giving up...

yes you're right, color takes a lot longer, I don't do it myself, I send out and usually the drugstore messes something up. One kid who worked at a CVS tried to make me pay for an 8x10 that had a huge scratch down the middle. I had to argue with the manager who eventually yelled at the punk and made him print another one and gave it to me for free.
 
Keep in mind, these cameras and lenses we love are but tools. 99.999% of them can be replaced, it may cost a bit more or a bit less, you can not. Your vision, your drive, your approach can not. I do not find myself shooting more of the same with digital, but I feel freer to take chances, to try new things. I've tried different styles when street shoot than I did with my Bessa L / CV25mm combo. If something does not work, I can delete it after I figure out why.

I have my fingers crossed for the M4/3 systems. I'm still lusting for a D200 or D300, the D700 just costs too much and is way too big.

Do stay around just to learn more, one never knows where this wonderful imaging industry will move next.

B2 (;->
 
OY!! forgot about the 'crop' factor.....sheesh! Full Frame sensors....$$$$
I need to take a chill pill here. Hearing both sides is like watching a tennis match! Thanks for all the responses.....really gets you thinking.😕
 
Rick Waldroup said:
Tom, when I purchased my first digital camera, that is exactly what I did. I used the digital camera for my work and I shot film for my personal stuff. In the end, it finally just made sense to settle on one medium, cost wise. So, I sold every bit of my film equipment, all my darkroom equipment, and that is how I financed my complete conversion to digital.
Click to expand...

Rick,

I'm not sure that one can answer this entirely from an economic perspective. I don't doubt that from a business model perspective that an all digital approach makes economic sense and I don't mean to be insensitive to other people's economic situations, but we're no longer at the point where a functional digital camera costs $1000 or more.

If someone has $100.00 to invest in photographic equipment, they could buy both a functional used film camera and a functional used digital camera on line. They obviously wouldn't be buying the top of the line equipment and most of us would consider such equipment to be unacceptable, but after that entry point we're talking about personal choices, aren't we?

I can respect a person's decision to invest all in one or the other. On the other hand, I do think that there's a middle road where, if one can afford it, one can enjoy both mediums and it doesn't have to be one or the other.
 
...when I first went digital, I thought the one thing I would miss the most was my darkroom and being able to make my own prints. I had been doing that for 30 years. When I sat down at a computer and saw what I could achieve with a digital file, I found out that I did not miss film at all.
Click to expand...

Rick, my experience was just the same. We bought our house in 2002 and I was thrilled that the previous owner had a darkroom in the basement. I think I bought Photoshop CS in 2003 and within six months the darkroom was stripped and it's contents sold, including a lovely Focomat V35.

The digital darkroom is such a democratic bit of technology. For a small outlay of cash you can tweak to your hearts content, just like Ansel Adams did, and you don't need to quit your day job, apply for grant money, or have your lab assistant channel her unrequited love into your career. 😀

FWIW, I don't do any of my own printing. I take the files to my lab and have prints made on the premium Kodak paper. Printing on film, IMO, really closes the gap on getting a digital file to look more like film.
 
I can't agree with or criticize anyone's choices here, just give my experience: Two years ago I spent probably $1300 on a 6mp DSLR and 2 lenses. I had a great time pushing all the neat buttons and changing things in Photoshop with a click or a slider adjustment. But eventually I tired of the novelty. I still use the digital for shots of my child or to sell things on Ebay. But for subjects I really value, I chose film. I can only say that, even with scanning and inkjet printing of the negatives, I find that film is somehow a more authentic experience. It may not be rational, but photography for me seems to need a certain amount of serendipity: I had to chose the right settings myself and focus correctly because the camera won't do it. I had to chose the right developer for the amount of contrast, and the right film. I had to catch the right moment.

