Transition to digital ?

[ch1]

I won't answer this poll because of the "reasons" attached to each response.

Like "30% = I'm getting into it"

Into what? Part-time digital is about what level "I'm getting into it" is for me!

Why the hell do these kinds of posts always suggest that these kinds of choices are "either/or"? As if life only gives you one choice and you HAVE to make it to the exclusion of alternatives?

Can't I "do digital" 30% of the time but not be "getting into it" as if I am now on a "slippery slope" and must ultimately give up film?

I shoot digital sometimes - film more often. The more I work at both - the more I no longer think of the two activites as very related to each other at all:

My take is this:

Film is photography; Digital is image making. Separate them in your mind and there is no longer an either/or "conflict" between them.

OOOH, very ZEN!!! 😱

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I don't shoot digital. I'll shoot digital when I can afford a digital rangefinder. At the moment, though, it seems that those days are a ways off.

 

[sf]

I don't shoot digital because my digital camera is sick, and I don't want to pay it doctors' bills. I think I'll just bury it when it dies, in the cold, wet earth in my back yard - but not too close to the house. I'd rather buy film for my REAL camera than pay to have that evil little machine hanging around my room, giving nasty looks to its eternal superiors and making darkroom jokes.

 

[Andy K]

I don't shoot digital because my digital camera is sick, and I don't want to pay it doctors' bills. I think I'll just bury it when it dies, in the cold, wet earth in my back yard - but not too close to the house. I'd rather buy film for my REAL camera than pay to have that evil little machine hanging around my room, giving nasty looks to its eternal superiors and making darkroom jokes.

😀 😀 😀

 

[aizan]

looks like this will be the year for me to buy a serious digital camera. if leica and olympus don't pull through, which i doubt, there's always the nikon d200 to fall back on.

and until someone makes a digital p&s with fast, interchangeable primes, i'll have to make do with the 35mm image stabilized lens on the panasonic fx-9. i've already got some keepers on flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/raizans/

 

[Gid]

I've shot digital only for the last 5 years. Why? It gives me complete control over the whole process. I never developed stuff myself, so didn't have that control over the analogue process.

Ultimately it doesn't matter a jot what you shoot unless you are into very serious large fine art prints IMHO. I imagine most amateurs would be happy with reasonable quality prints up to A3 for most of the time and you can get that from a consumer P&S. If you only want 6x4s then you can probably get away with some of the more recent camera phones. Will they be as sharp, well saturated and as detailed as a "hand crafted" shot from 35mm, MF or LF? Most likely not unless you're shooting a 1DS MkII and up (and even then debateable). However, I doubt that most people (non photographers) care as long as the print they have gives them what they want. Now if you gave them the choice of two prints that were identical apart from one being digital and one being from film you might get a very different result. But, nobody does that.

Just enjoy your medium and its inherent processes.

My two pennies worth. 🙂

Regards

Gid

 

[AsahiPentax]

To be honest, I'm too poor for digital 😛

 

[David Goldfarb]

I checked 1-30%, and it's probably more like 5-10%.

I have a Coolpix 990 that I purchased new for archiving documents (like a scanner, but much faster and more portable for library research), and I also use it occasionally for advertising items for sale on the internet, or for digitizing images for the web.

I do very little digital printing, except for the occasional Frontier print or Chromira/LightJet print from color transparencies. I don't own any photo quality printer.

Maybe in the next few years I'll get a DSLR for bird photography, but for now I still shoot 35mm slides for that.

If anything, I'm going "backward," devoting more and more time to large format, and I'm starting to do some alt-process work.

 

[darkkavenger]

I switched from digital to film in 2005. I saw the Light!

 

[DougK]

I posted a long time ago on this thread and I've really been thinking about this question since then. For me it isn't so much a transition as becoming comfortable with both media. I started getting serious about photography on digital and switched back to film. I've flip-flopped back and forth ever since, but I don't see that as a bad thing, I just use what's appropriate for the situation.

 

[lushd]

Going the other way - I'm doing a lot more film these days. The issue for me is two fold - one is the quality, which ain't there yet (my £20 Zorki 4k and Jupiter 8 can knock spots off most digital cameras for detail, tone etc) but probably will be in the near future. The other is the sheer unecessary complication of electronic cameras. I don't like having to figure out how to defeat a computers idea of a correct exposure so I can have the image I want. I am really keen on the idea of an Epson R-D1 or the forever promised digital Leica M (and the Voigtlander version that will follow) because it really does seem to be a decent stab at overcoming my objections. Keep waiting, keep saving up I guess.

 

[ch1]

....I don't like having to figure out how to defeat a computers idea of a correct exposure so I can have the image I want....

Actually, if you shoot digital using manual mode in RAW format you are very much "on your own". You don't have to use the AUTO function if you don't want to.

Digital has many advantages - but I just won my third (and I swear, last) F3 on eBay because I still like film and manual control (and I have three residences to populate with cameras!) 😱

 

[Steve B]

manual mode

manual mode

I think the above is a very good point. Is the M7 any less of a camera because of the addition of auto exposure? No, one can still use the manual mode. Its just another tool for the photographer to choose from. Digital cameras do have an awful lot of tools but its still up to the photographer to choose the right one. I find I mostly use the same tools on my digital SLR as I do on my F3, aperture priority. You really don't have to "defeat" anything. Just choose the right tool for the job. People have been saying the same thing ever sense auto exposure and auto focus came along. Hell people said the same thing when dry plates came out and you didn't have to coat your own. People said the same thing when roll film came out. "Its not REAL photography".

 

[Andy K]

The only digital I've ever used is built into my phone. It's good for ebay pics, but that's all I'd ever use digital for. When a digital camera works without batteries and gives me a roll of negatives every 36 frames I might think about getting one.

 

[Finder]

Not an issue of film or digital for me. I have an extensive film system and it gives me what I need. I have no reason to go digital. It could have been the other way around if I was born twenty years later.

 

[TimF]

I have decided that the day I can't get anymore film, I'm gonna pack down my cameras, because then it's all over - no more photography for my part.

Must admit to a lot of sympathy with Jacques' position here.

I've been there (with a Canon 1Ds), and after a brief infatuation (though without giving up shooting film at any time), decided I didn't like the process of digital photography (by which I mean, for me there's no buzz from looking at images on a monitor compared to viewing a tranny etc etc) and returned to 100% film.

Only a few years ago, you didn't hear people saying "I must upgrade my camera, blah, blah, blah". Rather, they'd use what they had until it either wore out (and a decent camera might last them 10 years or longer), or until they had 'outgrown' its capabilities. Now it seems cameras are just another consumer item, with a short term lifespan.

Would I ever buy another digital camera? Never say never, but if so, for me it would only be for unimportant pictures, and stuff where I didn't wish to fire off a whole roll of film. Digicams are out, as I loathe the menu systems, the elctronic viewfinders etc etc, and any DSLR must work completely with my old manual focus Nikon-mount glass (ie have metering) - the D200 fits that particular bill, but its far too much money over that which I'd be prepared to hand over for such a limited use item.

So come on Nikon, make a D70 price range camera with full lens compatibility, and maybe, just maybe I'll take a look someday.

 

[RML]

Must admit to a lot of sympathy with Jacques' position here.

I've been there (with a Canon 1Ds), and after a brief infatuation (though without giving up shooting film at any time), decided I didn't like the process of digital photography (by which I mean, for me there's no buzz from looking at images on a monitor compared to viewing a tranny etc etc) and returned to 100% film.

Only a few years ago, you didn't hear people saying "I must upgrade my camera, blah, blah, blah". Rather, they'd use what they had until it either wore out (and a decent camera might last them 10 years or longer), or until they had 'outgrown' its capabilities. Now it seems cameras are just another consumer item, with a short term lifespan.

Would I ever buy another digital camera? Never say never, but if so, for me it would only be for unimportant pictures, and stuff where I didn't wish to fire off a whole roll of film. Digicams are out, as I loathe the menu systems, the elctronic viewfinders etc etc, and any DSLR must work completely with my old manual focus Nikon-mount glass (ie have metering) - the D200 fits that particular bill, but its far too much money over that which I'd be prepared to hand over for such a limited use item.

So come on Nikon, make a D70 price range camera with full lens compatibility, and maybe, just maybe I'll take a look someday.

Though I can understand your position, I think your experience is only with dSLRs and dP&S. I too can't get used to them. They never feel right somehow. The R-D1, though expensive to say the least, is an entirely different beast. It's an RF with digital innards. Yes, the crop factor could be an issue but for me it's not. Yes, it does have some QC problems but the latest batch seems to be top notch. If I were you I wouldn't give up on photography and digital too soon. 🙂

 

[Bertram2]

I have decided that the day I can't get anymore film, I'm gonna pack down my cameras, because then it's all over - no more photography for my part.

Jacques.

Jacques,
I've thought about it too , but I am not sure if THIS will be my solution then.
Leaving aside that this is a hypothetic situation anyway related to the next 25 years I am not sure if I could give up photography completely.

Much more than price,finders, menues, crop factor and handling ( I la hate it all !)the look of the fotos is the decisive thing for me. As long as they don't get more dynamic range into the imaging computers and as long as they do not manage to produce B&W photos which look like silver based B&W film it does not make sense for me to think about a digital camera.

First when bad transitions, vinyl look , blown out highlights and closed shadows are gone i will look if they have invented a more intelligent (like RD-1) operation. too. If so, who knows, maybe I'd try it if there is no film available.
"In der Not frisst der Teufel Fliegen" 😀
(If the there is nothing else available the devil eats flies too)

bertram

 

[TimF]

Though I can understand your position, I think your experience is only with dSLRs and dP&S. I too can't get used to them. They never feel right somehow. The R-D1, though expensive to say the least, is an entirely different beast. It's an RF with digital innards.

Ah, I should have mentioned that I'd briefly owned the R-D1 as well. In fact I think I was one of the earliest purchasers in the UK FWIW (which is very little!) 😉 My feelings for that camera were pretty much the same as for the DSLR in the end - the relative lack of weight was definitely a blessing, but I was not overwhelmed by the image quality, which is in the end what the thing should be about.

My copy was one of those with a misaligned rangefinder (and the frames were slightly slanted IIRC), so it went back to be fixed. When, after three weeks the camera was returned with no repair carried out, that was it for me. No way was I prepared to spend 2,000 UKP on a camera on which the most basic repairs could (or would) not be done.

 

[matti]

When my Bessa R2 was smashed and I got some money from the insurance company I seriously thought about buying a Nikon d70 and use my old Nikon manual lenses on it. But then I thought about why I photograph. And this digital cameras are not fun to use. And if it is not fun, I won't take good pictures.

My main problems with digital are these:

- I don't think before I press the shutter. The more features the camera have the less I think and the more boring the pictures. A digital camera is relly a disadvantage here.

- I take too many pictures. Just click click, without thinking (again). The digital camera doesn't have anything that say: Hay! stop snapping! You have only five left!

- I think too slow. And with a camera with autofocus and advanced exposure meeters you have to reverse the process of how the camera came to this or that conclusion on where to focus or what the exposure should be. (Of cource, I could turn these features off, but did I tell you that I am lazy too?)

- I get distracted by looking at the pictures in the display to check if it is ok, instead of thinking about taking photos. With a digital camera, I don't need to be confident in my skills. So (I'm lazy remember) I don't really try to learn stuff, I just snap away...

So, I replaced the Bessa with a Leica M6 and are really happy! Keep it in my bag or pocket every day. (I wouldn't have done that with a dSLR.) I just use a Sony p&s for family snapshots that relatives demand. So I should say that 1-30%, I am getting OUT of it, would be correct for me.

/matti