (film RFs and TLRs) and because I enjoy my particular workflow.
I've been fooled enough in the digital vs analog print Pepsi Challenge to realize that I will never be a good enough analog printer to realize the true quality potential of using film, just as I will never be a good enough photoshop technician to make a digital file look as good as, or better than film. For color photography I think digital is a better medium than 35mm film for making super large prints but I prefer a super large slide projection on my wall anyway.
I did the math and at the rate I currently shoot film it would take about 20 years before I've spent the equal amount of money to buy an M8 (not upgraded!).
I quite enjoy my workflow of having the lab develop my $5 roll of film for $5, getting the film home and looking at the images on my light table, choosing four or five to scan for now and maybe posting one or two in the gallery here. Maybe in a few weeks or months I'll go back to my binder and look at the frames again and see something I didn't notice before.
Every time I do a digital shoot I dread uploading all those images, backing them up, then opening them in a browser and viewing them one-at-a-time full size, clicking back and forth trying to see the slight differences. Saving the good ones to another folder, working on them, backing them up etc.
So, I like my workflow. It's not right and it's not wrong, it's just how I do it. Has it saved me money? I shoot just enough of both that not only do I have to buy new hard drives, software and memory cards but I also have to buy and process film, archival storage sleeves and binders. On top of the cameras, computer, scanner, slide projector, light table and loupe...
We have an amazing choice of photographic mediums to work with and none of them is right or wrong.
Personally I shoot about 75-80% film over digital. The main reason is that it allows me to continue working with cameras I enjoy using (film RFs and TLRs) and because I enjoy my particular workflow.
I've been fooled enough in the digital vs analog print Pepsi Challenge to realize that I will never be a good enough analog printer to realize the true quality potential of using film, just as I will never be a good enough photoshop technician to make a digital file look as good as, or better than film. For color photography I think digital is a better medium than 35mm film for making super large prints but I prefer a super large slide projection on my wall anyway.
I did the math and at the rate I currently shoot film it would take about 20 years before I've spent the equal amount of money to buy an M8 (not upgraded!).
I quite enjoy my workflow of having the lab develop my $5 roll of film for $5, getting the film home and looking at the images on my light table, choosing four or five to scan for now and maybe posting one or two in the gallery here. Maybe in a few weeks or months I'll go back to my binder and look at the frames again and see something I didn't notice before.
Every time I do a digital shoot I dread uploading all those images, backing them up, then opening them in a browser and viewing them one-at-a-time full size, clicking back and forth trying to see the slight differences. Saving the good ones to another folder, working on them, backing them up etc.
So, I like my workflow. It's not right and it's not wrong, it's just how I do it. Has it saved me money? I shoot just enough of both that not only do I have to buy new hard drives, software and memory cards but I also have to buy and process film, archival storage sleeves and binders. On top of the cameras, computer, scanner, slide projector, light table and loupe...
dnk512
Well-known
Sadly it is true that one of the early and big arguments on the benefits of digital was savings. This, like most things in life, is only true in some cases... not in all cases.
The OP did not ask for the benefits or future of digital, just the cost argument. Personally, digital cost me a lot more than I thought. The typical 1K new camera/lens every 3 years, the new cameras for each of my 3 kids and wife, the bigger computer drive etc etc... but most unpredictably and equally expensive: Lots of film gear that I could not afford before (rangefinders and medium format).
The OP did not ask for the benefits or future of digital, just the cost argument. Personally, digital cost me a lot more than I thought. The typical 1K new camera/lens every 3 years, the new cameras for each of my 3 kids and wife, the bigger computer drive etc etc... but most unpredictably and equally expensive: Lots of film gear that I could not afford before (rangefinders and medium format).
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
sitemistic said:
I'm sure they don't, but mechanically speaking in 20 years from now how many M7's will still be usable opposed to digital dslr's in production today?
kuzano
Veteran
Memories of "digital" exams at the proctologist
Memories of "digital" exams at the proctologist
Memories of "digital" exams at the proctologist
That's really the only thing I can think of. Digital is just another way of doing what we enjoy. (AND I AM NOT talking about visits to the Proctologist).Brad Bireley said:
kuzano
Veteran
It's a diverse market and both media have value
It's a diverse market and both media have value
based on individual preference. Discussing digital vs film on any level is akin to an atheist discussion religion with a Rabbi, a Minister, a Muslim, and a Priest. It's just going to drive someone insane.
I have a ton of film camera's and 2 digital (one a point and shoot and one a DSLR).
For the next three Saturdays, I am teaching intermediate digital photography for a half day each. Two weeks from now I am teaching a Photoshop Elements class for two days.
After each of those Saturday classes, I will likely pick up an old folder, or my Kiev rangefinder and go out to the river in the forest and shoot some film.
I can make a decent living teaching digital to newby's, either coming from film or just finally getting into photography. I wouldn't even attempt that on film.
The market is going where it's going. I am already getting repeats in the digital classes, because people don't apply what they learn, which tells me that the majority of the people out there have no loyalty to either media, nor are they concerned about the money end of the issue. They love the convenience of digital and may never go further than filling a memory card and driving down to the big box store and plugging their memory cards into a kiosk which spits out 19 cent prints. They do control how many prints they buy, so that's nice.
Professionals and others whose work involves photography have little choice, but I don't think even in their realm it is easy to translate the economic tradeoffs. The money spent for film and processing is traded for post processing time. So if a professional wants to tag his/her time at $75 to $120 per hour, similar to other certified professionals, like CPA's, Computer analysts or consultants, etc., then there is no doubt in my mind that paying for film and processing, proofing, and instructing a lab for printing, is somewhat less expensive than time spent post processing. That doesn't really speak to everything that must be considered to answer the original post.
None of that applies to hobbyists. It boils down to what we enjoy. Some of us actually enjoy walking into the store to drop off a roll of film for processing. And some of us get great enjoyment out of just walking up to a group of traditional film photographers and whispering the words "digital has arrived... film is dead"
It's a diverse market and both media have value
based on individual preference. Discussing digital vs film on any level is akin to an atheist discussion religion with a Rabbi, a Minister, a Muslim, and a Priest. It's just going to drive someone insane.
I have a ton of film camera's and 2 digital (one a point and shoot and one a DSLR).
For the next three Saturdays, I am teaching intermediate digital photography for a half day each. Two weeks from now I am teaching a Photoshop Elements class for two days.
After each of those Saturday classes, I will likely pick up an old folder, or my Kiev rangefinder and go out to the river in the forest and shoot some film.
I can make a decent living teaching digital to newby's, either coming from film or just finally getting into photography. I wouldn't even attempt that on film.
The market is going where it's going. I am already getting repeats in the digital classes, because people don't apply what they learn, which tells me that the majority of the people out there have no loyalty to either media, nor are they concerned about the money end of the issue. They love the convenience of digital and may never go further than filling a memory card and driving down to the big box store and plugging their memory cards into a kiosk which spits out 19 cent prints. They do control how many prints they buy, so that's nice.
Professionals and others whose work involves photography have little choice, but I don't think even in their realm it is easy to translate the economic tradeoffs. The money spent for film and processing is traded for post processing time. So if a professional wants to tag his/her time at $75 to $120 per hour, similar to other certified professionals, like CPA's, Computer analysts or consultants, etc., then there is no doubt in my mind that paying for film and processing, proofing, and instructing a lab for printing, is somewhat less expensive than time spent post processing. That doesn't really speak to everything that must be considered to answer the original post.
None of that applies to hobbyists. It boils down to what we enjoy. Some of us actually enjoy walking into the store to drop off a roll of film for processing. And some of us get great enjoyment out of just walking up to a group of traditional film photographers and whispering the words "digital has arrived... film is dead"
Digital has made me a better photographer because I can see immediate results and learn. Sending off transparency film and getting it days later, oftentimes I'd forget how I shot a particular frame, so if it was good, I didn't know how to repeat it, and if it was bad, I didn't know how to prevent it from happening again.
I like both. It's not about money, or whether I can use my camera years from now. It's about what I can do NOW.