If everyone is now churning out perfect photos all the time, it would seem that each photo is now worth less, and that includes my own work. I don't need to have a winner 100% of the time. It would cheapen the art much in the way that Beethoven would be cheapened if we constantly heard it played in every store or mall.
 
katgut@earthlink.net said:
I can't agree with or criticize anyone's choices here, just give my experience: Two years ago I spent probably $1300 on a 6mp DSLR and 2 lenses. I had a great time pushing all the neat buttons and changing things in Photoshop with a click or a slider adjustment. But eventually I tired of the novelty. I still use the digital for shots of my child or to sell things on Ebay. But for subjects I really value, I chose film. I can only say that, even with scanning and inkjet printing of the negatives, I find that film is somehow a more authentic experience. It may not be rational, but photography for me seems to need a certain amount of serendipity: I had to chose the right settings myself and focus correctly because the camera won't do it. I had to chose the right developer for the amount of contrast, and the right film. I had to catch the right moment.

If everyone is now churning out perfect photos all the time, it would seem that each photo is now worth less, and that includes my own work. I don't need to have a winner 100% of the time. It would cheapen the art much in the way that Beethoven would be cheapened if we constantly heard it played in every store or mall.
Click to expand...

1) Photos ARE a commodity. Stock photos now sell for around 50 cents. Technology is that which gives super-human powers to ordinary people. It took thousands of people to build the Pyramids. Now one guy with a back-loader can do it.

2) Ever heard of Muzak?

/T
 
Yes, I've heard of Muzak. As a professional classical musician, people always ask me what I listen to. They're surprised to know I don't listen to music unless I have to. And I despise the Christmas abomination of having to hear Messiah everywhere I go. Music has been commodified, art has been commodified. Does the world need another watercolor of a barn or a sunset? A recording of the Mendelssohn concerto? A photo of a flower or
a mountain?
Perhaps Leicas represent to many some minor version of anti-commodification: If no one else can buy it at Best Buy and post it to the web in 30 seconds after pressing the button, then I don't want one.
 
What are you digital guys going to do????

What are you digital guys going to do????

When the big one hits and the EMP from the nuclear blast wipes out the computers and electronics devices. Don't any of you watch "Dark Angel". How can you possibly pass up watching Jessica Alba do all that stuff she was bred and trained to do at Manticore?

Film for me, for after the big one.
 
ClaremontPhoto said:
ranger: You've made the decision that is right for you. I look forward to seeing your photos in the future, whatever the technology you use.
Click to expand...

back alley said:
i like both.

i am currently playing with my sony a300 and a bunch of older minolta af lenses and it's a hoot. i have had some of my best feedback from some of these digital shots, go figure!

i plan on keeping all my rf gear and would love to add an rd1 to the kit so i could use my zm lenses on it.

i shoot digital like i shoot film, looking through the viewfinder, economical shooting, no blasting away and photoshop like i would a scanned neg.

i like the instant satisfaction at being able to process a few shots at a time and not having to wait till i finish a roll of film.

i like both.
Click to expand...

nikon_sam said:
Hang on to the film gear and shoot film when you want a break from looking at a computer screen...
Have fun shooting whatever type of gear you use...
Click to expand...

I think these posts nicely sum up the issue. Good advice.
 
Ah, cool! Thanks for the long term update Ranger. Film is not as easy as it was in 2008. Back then, you could get C41 done almost anywhere - now DIY is a much more viable option than it used to be.
 
So:

- you don't need to shoot a bazillion frames with a digital camera.
- you don't need to shoot a bazillion frames with a film camera.
- you don't need to spend a million hours staring at a computer screen with a digital camera.
- you do need to spend time processing your exposures with a film camera.

What capture media you choose is irrelevant.

Pick whichever medium you want and learn how to get what you want out of it. If processing time is an issue, either learn how to make perfect JPEGs with the in-camera JPEG engine or have your film processed by a photofinisher.

It's all up to you. The camera is only a tool.

G
 
Godfrey said:
So:

- you don't need to shoot a bazillion frames with a digital camera.
- you don't need to shoot a bazillion frames with a film camera.
- you don't need to spend a million hours staring at a computer screen with a digital camera.
- you do need to spend time processing your exposures with a film camera.

What capture media you choose is irrelevant.

Pick whichever medium you want and learn how to get what you want out of it. If processing time is an issue, either learn how to make perfect JPEGs with the in-camera JPEG engine or have your film processed by a photofinisher.

It's all up to you. The camera is only a tool.

G
Click to expand...

Somebody needs to carve this in stone and hang it on every photographer's darkroom or computer room wall. Words to live by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom