I am fed up with everyone telling me digital is convenient !
- Topic Locked - You will not be able to post to this topic.
Posted 07/09/2005 - 23:49
Link
Hi,
As you will have noticed from the last thread, I am in almost complete aggreement with you but for one exception and that is for use on the net. If I need a picture for my website, I use the digital, upload it to the PC and publish. With E6, I have to take it, finish the roll, send it off, scan it and then upload it to PC. If it isn't quite right, I have to go through it all again. However, For nearly all the rest, I am in your team.
Kim
As you will have noticed from the last thread, I am in almost complete aggreement with you but for one exception and that is for use on the net. If I need a picture for my website, I use the digital, upload it to the PC and publish. With E6, I have to take it, finish the roll, send it off, scan it and then upload it to PC. If it isn't quite right, I have to go through it all again. However, For nearly all the rest, I am in your team.
Kim
Posted 08/09/2005 - 04:18
Link
Oh dear, it was me that said it was more convenient, wasn't it?
Let me explain, you get immediate feedback from digital and it's relatively easy to manipulate the image. With film, you'd most probably have to revisit the site, reposition the subjects, wait until the light was right and then bracket your exposures to ensure that you had one decent shot.
Finish the film, package it up and send it away..........wait 48hours or so and then be disappointed with approx. 2/3rds of the prints.
Now don't get me wrong, I never really wanted to go digital but I have and I like it but I still think that traditional film is real photography.
Photographic publications have always featured images that have been manipulated 'post-exposure' and stunning as they may be, they do tend to look artificial. Flick through any digital mag. and you'll see loads of pictures with unbelievably vivid colours and wacky superimposed features - impressive and imaginative perhaps but 'clever', no not really!
The true art of the photographer, IMHO, is the ability to visualize an image and have the necessary skills to create that image within the camera.
Anyone can manipulate an image but not everyone can competantly use a camera, just as a musician can play a synthesizer and may be entitled to call himself a musician, but synthesizing the sound of a guitar doesn't make him a guitarist
Let me explain, you get immediate feedback from digital and it's relatively easy to manipulate the image. With film, you'd most probably have to revisit the site, reposition the subjects, wait until the light was right and then bracket your exposures to ensure that you had one decent shot.
Finish the film, package it up and send it away..........wait 48hours or so and then be disappointed with approx. 2/3rds of the prints.
Now don't get me wrong, I never really wanted to go digital but I have and I like it but I still think that traditional film is real photography.
Photographic publications have always featured images that have been manipulated 'post-exposure' and stunning as they may be, they do tend to look artificial. Flick through any digital mag. and you'll see loads of pictures with unbelievably vivid colours and wacky superimposed features - impressive and imaginative perhaps but 'clever', no not really!
The true art of the photographer, IMHO, is the ability to visualize an image and have the necessary skills to create that image within the camera.
Anyone can manipulate an image but not everyone can competantly use a camera, just as a musician can play a synthesizer and may be entitled to call himself a musician, but synthesizing the sound of a guitar doesn't make him a guitarist
Die my dear doctor, that's the last thing I shall do!
Posted 08/09/2005 - 07:46
Link
Convenience depends on what you are trying to do. I use Photoshop primarily as a digital version of my darkroom, which is still up and running by the way. However, when I sit down at the computer I have avoided having to mix chemicals, spend a session long enough to make it worthwhile and then the dreaded cleaning up process at the end.
So in that sense digital is certainly more convenient! The rest has been pretty much thrashed out, but I do still like film images....
So in that sense digital is certainly more convenient! The rest has been pretty much thrashed out, but I do still like film images....
Best regards, John
Posted 08/09/2005 - 10:28
Link
Steve (with tongue in cheek).
Can't argue with your logic - if every picture you take is technically and compositionally perfect.
If it's not, you won't know at the point of exposure - so if it's the only day that Concord lands on your high street with David Beckham on board with Kylie you'll have missed the opportunity and even if you have an image you'llbe less likely to be able to save it.
I however am far from perfect and I make erors - I can either retake on the spot or rescue the image later.
Like all the others, I like film (especially that 120 rollfilm) but I no longer have access to a darkroom (who said that kids were a good idea, they need bedrooms) digital gives the control back to me.
Can't argue with your logic - if every picture you take is technically and compositionally perfect.
If it's not, you won't know at the point of exposure - so if it's the only day that Concord lands on your high street with David Beckham on board with Kylie you'll have missed the opportunity and even if you have an image you'llbe less likely to be able to save it.
I however am far from perfect and I make erors - I can either retake on the spot or rescue the image later.
Like all the others, I like film (especially that 120 rollfilm) but I no longer have access to a darkroom (who said that kids were a good idea, they need bedrooms) digital gives the control back to me.
Terry
London, England
K-30, Optio Z10, Optio S5i, LS465, Nikon P7100
London, England
K-30, Optio Z10, Optio S5i, LS465, Nikon P7100
Posted 08/09/2005 - 12:32
Link
Hi again,
Thought this might ensure some discussion!!
The ONLY reason I use digital is for internet/ web use, otherwise I would not bother. I actually do not buy this argument that digital lets you assess images at the point of taking them. I use a Pentax 1stD, which I assume is a good camera. The screen on the back is so poor, it is impossible to assess for depth of field, focus point and not even exposure. The screen image changes considerably as you move you viewpoint. The only thing the screen lets you preview with any kind of accuracy is composition .I still have to bracket !!! to ensure a spot on exposure....correcting these things after is not sensible and just smacks of 'sort it out later' mentality (and degrades the image)
Interestingly, I very rarely have to bracket on transparency with my Contax ST, I get super & consistent results.. and yet I always need to with the digital......
Bye...
Thought this might ensure some discussion!!
The ONLY reason I use digital is for internet/ web use, otherwise I would not bother. I actually do not buy this argument that digital lets you assess images at the point of taking them. I use a Pentax 1stD, which I assume is a good camera. The screen on the back is so poor, it is impossible to assess for depth of field, focus point and not even exposure. The screen image changes considerably as you move you viewpoint. The only thing the screen lets you preview with any kind of accuracy is composition .I still have to bracket !!! to ensure a spot on exposure....correcting these things after is not sensible and just smacks of 'sort it out later' mentality (and degrades the image)
Interestingly, I very rarely have to bracket on transparency with my Contax ST, I get super & consistent results.. and yet I always need to with the digital......
Bye...
Posted 08/09/2005 - 13:36
Link
Quote:
smacks of 'sort it out later' mentality (and degrades the image)
Fair point, and I think that may be why we like film - there's more craft involved.smacks of 'sort it out later' mentality (and degrades the image)
What's more it explains the love of older manual cameras - I always took better pictures with my Rollei than any other camera (film or digital). Although the obvious quality of the camera helped, it was the slow and careful process rather than just snampping away that lead to images which are not only technically better, they are more personally satisfying.
The "proof of the pudding" is that the only pictures that I have hanging on the walls of my house are large black and white images taken with the Rollei and professionally printed.
Terry
London, England
K-30, Optio Z10, Optio S5i, LS465, Nikon P7100
London, England
K-30, Optio Z10, Optio S5i, LS465, Nikon P7100
Posted 08/09/2005 - 17:32
Link
Well, I am fairly young (26), I had a digital point-and-shoot for far too long, and I upgraded (in all senses that word can have) to a Pentax *ist DS. And it's beautiful.
Nevertheless, as stupid as that might seem, I WANTED a film camera as well. And I bought a second and Pentax SFXn.
I like film. I haven't really thought much about it, so I don't really know why. It can be because of the curve in the highlights, because I love B&W film contrast and dynamic range, because the camera makes this BZZZZZT sound after the mirror's, because it feels real, feels permanent. Or because there really is something diferent in film pictures. Everything I said may or may not make sense to you...
I have a mini-lab develop the film and make a PhotoCD out of it, with minimum modifications (I have had them develop B&W prints from the negative, but they RUIN my photos! I scanned the negative and made prints exactly as I intended). I always take my SFXn with me when I can, to acompany my DS.
Life's good!
Nevertheless, as stupid as that might seem, I WANTED a film camera as well. And I bought a second and Pentax SFXn.
I like film. I haven't really thought much about it, so I don't really know why. It can be because of the curve in the highlights, because I love B&W film contrast and dynamic range, because the camera makes this BZZZZZT sound after the mirror's, because it feels real, feels permanent. Or because there really is something diferent in film pictures. Everything I said may or may not make sense to you...
I have a mini-lab develop the film and make a PhotoCD out of it, with minimum modifications (I have had them develop B&W prints from the negative, but they RUIN my photos! I scanned the negative and made prints exactly as I intended). I always take my SFXn with me when I can, to acompany my DS.
Life's good!
Posted 09/10/2005 - 01:47
Link
Well, we are all aware of the 'either/or' thinking fallacy - in this case either digital or film - and my answer is both, of course. Many of my best b/w images hanging on my walls were taken with a beat up Rollleicord, others with a Spotmatic SP. Using the Rollei is, at least for me, more of a contemplative experience. The Spotmatic also, though it's very good in a fast moving environment. I am not one who enjoys spending hours in front of a computer fixing digital images or images scanned from 5x7 positive proofs. Nor, for that matter, spending hours in a darkroom, though the latter is still more rewarding creatively. Nothing better than the beauty of a properly done 11x14 or 16x20.
But I don't have a photolab at present to dabble around in, so I'm on the point of buying a film scanner because I continue to shoot with Spotmatics and my rangefinder Bessa R and L. I can easily process TriX or Ilford at home, and see a film scanner as a way to continue making my own b/w enlargements via computer and Epson printer. (I am also on the point of purchasing my first DSLR, a Pentax *istDS).
I have read some positive stuff about the Plustek OpticFilm 35mm Film & Slide Scanner (quite cheap these days at $200 USD) and wonder if any of you folks have any experience with one.
Ted
But I don't have a photolab at present to dabble around in, so I'm on the point of buying a film scanner because I continue to shoot with Spotmatics and my rangefinder Bessa R and L. I can easily process TriX or Ilford at home, and see a film scanner as a way to continue making my own b/w enlargements via computer and Epson printer. (I am also on the point of purchasing my first DSLR, a Pentax *istDS).
I have read some positive stuff about the Plustek OpticFilm 35mm Film & Slide Scanner (quite cheap these days at $200 USD) and wonder if any of you folks have any experience with one.
Ted
Posted 09/10/2005 - 19:22
Link
How I hate these silly threads, when the old reactionaries stagger out from their dark corners grumbling and cursing.
Of COURSE digital is more convenient than film, for most people most of the time. Furthermore, it's cheaper, gives you infinitely more control over the image (which is the most important advantage for many), and the quality is much better.
For which people is this NOT true? The answer is, people who shoot b&w, and people who shoot slides. Digital is optimised for colour, and can't compete with b&w film; and you can't make slides from a digital file without considerable difficulty.
But for all other people and purposes (which translates to 95% of the time), digital runs rings around film. Furthermore, those who choose to view their pictures mainly on screen gain even greater convenience and cost savings.
As for digital encouraging sloppy habits; rubbish. You only have to look at how many photographic magazines there are now, compared to a few years ago, to realise that digital has brought about a renaissance in photography; and you can bet that a goodly proportion of digitographers take their craft just as seriously as any film photographer ever did.
I shall leave you with this little poem by Charles Dodgson, on the convenience of his preferred process:
"First a piece of glass he coated
With Collodion, and plunged it
In a bath of Lunar Caustic
Carefully dissolved in water;
There he left it certain minutes.
Secondly my Hiawatha
Made with cunning hand a mixture
Of the acid Pyro-gallic,
And the Glacial Acetic,
And of alcohol and water:
This developed all the picture.
Finally he fixed each picture
With a saturate solution
Of a certain salt of Soda...."
Personally I'm glad things have moved on a bit since then, but one thing puzzles me. Why is it, for some people, that the world was just perfect when they were 16, and that all further progress has been for the worse?
George
Of COURSE digital is more convenient than film, for most people most of the time. Furthermore, it's cheaper, gives you infinitely more control over the image (which is the most important advantage for many), and the quality is much better.
For which people is this NOT true? The answer is, people who shoot b&w, and people who shoot slides. Digital is optimised for colour, and can't compete with b&w film; and you can't make slides from a digital file without considerable difficulty.
But for all other people and purposes (which translates to 95% of the time), digital runs rings around film. Furthermore, those who choose to view their pictures mainly on screen gain even greater convenience and cost savings.
As for digital encouraging sloppy habits; rubbish. You only have to look at how many photographic magazines there are now, compared to a few years ago, to realise that digital has brought about a renaissance in photography; and you can bet that a goodly proportion of digitographers take their craft just as seriously as any film photographer ever did.
I shall leave you with this little poem by Charles Dodgson, on the convenience of his preferred process:
"First a piece of glass he coated
With Collodion, and plunged it
In a bath of Lunar Caustic
Carefully dissolved in water;
There he left it certain minutes.
Secondly my Hiawatha
Made with cunning hand a mixture
Of the acid Pyro-gallic,
And the Glacial Acetic,
And of alcohol and water:
This developed all the picture.
Finally he fixed each picture
With a saturate solution
Of a certain salt of Soda...."
Personally I'm glad things have moved on a bit since then, but one thing puzzles me. Why is it, for some people, that the world was just perfect when they were 16, and that all further progress has been for the worse?
George
Posted 10/10/2005 - 10:01
Link
Interesting, reading the differing opinions about the “convenience” of digital vs. film. Unfortunately this topic has taken on the familiar film vs. digital go around with some statements that put film at some lofty plane above the lowly digital image. As George would say, "rubbish"
With the advent of multi-megapixel cameras isn’t the only real difference now to be in the actual media that the image is recorded on, and not a question of who’s better? The screen on the back of my *ist Ds tells me much more than any part of the back or front of any film camera. The combination of the histogram and being able to zoom in up to 12x gives me more than enough power to inspect a recorded image to see INSTANTLY if I need to re-shoot.
As for digital darkroom manipulation, all photographs benefit from development or manipulation of some form in the darkroom. There is nothing “convenient” about any type of darkroom work whether chemical or digital. The digital darkroom is however much more accessible and affordable to the average amateur photographer so in that respect I guess you could say digital is actually more "convenient". Just look at the “top rated images” at www.photo.net that are submitted by ordinary people on a daily basis. All those images have been somehow processed digitally whether they were taken with a digital camera or on film.
The famous work of Ansel Adams was excellent for his time because he made the extra effort to squeeze as much information out of a latent image as he possibly could by using difficult darkroom manipulation. He was not satisfied with “images that were created within the camera”. Imagine what he could do today with Photoshop CS. I think Adams would pee his pants if he knew how easy it is for us today to draw out detail from the shadows and blown highlights from RAW images. And, do you think he would he be as famous if he was alive today and had to compete with the breathtaking and artful images that are achieved by ordinary folks with a computer and graphics software? I think he probably would be more so, because he was a man willing to commit some darkroom time to turn a photograph into a work of art and he was not afraid to work hard to do it. He was not looking for convenience.
In my opinion digital cameras and digital darkrooms have revitalized photography like never before and the main reason is because of the camera's instant feedback, and also the digital darkroom has become so much more “convenient” than a chemical darkroom. I also think the debate between film vs. digital will, in a very short time (if not already), look as pointless as does; the horse vs. the automobile, vinyl vs. CD, B&W vs. colour, or manual vs. auto.
Except for the horse, I’ve personally seen them all.
Time to move on.
Cheers
Drew
With the advent of multi-megapixel cameras isn’t the only real difference now to be in the actual media that the image is recorded on, and not a question of who’s better? The screen on the back of my *ist Ds tells me much more than any part of the back or front of any film camera. The combination of the histogram and being able to zoom in up to 12x gives me more than enough power to inspect a recorded image to see INSTANTLY if I need to re-shoot.
As for digital darkroom manipulation, all photographs benefit from development or manipulation of some form in the darkroom. There is nothing “convenient” about any type of darkroom work whether chemical or digital. The digital darkroom is however much more accessible and affordable to the average amateur photographer so in that respect I guess you could say digital is actually more "convenient". Just look at the “top rated images” at www.photo.net that are submitted by ordinary people on a daily basis. All those images have been somehow processed digitally whether they were taken with a digital camera or on film.
The famous work of Ansel Adams was excellent for his time because he made the extra effort to squeeze as much information out of a latent image as he possibly could by using difficult darkroom manipulation. He was not satisfied with “images that were created within the camera”. Imagine what he could do today with Photoshop CS. I think Adams would pee his pants if he knew how easy it is for us today to draw out detail from the shadows and blown highlights from RAW images. And, do you think he would he be as famous if he was alive today and had to compete with the breathtaking and artful images that are achieved by ordinary folks with a computer and graphics software? I think he probably would be more so, because he was a man willing to commit some darkroom time to turn a photograph into a work of art and he was not afraid to work hard to do it. He was not looking for convenience.
In my opinion digital cameras and digital darkrooms have revitalized photography like never before and the main reason is because of the camera's instant feedback, and also the digital darkroom has become so much more “convenient” than a chemical darkroom. I also think the debate between film vs. digital will, in a very short time (if not already), look as pointless as does; the horse vs. the automobile, vinyl vs. CD, B&W vs. colour, or manual vs. auto.
Except for the horse, I’ve personally seen them all.
Time to move on.
Cheers
Drew
Posted 10/10/2005 - 14:12
Link
I believe all this film versus digital nonsense is... nonsense, really.
Actually, in my case, having the opportinity to shoot in digital, with all the convenience it brings, made me want to shoot in film a bit, too. I may actually be very far from your average "95%" photographer, but once I had my *ist DS (that I love and take with me almost wherever I go) I started to look at photography with much more interest.
Nothing ever beats digital, but I am shooting some film just for the fun of it, trying out Fuji and Kodak and Ilford and Agfa film, exploring the differences, and developing B&W film myself. Again, just for fun.
So, I believe we shouldn't have these kinds of quarrels about "this is better than that". Digital reigns supreme, but film (I hope) will remain as a hobby of many interested photographers (and probably as the main workflow of some niche markets).
For me, digital has rekindled my interest in film. Mainly because of digital's convenience and price, I can now explore film.
Actually, in my case, having the opportinity to shoot in digital, with all the convenience it brings, made me want to shoot in film a bit, too. I may actually be very far from your average "95%" photographer, but once I had my *ist DS (that I love and take with me almost wherever I go) I started to look at photography with much more interest.
Nothing ever beats digital, but I am shooting some film just for the fun of it, trying out Fuji and Kodak and Ilford and Agfa film, exploring the differences, and developing B&W film myself. Again, just for fun.
So, I believe we shouldn't have these kinds of quarrels about "this is better than that". Digital reigns supreme, but film (I hope) will remain as a hobby of many interested photographers (and probably as the main workflow of some niche markets).
For me, digital has rekindled my interest in film. Mainly because of digital's convenience and price, I can now explore film.
Posted 10/10/2005 - 14:47
Link
Hi,
Having revisited this thread, I believe many have missed the point of Bretbysteve's original post and indeed my reply. The problem is that the degree of "convenience" is far more dependant on lifestyle than it is on equipment. I fully agree that there are many advantages of digital and I frequently use it. BUT for more of the timeI find it more convenient to use film. Why can't people accept that and let me get on with it without telling me I am living in the stoneage or that I am a dinosaur. It rather reminds of of the sketch in Monty Python about the Romans and what they did for use.
Digital is cheaper! except that you need to spend about £700 for an entry level DSLR and memory card (assuming you want the quality of RAW or Tiff). A film SLR giving the same quality will be about £200. £500 buys an awful lot of film before you break even and digital becomes cheaper.
Digital is more flexible! except that you can't get the tonality you can with a good B/W print (Ansell Adams included) or the vibrancy and colour depth you get with slides.
Digital is quicker! except that to get a good picture you have to spend hours in front of the PC manipulating the image whereas I can send the film off and get on with my life while I wait for the results. If I am in a hurry, I can take it into town and get the film done while I do the shopping. I can then look at my results spread over the table in the cafe while I have a coffee.
You can assess the results instantly! as long as you can interprete a 4cm screen.
Digital is better quality! except that to match the quality of a very large print from Reala you would need a 12MP top of the range camera costing mega£ from one of the other names we don't mention. Or you could get a 645 digital which will beat 35mm hands down. Ah but what about 120 film!
OK, so this is a bit tongue in cheek and for many purposes not only is digital more convenient but essential. The press couldn't operate without it. I couldn't manage my website without it ( I have little enough time as it is without having to wait for results, scan them etc) At the end of the day, it is about the right tool for the job and personal preference based on lifestyle. Why can't we all accept that and listen to each other views. (It is also interesting how many names of the "digital is the only way" can be found bidding on the odd film camera on that site!)
As a final thought, it appears to me that sometimes these threads are silly. However 9 times out of 10, they are not started by us dinosaurs but by the pro digital brigade. Going back the the original thread
I will send the soapbox back to bretbysteve now.
Kim
Having revisited this thread, I believe many have missed the point of Bretbysteve's original post and indeed my reply. The problem is that the degree of "convenience" is far more dependant on lifestyle than it is on equipment. I fully agree that there are many advantages of digital and I frequently use it. BUT for more of the timeI find it more convenient to use film. Why can't people accept that and let me get on with it without telling me I am living in the stoneage or that I am a dinosaur. It rather reminds of of the sketch in Monty Python about the Romans and what they did for use.
Digital is cheaper! except that you need to spend about £700 for an entry level DSLR and memory card (assuming you want the quality of RAW or Tiff). A film SLR giving the same quality will be about £200. £500 buys an awful lot of film before you break even and digital becomes cheaper.
Digital is more flexible! except that you can't get the tonality you can with a good B/W print (Ansell Adams included) or the vibrancy and colour depth you get with slides.
Digital is quicker! except that to get a good picture you have to spend hours in front of the PC manipulating the image whereas I can send the film off and get on with my life while I wait for the results. If I am in a hurry, I can take it into town and get the film done while I do the shopping. I can then look at my results spread over the table in the cafe while I have a coffee.
You can assess the results instantly! as long as you can interprete a 4cm screen.
Digital is better quality! except that to match the quality of a very large print from Reala you would need a 12MP top of the range camera costing mega£ from one of the other names we don't mention. Or you could get a 645 digital which will beat 35mm hands down. Ah but what about 120 film!
OK, so this is a bit tongue in cheek and for many purposes not only is digital more convenient but essential. The press couldn't operate without it. I couldn't manage my website without it ( I have little enough time as it is without having to wait for results, scan them etc) At the end of the day, it is about the right tool for the job and personal preference based on lifestyle. Why can't we all accept that and listen to each other views. (It is also interesting how many names of the "digital is the only way" can be found bidding on the odd film camera on that site!)
As a final thought, it appears to me that sometimes these threads are silly. However 9 times out of 10, they are not started by us dinosaurs but by the pro digital brigade. Going back the the original thread
Quote:
This is a follow on from the 'end of 35mm?' thread...sorry,
Tell you what - You stop trying to put film down all the time and we will stop trying to defend our lifestyle.This is a follow on from the 'end of 35mm?' thread...sorry,
I will send the soapbox back to bretbysteve now.
Kim
Posted 11/10/2005 - 19:36
Link
Here here, Kim
It's a case of horses for courses, as usual. I don't use my SLR every day, nor am I looking for absolute perfection when I do. I can't see the finished result through a little window on the back of the LX, but I trust both the camera and my ability/experience to get things right first time. And, most of the time, it works - although that's probably more down to the camera than me.
Film is convenient for my requirements, so I use film. If usage warranted a move to digital (and I could afford it) then I probably would. When I get my films developed, I get a CD done as well, so I can upload my pictures onto my PC. Best of both worlds? No different to someone taking his memory card down to Boots and getting some prints run off.
As well as photography, I am interested in cars and have a broad enough mind to appreciate that there is a place, a need and an appreciation for both a 1960's MG and a brand new Mercedes S-Class. My point is, can't we just all be photographers, whatever medium we choose to use?
It's a case of horses for courses, as usual. I don't use my SLR every day, nor am I looking for absolute perfection when I do. I can't see the finished result through a little window on the back of the LX, but I trust both the camera and my ability/experience to get things right first time. And, most of the time, it works - although that's probably more down to the camera than me.
Film is convenient for my requirements, so I use film. If usage warranted a move to digital (and I could afford it) then I probably would. When I get my films developed, I get a CD done as well, so I can upload my pictures onto my PC. Best of both worlds? No different to someone taking his memory card down to Boots and getting some prints run off.
As well as photography, I am interested in cars and have a broad enough mind to appreciate that there is a place, a need and an appreciation for both a 1960's MG and a brand new Mercedes S-Class. My point is, can't we just all be photographers, whatever medium we choose to use?
Posted 11/10/2005 - 22:01
Link
Kim,
Let's just take a close look at what Bretbysteve said....
"........sorry, but I am on my soapbox." Translation, he's having a rant.
"I am utterley amazed at how many people seem to think digital is more convenient than film......" Note: not "how many people are telling me" as the title of his post says, but "how many people SEEM TO THINK". So he's using a misleading title to suggest other people are telling him things when they're not.
"I shoot transparencies on Fuji film." Before digital, slides accounted for less than 5% of the colour film market. The comparisons between film and digital are almost always a comparison between print and digital, as I am sure Bret knows.
"My camera starts up immediately, with no delay...." So do all DSLRs.
"....my current batteries have so far lasted for OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS........." He doesn't take many pictures. My Super A and Z1-P used to go through batteries far more often.
".......my images are recorded in a micro second....." but then take two days to be processed.
"I can shoot without fear of filling up my buffer........." Can he take 1,000 pictures without changing films? Can he change ISO mid-reel? Can he in any way alter the finished slide if it's not entirely to his liking?
"....when I finish my film I simply post it away and it returns through my letter box usually within 48 HRS"." 48 seconds with digital.
"I have not spent several very tedious hours on a PC........." Some people do spend quite a lot of time optimising their images. Why? Because they enjoy it! But it doesn't have to take very long, and compares well with the dreary hassle of sorting slides.
"....correcting what the camera is incapable of doing itself......" Ignorance speaks. DSLRs do everything a film SLR does.
".....I have not got a headache from staring at the screen...." Many millions of people work at computer screens all day without getting headaches. If his screen gives him a headache, he needs a new one.
".....nor suffered from repetitive strain injury...." Really scraping the barrel now!
".....I have even more time free to actually take more photos......" Good for him. But how often does he actually look at them? How often do other people see them? Slides are hideously inconvenient to view. I have thousands, going back thirty years, and they hardly ever get seen.
".....I do use digital, but it certainly is not more convenient." It sounds as though he has a little point and shoot, and has never taken the trouble to explore the possibilities of digital because he knows what he likes, and knows he doesn't like what he doesn't know!
This was not a thread about digi people extolling digital; it was a thread about an anti-digi on his soap-box, as he readily admits.
And now I really must finish the films in my Spotmatic and SFX and buy one to put in my 110!
G
(Fed up with people telling me how wonderful film is. I've been using it since 1958, and am very glad something better has come along.)
Let's just take a close look at what Bretbysteve said....
"........sorry, but I am on my soapbox." Translation, he's having a rant.
"I am utterley amazed at how many people seem to think digital is more convenient than film......" Note: not "how many people are telling me" as the title of his post says, but "how many people SEEM TO THINK". So he's using a misleading title to suggest other people are telling him things when they're not.
"I shoot transparencies on Fuji film." Before digital, slides accounted for less than 5% of the colour film market. The comparisons between film and digital are almost always a comparison between print and digital, as I am sure Bret knows.
"My camera starts up immediately, with no delay...." So do all DSLRs.
"....my current batteries have so far lasted for OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS........." He doesn't take many pictures. My Super A and Z1-P used to go through batteries far more often.
".......my images are recorded in a micro second....." but then take two days to be processed.
"I can shoot without fear of filling up my buffer........." Can he take 1,000 pictures without changing films? Can he change ISO mid-reel? Can he in any way alter the finished slide if it's not entirely to his liking?
"....when I finish my film I simply post it away and it returns through my letter box usually within 48 HRS"." 48 seconds with digital.
"I have not spent several very tedious hours on a PC........." Some people do spend quite a lot of time optimising their images. Why? Because they enjoy it! But it doesn't have to take very long, and compares well with the dreary hassle of sorting slides.
"....correcting what the camera is incapable of doing itself......" Ignorance speaks. DSLRs do everything a film SLR does.
".....I have not got a headache from staring at the screen...." Many millions of people work at computer screens all day without getting headaches. If his screen gives him a headache, he needs a new one.
".....nor suffered from repetitive strain injury...." Really scraping the barrel now!
".....I have even more time free to actually take more photos......" Good for him. But how often does he actually look at them? How often do other people see them? Slides are hideously inconvenient to view. I have thousands, going back thirty years, and they hardly ever get seen.
".....I do use digital, but it certainly is not more convenient." It sounds as though he has a little point and shoot, and has never taken the trouble to explore the possibilities of digital because he knows what he likes, and knows he doesn't like what he doesn't know!
This was not a thread about digi people extolling digital; it was a thread about an anti-digi on his soap-box, as he readily admits.
And now I really must finish the films in my Spotmatic and SFX and buy one to put in my 110!
G
(Fed up with people telling me how wonderful film is. I've been using it since 1958, and am very glad something better has come along.)
728 posts
21 years
Aldridge,
West Mids.
This is a follow on from the 'end of 35mm?' thread...sorry, but I am on my soapbox.
I am utterley amazed at how many people seem to think digital is more convenient than film..let me expain...
I shoot transparencies on Fuji film. My camera starts up immediately, with no delay, my current batteries have so far lasted for OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS, my images are recorded in a micro second, I can shoot without fear of filling up my buffer, when I finish my film I simply post it away and it returns through my letter box usually within 48 HRS. I have not spent several very tedious hours on a PC correcting what the camera is incapable of doing itself, I have not got a headache from staring at the screen, nor suffered from repetitive strain injury. I have even more time free to actually take more photos......
I do use digital, but it certainly is not more convenient.