Rockwell Gets It Right!

ugh finally. Everyone who asks why I use film still I give them the same speech. And when they bring up the factor of "oh, I can't afford film it's so expensive. I break down the math that it costs me about 34 cents a frame. That figure includes the average cost of a roll and film development. I ask them how many shots they take a year and tell them to do the math. The only difference between film and digital is that you're paying for film and development up front. ok, maybe that's not the only difference. But it's the issue when you're discussing cost.

You'll run into someone who says "I shoot thousands of pictures a year, it would cost me a fortune." Be serious. They're taking 20 shots of the exact same thing. And they're only doing it because it's digital. When I work, I shoot the same thing maybe 4-5 times at the most. But they shoot the same thing over and over and over again because they're looking at the image on the LCD and going over and over the thing. And it's a waste. All things being equal, image 17 isn't going to be all that different from image 2.
 
swoop said:
You'll run into someone who says "I shoot thousands of pictures a year, it would cost me a fortune." Be serious. They're taking 20 shots of the exact same thing. And they're only doing it because it's digital. When I work, I shoot the same thing maybe 4-5 times at the most. But they shoot the same thing over and over and over again because they're looking at the image on the LCD and going over and over the thing. And it's a waste. All things being equal, image 17 isn't going to be all that different from image 2.
Click to expand...

Very true indeed (also the comment from K. Rockwell !) "machine-gun" style photography seems to be hip with the digital imagers ... ;)
Another thought, if processed correctly, the (film)-photos will still be accessible in 20 or 30 years, not so sure about the digital image files except when spending a fortune on proper storage technology and keeping the software up to date.
 
I like Ken's right ups on stuff, he's not really saying anything we don't know but it is nice to be reminded. We all know that digital technology is time lifed and if you have to have the latest and greatest you will pay through the nose for it. I was looking for a full frame DSLR, mainly for the bigger viewfinder and low noise at high iso but they are still very high on price especially in Europe. I've decided to make the most out of my trusty Nikon D70, which with a D1X viewfinder magnifier and some Dfine 2.0 software still produces superb results up to around 10 x 8. How much technology do we need? I paid £550 for my D70 new approx 3 and half years ago, current value on a good day £150. Camera gas is finished for me now and i'm now going to concentrate on making the most of what I have and aquire some more pictures rather than more cameras! When my MP breaks i'll get it fixed, when my D70 breaks I'll throw it away. simple.
 
You all should take a reading of Marshall McLuhan's Laws of Media.

He was the first to predict the way technology acts and how it has shaped and controlled social and political events and actions throughout the past few decades.

Something everyone should be familiar with, as it is an ever increasing alarming issue (read more about McLuhanand you'll understand)
 
Paul_C said:
If the only worth of your camera is its resale value you're using it wrong.
Click to expand...

How very profound! perhaps you could give us all some lessons on how to use them then, either that or how to become so wealthy that price doesn't matter:D
 
I don't know where this crazy ass notion comes from that all digital shooters shoot machine gun style. I don't shoot like that. I pretty much shoot the way I always have, even back when I shot film exclusively.

You have to take what Rockwell says with a grain of salt. Stating that the Nikon D1x is "pretty much useless" is bull****, and he knows it.
 
Rick Waldroup said:
I don't know where this crazy ass notion comes from that all digital shooters shoot machine gun style. I don't shoot like that. I pretty much shoot the way I always have, even back when I shot film exclusively.

You have to take what Rockwell says with a grain of salt. Stating that the Nikon D1x is "pretty much useless" is bull****, and he knows it.
Click to expand...

... it comes from all the crazy ass "10.000 shutter actuations in 3 month with my DXYZ and counting...", "30.000 shutter actuations ..." kind of photographer proudly announcing it all over the web (especially Dpreview).

Personally, I have rarely seen a DSLR shooter using his camera in single-shot mode, it usually goes "clack, clack, clack, clack ..." within a few seconds (amateurs and pros).

BTW, I have owned and used a Nikon D1x for some time (in single shot mode because I had only one battery, used RAW mode all the time) and know what this camera is capable of ... ;)
 
Any camera used properly should have no resale value at all. It should be completely run down, and used up..

The whole digital-rot argument hinges on the statement that film cameras retain their value better. But what actually this means that is that film cameras are so expensive to operate that no-one completely wears them out..

I'll dive for cover now...
 
It all depends on what most digital users use their camera for ... in my case I believe the M8 has reached the maximum quality for the biggest prints I will ever produce (A3). It was not the case of a D1x. So 5 to 10 years down the line, the M8 will still enable the same great prints. Technology has maxed out on perceived quality IMO. Increasing tonal range, mpx, 16 bits and in camera technology will not lead to significantly better results (visible to the human eye) up to A3. So, provided the sensor and circuity holds the test of time, the M8 price will never fall to the bottoms of the first generation digital cameras. Build quality, scarcity and brand name will help maintain a certain level of price.
 
maddoc said:
... it comes from all the crazy ass "10.000 shutter actuations in 3 month with my DXYZ and counting...", "30.000 shutter actuations ..." kind of photographer proudly announcing it all over the web (especially Dpreview).

Personally, I have rarely seen a DSLR shooter using his camera in single-shot mode, it usually goes "clack, clack, clack, clack ..." within a few seconds (amateurs and pros).

BTW, I have owned and used a Nikon D1x for some time (in single shot mode because I had only one battery, used RAW mode all the time) and know what this camera is capable of ... ;)
Click to expand...

Okay, you got me there. :D

I do know a few nutcases that shoot like that. However, I can't remember the last time I ever had my camera set to anything but the single shot mode.

I shot a D1x for years and loved that camera. It had it's downpoints, especially the battery issue, but I loved the files from it and was using it right up until the day I switched systems and sold all my Nikon gear. Out of all my pro Nikon bodies, that one was my favorite.:)
 
I can't agree with Rockwell (or most of RFF) on this matter, it seems. He says a D1x is useless because it has the resolution of a D50 - but if you were happy with the resolution of your D50 in the past, why not keep using it? Surely people here should know best that as long as you're getting the results you want, it doesn't matter how outdated your gear is.

Let's all remember that the RD-1, which is wildly popular here, is about four years old now and is still more than sufficient for the majority of us. There's no reason to badmouth digital cameras just because we have no self-control.
 
Paul_C said:
If the only worth of your camera is its resale value you're using it wrong.
Click to expand...
Dear Paul,

Seconded.

I've had my money's worth out of just about every camera I've ever bought, in terms of pictures taken. If I need/want to replace it, and it still has some residual value, that's a bonus, but it's substantially irrelevant.

I've had my M4-P so long that I forget what it cost new. Let's say GBP 1000. Across 25 years (actually more like 26-27) that's GBP 40/year.

Sure, an M8 is unlikely to remain as useful for as long, but 5 years is a reasonable expectancy before something REALLY BETTER comes out. That's GBP 600/year. Once there's a full-frame M9, probably 18-20 megapixels (roughly 35mm equivalent for most purposes), I see no reason not to go on using that for as long as the M4-P.

Very rarely, I'll buy a second-hand camera on the grounds that if I don't like it, I won't lose much if I don't like it and decide to re-sell it (I might even make a profit) but I'd never consider buying a new camera in that way.

Cheers,

R.
 
Of course, Ken makes a good point. But it will be less and less true as time goes on. Digital cameras have been in their teething stage until just recently. There were really significant shortcomings compared to film As digital begins to hit its stride there will be fewer reasons to trade in and up. For example, my R-D1 does everything I want in a digital range finder. Sure, it has shortcomings, but so does every camera. The thing is, I have never felt the need to upgrade to get better image quality. I'm happy with the pictures it takes. Would it be nice to shoot in pitch blackness at iso 125,000? Uh, I guess so, but I don't really need that. So regardless of the camera's resale value, I won't be upgrading any time soon. I guess this is actually reflected in the cameras resale value as well, holding around $1500, the same used price it has had since it came out.

/T
 
Not everywhere sadly.

Not everywhere sadly.

Whilst I partially agree with Rockwell in what he writes here (Film cameras being fine cameras till they fall apart digital camera's losing the charm when better ones come along) I fail to agree completely with this

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm

As has previously been mentioned, 5D and their kin are still going to be great in many many years to come.

Now I ENJOY using film, I love the look and the excitement of waiting for the result and that, but the argument that it is not a LOT more expensive is sadly not true everywhere.

The pictures on that page look stunning for supermarket type scans but..

If I take a film to Tesco and have it processed, printed and scanned, it will run me in the region of £7.99, nearly twice the price mentioned in the article, the prints will not be very good, the film will have scratches and the scans will be half assed.

I can send the film off to a pro lab and have the same work done, Price is now £14 but the scans and prints are lovely, the film is clean and washed to archival standard and I am enjoying it. But that is a LOT of money. I can have the film developed at the pro lab for £4.50 and scan it on my Epson V750 which I paid £500 for, but it will not be as good as output from my 5D, nowhere near.

So great for Ken that he gets good stuff from Costco but sadly it is not like that everywhere.

//Jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom