Ever have one of these days?

[Jeroen]

Even better is when people ask you if your TLR is a digital camera. 'Sure, come right over here and look down on this screen. See? There's the picture I just took!' 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

On the rare occasions something similar has happened to me I generally use one of two replies. The conversations go something like this:

Me: How many pixels has your camera got?

Them: 6 [or 8 or whatever]

Me: Do you know how many pixels you'd need to equal 35mm film...?

OR

Me: How old is your camera?

Them (proudly): 6 weeks [or whatever]

Me: This camera is 40 years old (or if it's the MP) was designed 50 years ago. Do you think your camera will still be usable in 40 years time?

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[RML]

...The digital is nice, but the workflow for me is too tedious. <snipsnip> ...Mail off the film to someplace online and let them scan and print it for me.)

I'm not sure it's the difference between digital or film. IMO it's more the difference between SLR and RF cameras. I feel equally emotionally involved when I'm shooting my digital Eos 300D or my film Eos 3000.

When it comes to digital being less expensive... I must agree. Here in Holland getting your shots burned to CD is prohibitively expensive. I'm talking about 10 euro or more per roll of film! Add to that the price of film and development and we're talking 15-20 euro per roll. Call me crazy but I have better things to do with my money. 🙂

People indeed seem to assume any camera nowadays is digital, especially thosemodels they haven't seen before. People even assume my Japanesque Gold M2 is digital! I like JLW's response. I better start learning that response. Now, what was that about Finite Integral Linear Molecule technolgy...?

 

[Pherdinand]

yeah, it's like a new religion. Thousands of volunteering crusaders. I really hate it when somebody with that big i-know-everything-smile tells me about the secrets of technological development. I especially hate it when they include stupid marketing text repeated as they have heard them in tv commercials. Or when they think I should have a 400mm lens on my camera, since a 24mm makes everything so small.

But i agree with rover...if she was cute, i'd be glad to have a long discussion with her about our differing oppinions 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

Jeroen, i also had that. The text was something like "Man, that's the biggest LCD i've ever seen on a digital camera!"

 

[Richard Black]

I think that this issue with the public's infatuation with digital cameras is more a product of advertising than real preference. I have two encounters that explain this. Visiting Guthrie Ok, a fellow traveller with a Kiev III, I think, and I, with a Pentacon 6tl and all sorts of CZJ optics, walked into a small photo shop. He had a large Fuji processor and some film, one-time use cameras, etc. We explained we were just shooting some of his old town and asked about film v digital and its affect on business. He flat replied that it had no affected his business. He said his most frequent customers were those who used the one-time use cameras. And as we stood there, two different customers came in and turned in 4 of those cameras apiece. Most of them reported to him that digital was too much work to get the photos. They liked to drop them off, run to Wal-Mart, and return an 1 or so later and get their pictures. For a lot of my grandsons' photos that what I do.
I was chatting with the owner of a local photo-finishing/portrait studio at Staples, a large, office supply store, who does the processing of my "more professional stuff". He was complaining of the cost of digital supplies, i.e. ink! He told me the cost of ink for some of his computers and to say I was shock is an understatement. He went on to wax poetically about his new Nikon, film that is. I think an argument has been made that digital is cheaper to print, but that has not been my experience. I can take a card into a photo finisher, including wally world, and the price I pay when compared to the same for film is the same or slightly more. Anybody have this comparison?

 

[cbass]

Minolta SR T-101, c. 1966 -- $45 with lens. Still working & fully compatible with the world.
Minolta XG-9, c. 1979 -- $36 with lens. Still working & fully compatible with the world.
Olympus XA2, c. 1982 -- free. Still working & fully compatible with the world after a slight repair.
Cosina Bessa R, 2005 -- $425. New, expected to be working just as well in 2035.

Canon A-40, c. 2003 -- $225. Working, but discontinued & obsolete. Compatible for how long?
Panasonic DM-FZ1, c. 2003 - $249. Working, but discontinued & obsolete. Compatible for how long?

Someone remind me again where my digital cost savings are? I recently tried to get a replacement cosmetic part for my Panasonic digital camera. I phoned Panasonic's US customer line and the service reps told me no parts are available. Camera is less than three years old. 🙁

I shoot about 48 pictures a month on average (no Winograd here!). Film is about $3.00 per roll and processing is about $10 per roll. That's $26 per month in processing costs. Over the course of a year that comes to $312, or about the cost of a decent 4.0 MP digital camera (w/out storage media) which will be obsolete in nine months.