I like both. It's not about money, or whether I can use my camera years from now. It's about what I can do NOW.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
craygc said:Digital saves me a fortune ...never before have I been able to purchase such high end film equipment and a such bargain prices
Yeah, pretty much how I feel. I do like the immediate feedback one gets for digital, but it does come with a higher price for me at todays prices. (I'm not a pro and don't shoot 20K pictures a year. YMMV)
Toby
On the alert
kuzano said:
The man speaks sense listen to him!
parsec1
parsec1
Sick to back teeth of seeing USS George Washinton floating in a coffee cup with a dafodil sticking out of its tail and people calling it 'Photography'.
Apart from Newspaper photographers and I was one for 35 years in UK ..Times, Telegraph, Daily Mirror.Sunday Express(Staff) get an Leica a 35 and a 90 and go and shoot some real photographs on Tri X or HP5, something you can hang on your sitting room wall and be proud to show others.
2M6 ttls 1 CL a 25 bio,35 sum, 50planar and a 90elmarit.
Flickr ....Peter 32,or parsec1 or essexeyes.com
Apart from Newspaper photographers and I was one for 35 years in UK ..Times, Telegraph, Daily Mirror.Sunday Express(Staff) get an Leica a 35 and a 90 and go and shoot some real photographs on Tri X or HP5, something you can hang on your sitting room wall and be proud to show others.
2M6 ttls 1 CL a 25 bio,35 sum, 50planar and a 90elmarit.
Flickr ....Peter 32,or parsec1 or essexeyes.com
kuzano
Veteran
I do appreciate the reminder....
I do appreciate the reminder....
Clearly, I did not address the issue of the two subsets of Professional photographers. The ones who did/do their own lab work, and the ones who sent the processing out and proofed results and then sent proofs back to the printers with instructions to burn, dodge, etc.
Those who did their own lab work probably do appreciate the opportunity to get out of the darkroom. I have a friend who has been an art history professor for close to 40 years and a very accomplished photographer in all formats up to 4X5. Has a huge archive of film and prints. He moved and lost his darkroom a few years ago. He was ecstatic with a digital changeover for about 3 years. He made an excellent forward moving transition.
He's moving again and the new house is being equipped with a full darkroom bigger than the one he left behind. He's limberin up his film camera's and processing tools.
Frankly, I don't think we've seen the last of this. I buy and sell cameras on eBay and I can honestly say that well done auctions are bringing higher prices on medium and large format, not to mention high end 35mm equipment, than prices 3 to 5 years ago. If you look at the overall eBay experience in camera's that would not appear to be the case, but if you are very selective in equipment and it's quality, added to good feedback on knowledgable sellers, prices are up. This is very evident in large format based on those criteria.
I do appreciate the reminder....
sitemistic said:
Clearly, I did not address the issue of the two subsets of Professional photographers. The ones who did/do their own lab work, and the ones who sent the processing out and proofed results and then sent proofs back to the printers with instructions to burn, dodge, etc.
Those who did their own lab work probably do appreciate the opportunity to get out of the darkroom. I have a friend who has been an art history professor for close to 40 years and a very accomplished photographer in all formats up to 4X5. Has a huge archive of film and prints. He moved and lost his darkroom a few years ago. He was ecstatic with a digital changeover for about 3 years. He made an excellent forward moving transition.
He's moving again and the new house is being equipped with a full darkroom bigger than the one he left behind. He's limberin up his film camera's and processing tools.
Frankly, I don't think we've seen the last of this. I buy and sell cameras on eBay and I can honestly say that well done auctions are bringing higher prices on medium and large format, not to mention high end 35mm equipment, than prices 3 to 5 years ago. If you look at the overall eBay experience in camera's that would not appear to be the case, but if you are very selective in equipment and it's quality, added to good feedback on knowledgable sellers, prices are up. This is very evident in large format based on those criteria.
OldNick
Well-known
For me, the digital camera is for the snaps one wishes to share quickly with others. For valued photographs, I prefer to use film. However, it sometimes takes me a while to finish a roll of film. Shooting two or three negatives and having them processed is a waste of money for me, so yes, the digital does save some money.
Jim N.
Jim N.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
sitemistic said:
There are some companies that would love ten years of growth, but you are of course right that this is not a long term strategy. Maybe some of the tail end Boomers could do this, and who cares if the market remains when I'm retired or dead...
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
It's all good...