digital is wining

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <OBd5e.7528$eF4.208@fe03.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>I TRY to take all those factors into consideration, but I don't obsess
>about it to the point of getting no shot at all.

It doesn't matter whether you take a less than perfect shot or not. What
matters is that it slows you down enough that film costs are no longer
a big issue.

The other side of the story is that I paid more for a film scanner than
what an entry level DSLR costs today. But I figured that I would need the
scanner anyhow for what I already have on film.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <OBd5e.7528$eF4.208@fe03.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>I TRY to take all those factors into consideration, but I don't obsess
>>about it to the point of getting no shot at all.
>
>
> It doesn't matter whether you take a less than perfect shot or not. What
> matters is that it slows you down enough that film costs are no longer
> a big issue.
>
> The other side of the story is that I paid more for a film scanner than
> what an entry level DSLR costs today. But I figured that I would need the
> scanner anyhow for what I already have on film.
>
>
Yes, scanners do have a place, especially if, like you, one has a large
number of prints, or negatives, that he wants on the computer. I just
figured that since all my pictures were going on the computer, I would
cut out the intermediate steps, saving both time, and money.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:

: When I carefully plan a shot, taking composition, lighting, DoF,
: 'decisive moment', etc. into account then I simply don't take that many
: shots.

: If I start out with the idea that I simply take a large number of shots
: and select the best one later, then it very likely that there is
: something wrong with all of the shots. The only way to get it right is
: to think long enough about the shot before you take it.

: Of course there are other situations where a picture is more of an
: experiment (and then of course the direct feedback of digital helps a
: lot). And there are situations where you just have to rely on luck.

I can understand your point about "more is better" not being necissarily
better. But I do find that the ability to shoot several possible settings
and weed them out later works in many of the situations I shoot in. I am
not attempting to take photos for sale, or for artistic display. I just
want some images that make me feel something when I see them.

For example. About a year ago I had a free weekend day and decided to go
on "photo safari" in search of signs of spring. I went to a nearby
forested area. The trees had not begun leafing out but there were many
spring flowers beginning to bloom. This made for many opportunities for
catching very high contrast images. Stark, trees brightly lit on one side
with dark shadows. And all around many flowers and grasses that also
spread from bright light to dark shadow. If I had been shooting film (and
being a frugal person --read broke--) I would have probably guessed which
area to meter on for the photo. I would have had one shot at catching the
emotion I was looking for. But with my digital camera it cost me no more
to shoot one photo metered on the bright side of the trees, one metered on
the shadow side of trees, one on the sunlit field of flowers, and one on
the flowers in shade. This is in addition to a few with different camera
orientation (portrait, landscape) and a few shots altering the framing of
different portions of the scene to see which "subject" would evoke which
emotions. If I had been shooting film I could have used up an entire roll
of film on the one scene. But with digital I was able to feel comfortable
shooting many different photos from which I liked and kept 3 or 4. And I
had enough memory that I could continue wandering and shooting after this
mega shoot. Sure I probably shot 2 to 3 times the total number of photos I
needed, but if I had been contemplating the same shots through the dollar
signs involved with film costs, processing, etc, I would have missed most
of the photos that were in the latter iterations of the same subject.

So while I agree that more is not better by itself, the freedom from
additional expense for experimentation can be good.

One more advantage of digital is the storage. I have several dozen
cardboard boxes full of prints and negatives from the many years of film
photography. Because of the shear volume of stuff in those boxes, I rarely
look at them. But my digital photos can be stored on disk in a much
smaller space. And I only have to have the "show off" photos printed and
can keep my personal memory photos only in computer format. I am happy to
look at them on the computer screen.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> Purchase price is certainly a bar to entry into the digital world for
> many, and will be for some time. It IS getting better, though. I spend
> $65 for a 256MB SD card back in May last year, and now they are under
> $20. Prices will come down. Also, if you adjust the prices for
> inflation, you may find that the $800 digital is actually 'cheaper' than
> the old SLR you bought 15 years ago.
>
>
>
I bought mine used. But my wife just bought a new Nikon film SLR, for
$200 with zoom lens. So that is not very close to $800 in my book.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:1112807393.6e178b954f4c2fe8b05fc147dac296b9@teranews...
> This talk of winning and losing seems to indicate that photography is a
> zero-sum game. Isn't there room for both? To me digital is just another
> format. I didn't get rid of my 35mm equipment when I got a medium format
> camera, nor did I get rid of my film equipment when I got into digital.
> Room for both as far as I am concerned.
>

You are right on the money IMO. Digital and film complement each other for
me. I use the same brand film and digital boxes, so I just put the film and
digital box in the same case and go. There are situations where I will want
to shoot film and when I want to take a lot of shots digital wins out there.
Today's mid-range DSLRs have very similar quality to 35mm. I know that might
tick off some hard core film folks, but that is my experience. I have no
qualms whatsoever in just grabbing whichever camera is handy if I need a
quick shot. With film, I need to take a bit more time (not much) to be sure
of my exposure/shutter settings and with digital it is easy to quickly
bracket a lot of shots just to make sure. My 35mm has a high speed motor
drive that can go through a 36 exposure roll in about 6-7 seconds (I used to
shoot a lot of sports and also maneuvers for a military paper) so it has
some benefits too in that regard in AE mode. There is plenty of room for
both. Neither is better or worse, just different.


ed