I enjoy digital for the opportunities it offers but I'll stick with film, thank you.


PS - It's great fun to hand my XA2 to a digital shooter and watch them struggle to find the LCD. 😛

 

[wblanchard]

What amazes me is how quickly the digital camera depreciates in value. When I was selling my DSLR's on eBay and other sites, people wanted to know how many photos I shot with it...I guess the digital camera's picture quality starts to get worse over x amount of shots or impressions. It's similar to film expire dates...

 

[dmr]

I think an argument has been made that digital is cheaper to print, but that has not been my experience.

I shoot film, but almost all of my printing is digital, either on my own HP, the big one at work, or an occasional nice print at the lab. I love the ability to edit/fix in Photoshop and print the result.

I think that statement is true, overall, because you don't print as much with digital as you did with traditional shoot a roll, take it in, double prints on Thursday. 🙂

Yes, the ink is extortive in cost! I find myself holding off on prints just watching those ink level bars drop. 🙁

 

[Jon Perry]

My lecturers are real "old school" photographers. Traditional film photographers. We have to fight to get any digital knowledge out of them at all!

We had to show them how to use the college Nikon D70's!

The future of professional "commercial" photography is undoubtedly digital. The future of photography as an art form is NOT!

Don't believe the hype.

LONG LIVE FILM!

Jon.

 

[Richard Black]

I'm old enough to say I don't have to justify my use of film to anyone. That said, the position put forth by CBASS is on point for me. The cost of the picture does include the cost of the equipment and any economic student will tell you that the investment in the equipment is part of the cost. Can you recover much of the cost of a digital wondercamera three years later. I don't know, but I suspect you won't get too much for it. My2cents

 

[Roger Hicks]

Jon,

KIAD?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Kin Lau]

I print my digital shots at the grocery chain photolab, CDN$.25 per shot. Costco and Walmart is cheaper, but more of a hassle for me due to the long lineups.

I shoot about 10k shots a year in digital, and only print 1-5% (nature, wildlife, mostly birds, the highest throwaway ratio in photography). Film, I shoot probably about 40-50 rolls a year, mostly b&w, but I also use E6 & C41 colour film for wide angles. So I get my money`s worth out of both formats.

Oddly enough, I rarely get anyone asking whether it`s the Canon DReb with a 500mm lense is a digital... I usually get a comment about the lense instead 🙂

 

[Peter]

Or, "Is that a digital camera?"

"No, it's post-digital ..."

Gene

HAHAHAHA! This is a good one! The future of digital is film! Again! 😀

 

[dmr]

The future of professional "commercial" photography is undoubtedly digital. ...

Don't believe the hype.

As much as I'm a film junkie, I feel a need to play devil's advocate here. For my way of doing things, here and now in 2005, film is the way I prefer. It works fine and I'm comfortable with it.

However, if I were a professional photographer, whether photojournalist, commercial, portrait, wedding, whatever, I would seriously rethink digital. Digital does have expedience, efficiency, and convenience factors, and if I had to deliver photos to meet deadlines or bottom lines, I would consider digital as a possible tool for the jobs.

 

[mtokue]

I love it when I'm out shooting with my RD-1 and a Leica. Inevitably a guy that looks like a walking Christmas tree (Shooting vest, Long tele lens over one shoulder, Lightmeter around his neck, all sorts of things attached to his DSLR) comes by and starts with the spiel about how I should consider "Digital" etc etc. I love the look when I flip out the screen on the RD-1 and show a few results. 😀 He then tries to explain how the Leica lenses are "Old and just can not compare" to his Ultrasonic DXVTSV Super HG whatever. At this point I normally just smile and agree and walk away!!
Don't get me wrong I do have a DSLR and for long tele shots I will use them but I still can not see myself giving up Film, I do use my digitals quite a bit but when I know I'm going to be shooting something "Special" I still tend to reach for film.
Mike

 

[Jon Perry]

Jon,

KIAD?

Cheers,

Roger

WKC HND Photo Year 1 of 2 (Just coming to end of 😀 )

Jon.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

For the last few days I've been carrying my M3 around my neck. Three people have made comments about it: two women and one man.

Same happened when I traveled with my Canonet, or any of my other Leicas.

The best question wasn't if the camera was digital but this "Is that camera a manual?"

"Yep" I said "you advance the film, focus, shoot and do everything with your hands."

"Wow... "

 

[Doug]

"Yep" I said "you advance the film, focus, shoot and do everything with your hands."

"Wow... "

Wow indeed! Pretty primitive, eh; amazing anything useful can be done at all... 😛