|
Post by kiev4a on Aug 3, 2006 21:59:24 GMT -5
My wife and I went to an "Alive after 5" event at a nearby town tonight. They had a band playing music for the '60s and '70s. Most of the people there were in their 50s and 60s with a scattering of 30 and 40-somethings.
I was wandering around shooting with my "new" Nikon F. Several people recognized the camera and struck up conversations. One guy observed that given the 60s theme of the even it was only proper it should be recorded with a camera from the same era.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Aug 4, 2006 11:53:01 GMT -5
I use both film and digital. For my real estate work, digital is the only way to go and my Pentax *ist-DS is a great camera for that sort of work. For almost everything else, film is what I prefer.
Walker
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Aug 6, 2006 12:09:30 GMT -5
Dan,
Don't have any bow and arrows. How about a catapult with a huge boulder? Better duck fast!
Just kidding...yes...I mean it. I am not into digital cameras, although I have seriously thought of a small PS one just for the convenience of posting here pics of some of my gear, instead of using film.
But I love my digital 'darkroom' setup and except for the fun I remember, would not go back to the chemical darkroom!!!
And I cannot remember which of the replies eluded to such but...photography is photograpy...has changed much over the years and will continue to do so...but the end result is the image we cherish.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by jennyandernie on Aug 7, 2006 12:15:39 GMT -5
I suppose we have a foot in both camps as collectors of film cameras and users of both film and digital. In reality most of our images are digital because after we develop our film we scan it and work on it with photoshop. I teach photography to A level students and although teaching them to develop a film and print it is part of the course; the students do produce better work with digital cameras; or with film that has been scanned so that they can edit it with photoshop. Dark rooms are formidable places for a student; all alone and claustrophobic; and unless you stay in there with the student it is not easy to offer help. Most students do not get enough experience to use a colour enlarger but they can work on their digital photos and scans at home. As regards the constant marketing of new models; I bought my first digital in 1998/9; a Canon Sureshot A5. It cost me £600 and is a 1 Mega Pixel model. At the time I did some research and the "experts" said that 2M was as far as they expected to go. I believed them lol. Now we are using a 16M Canon! We love to use our film cameras; we get three bites of the cherry. First have we set the camera correctly and second have we developed it correctly. And of course is the photo any good. However we keep and breed fish and although I started photographing fish with a Zenith almost 40 years ago ( and got reasonable results ); there is no way I could get the quality of fish photograph with film that I get with a digital SLR with a macro lens. Ernie
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Aug 7, 2006 19:31:37 GMT -5
Ernie,
A good macro shot of a small fish!! Having had fish/tanks in the past, I know that shadows/movements, not noice per se, is what sends them scattering.
Did you use hypnotism or bribe with food, or was the lil' tyke just a cooperative subject???
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by jennyandernie on Aug 7, 2006 20:42:24 GMT -5
No Ron they are not a bit cooperative. Thats why digital is better because you can see your results and modify accordingly. Most are done with flash on camera full power and a small aperture. The Scissortailed rasbora below was about 3 inches long, highly reflective and never still in a 100 gallon tank.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Vincent on Aug 10, 2006 6:03:02 GMT -5
Ernie, I agree, your instant results with a digital lets you make corrections until you get what you want. My biggest problem is getting the fish to say "Cheese" and allowing for digitlal shutter lag.
|
|
|
Post by landsknechte on Oct 26, 2006 0:04:56 GMT -5
If you can translate whatever it is that's in your mind's eye, the process is irrelevant. If film works for you, wonderful. If digital works for you, excellent. I honestly don't see that much of a difference. I'm a traditionally trained photographer, but I get better results with silicon-based photography than I do with silver-based. I wish I had the space for a darkroom, but I don't. Not in my dinky little apartment. Digital gives me the control over the end product that I can't realistically get any other way right now.
I think part of the problem with the "obsolescence" issue is that many people buy too strongly into the competitive chatter of the internet. There are newer models out there, and in some people's minds, that renders the older cameras as losers in the grand quest for the umpteen megapixel wunderkamera. I can still find lenses for my camera. I can still find batteries. Memory. Accessories. Whatever else. Most importantly, I can still get good photographs out of it.
Besides, I'd imagine that people in this forum who routinely play with cameras that only take film formats that have been out of circulation for a generation or so would have a better grasp on what it really means to be obsolete. ;D
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Oct 26, 2006 11:10:56 GMT -5
landsknechte - you're right. But if you look at the postings on here, you'll find that nobody has a problem with digital, We're all going to get round to it sooner or later>
Regards - John
ps - probably later in my case!
|
|
wclavey
Contributing Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by wclavey on Oct 27, 2006 12:59:10 GMT -5
I have nothing against digital at all. I wish I could afford to try it. My days of spending hundreds or thousands on a camera are over for a while. In addition, because I was raised in photography on strictly manual, it is a comfort factor. (I just used the automatic exposure mode on my Olympus OM-2 for the first time 2 weeks ago! ...and I have had that camera for years... I still remember learning to trust TTL metering!)
So if you combine the two, I'm not sure I want to spend that kind of money on something I may not be comfortable with. On the other hand, I saw the review of the Mamiya MF digital in one of the recent B&W Photography magazines and thought, "Now there's a digital camera I'd like to try..."
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Oct 27, 2006 13:38:17 GMT -5
Wes
You make a good point in the fact that most digi cams don't let you operate in a traditional fashion. I am still waiting for a digital version of the FM2n but I am not holding my breath.
Bob
|
|
paul7
Contributing Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by paul7 on Dec 2, 2006 13:06:38 GMT -5
After I started in photography (many years ago) I took an advanced class with about 15 others. I recall that the vast majority embraced the philosophy that B&W was the only respectable way to film anything. I was one of the few “outcasts” that used color.
Ironically and hypocritically, many years latter, I feel somewhat condescending towards digital. I don’t know why…but I do. Perhaps it’s because have rangefinder film cameras from the 1940’s that still work perfectly and my sense is that a new $3000 digital camera will probably not be in service 60 years from now.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Dec 2, 2006 13:28:32 GMT -5
Paul,
I used to feel the same way as you. I have all the wonderful film cameras and accessories and darkroom equipment that I could ever want and I love them and are awed by them and still use some of them once in a while. But my feelings have changed drastically. Once into digital I discovered that virtually anything film can do can be done digitally much more cheaply and in a mere fraction of the time. And some things that one could not have dreamed of doing with silver images can be accomplished digitally with ease. I can only suggest that the holdbacks bend a little and give digital a try. There is a whole new photographic world to be discovered. I am 74 and this old dog has learned a host of new tricks.
Mickey
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 2, 2006 14:04:17 GMT -5
Mickey
Very well put.
Bob
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Dec 2, 2006 14:46:20 GMT -5
Bob,
Arf.
Mickey
|
|