Bill Pierce
Well-known
I’m going to be on the road for a month which means my time and internet access will be limited. As always, anyone who wants to start a thread on the site is welcome. I’ll jump in when I can. Here’s one last blast before I hit the road, some thought on the old film vs. digital debate.
Having long conversations with friends who prefer film cameras to digital cameras (I'm 99 percent digital.), I’ve come to realize that this is not because of a love of film (although it often masquerades as that) but a hatred of digital. And who can blame them.
If you look at a classic film camera, you have immediate access to meter, set the aperture and shutter speed, set the focus and take the picture. It’s so direct and simple that you can spend most of your time concentrating on the subject.
Many digital cameras rely on an LCD screens menus, sub menus, sub sub menus and so on to control much of the camera’s picture taking. Often the controlled options are excessive and unnecessary and difficult to access at the time you are actually taking a picture. And if you change camera brands don’t expect the new menus, sub menus and sub sub menus to follow the same patterns and procedures of your other camera. And when you come to the digital darkroom expect a parallel situation. That's really sad. The frustration of photographers with digital is understandable.
Hooray for the digital cameras that place the primary and necessary controls as easily accessible dials and other mechanical manual controls and override the need to access sub sub sub menus of ununderstandable phraseology. Cameras aren’t the only modern tools whose designers have confused an unnecessary and confusing complexity with “exciting features.” Contrary to what a number of reviewers have said, you are not mimicking an old fashioned camera when you make a camera with simple external controls that can control the primary functions. You are making a camera that lets you pay attention to the subject, not the tool.
Your thoughts?
Having long conversations with friends who prefer film cameras to digital cameras (I'm 99 percent digital.), I’ve come to realize that this is not because of a love of film (although it often masquerades as that) but a hatred of digital. And who can blame them.
If you look at a classic film camera, you have immediate access to meter, set the aperture and shutter speed, set the focus and take the picture. It’s so direct and simple that you can spend most of your time concentrating on the subject.
Many digital cameras rely on an LCD screens menus, sub menus, sub sub menus and so on to control much of the camera’s picture taking. Often the controlled options are excessive and unnecessary and difficult to access at the time you are actually taking a picture. And if you change camera brands don’t expect the new menus, sub menus and sub sub menus to follow the same patterns and procedures of your other camera. And when you come to the digital darkroom expect a parallel situation. That's really sad. The frustration of photographers with digital is understandable.
Hooray for the digital cameras that place the primary and necessary controls as easily accessible dials and other mechanical manual controls and override the need to access sub sub sub menus of ununderstandable phraseology. Cameras aren’t the only modern tools whose designers have confused an unnecessary and confusing complexity with “exciting features.” Contrary to what a number of reviewers have said, you are not mimicking an old fashioned camera when you make a camera with simple external controls that can control the primary functions. You are making a camera that lets you pay attention to the subject, not the tool.
Your thoughts?
