|
Post by lulalake on Mar 7, 2007 13:29:39 GMT -5
No need man - I've got an EOS 5D but it's my old Yashica 635 and Exaktas with a Flek 20/25 or Biotar 75 that get the attention..... LOL. Oh yeah. I jave a 30D but (along with my adapter) the Jupiter 21A, Jupiter-9, and the TAK 135 are getting the most action. Jules
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Mar 7, 2007 15:36:57 GMT -5
Minoltaman,
"Plus, IMO, film cameras just look cooler than digital cameras........." I didn't know that.
From now on I am going to carry my 8x10 Gundlach Korona wherever I go. I will be the world's coolest 74 year old.
Mickey
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 7, 2007 16:20:06 GMT -5
The average person can't tell the difference between a Canon Rebel and a Nikon D200. In today's point-and-shoot world just about any full sized RF or SLR gets noticed. I will admit, however, people really take notice when I'm carrying my Zorki 1 Leica II copy or a Nikon F.
In addition: Since this thread started I have changed my opinion somewhat. Until recently my only experience was with a 4 megapixel Canon P&S. My contention was that digital cameras simply cannot duplicate the subtle shadings possible with film. And to a degree I still stick by that statement. The average P&S is sort of like the 126 Instamatic was to a real 35mm camera. Instamatics would produce pictures and if you were very careful they could produce very nice pictures. But you had to work a lot harder to do it with an Instamatic than with a even mediocre 35mm camera.
As I'm sure most of you are aware, I recently acquired a Nikon D100 camera. At 6.1 megapixels it isn't leading edge technology. But it has taught me all digital cameras aren't created equal.
I'm sure my film background has helped, but I can't believe I could do any better in most situations with a film camera than I can with the D100. AND as far as I can tell the color saturation it produces is every bit as good as I would get from color film. If I was blowing all my photos up to 16 x 20 I'm sure film would beat the D100. But I never make prints that big so it's immaterial.
And shooting digital doesn't mean I have given up on "the process." That used to mean time spent in the darkroom. Now it means time spent processing pictures on a computer--something I was doing with film, anyway, because I scanned all the negatives.
Digital cameras v. Film cameras has a lot in common with comparing typewriters and word processors. I have long argued that people who learned to write with typewriters were better writers because if you wanted to change copy, it was a lot of work. Therefore writers on typewriters learned to organize their thoughts better before they started. Once a writer has learned how to organize, however, the computer becomes a real tool.
The same rule, I believe, applies to film and digital photography. Digital is so easy I think people starting out tend to just blast away figuring one of 50 shots will be the one they wanted. Photographers who started in film, however, approach digital differently--not depending on numbers to get the good shot.
I have to admit I have become a digital convert. Maybe the newness will wear off and I'll find myself shooting more film. But I don't think that will be the case. Once I discovered what digital SLR can do the transition was quick as I have been working with computers since the first Commodores appeared in the scene in the late '70s.
Another factor is cost. For the past several years I have been averaging at least 75 rolls of film shot. At $3 a roll that's $225.00 annually just for film plus another $170 (minimum) for processing (negative only). I figure the savings in film and processing has already paid for the 2 gig CF card I bought for the Nikon. Everything recorded on it in the future is essentially free. AND you don't have to worry about how long ago the drugstore lab changed its chemicals or cleaned the processor.
I would point out, however, this doesn't mean I will be divesting myself of film cameras. I love my FSU gear because of how much I have learned about it and the people who made it. And I enjoy discussing film cameras. But when It comes to shooting, the vast majority of my future work is likely to be digital.
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Mar 7, 2007 17:08:37 GMT -5
Well that just about carries the argument - "Film cameras look cooler" I'll have to get one of those now!
In fact Gene and Rick's posts have convinced me to go digital. Only problem is I don't have any money - daughter's still at University. She can buy me one when she graduates!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 7, 2007 17:16:18 GMT -5
John: We survived three daughters, three college educations (they paid for a lot of that themselves) and THREE weddings! But their car insurance was a lot cheaper:)
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Mar 7, 2007 17:40:56 GMT -5
Wayne Ha!
I've done a secret deal with my daughter. When she comes to get married, she's going to elope to the Caribbean, and I'll pay the fares. No problem - who'd marry her? !!
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 7, 2007 18:08:47 GMT -5
John: How much is it worth to you for me not to tell her what you just said?
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Mar 7, 2007 19:29:02 GMT -5
Wayne, I agree with just about everything you said in your longer post. A very well reasoned case. At the moment I can't afford a digital SLR, but I will get one eventually because having tried my son John's Pentax ist D2 I love it.
I can't see myself entirely abandoning my film Canons, and I shall keep a lot of my film camera collection - not necessarily just the 'valuable' ones, I shall also keep some for nostalgic reasons, things like Retinas and Agfa Karats, most of the Zeiss Ikons and most of the 6x9 folders. I'm a bit undecided about the Prakticas. I like them, but I never use them.
But eventually I can envisage shooting mainly digital. As you say, once you've got the camera the cost per shot is negligible.
You said:
You never said or wrote a truer word. (I'm glad you said learned to write and not learned to type. Like many journalists I never did learn to touch type properly).
When I first started as a journalist the editor insisted that when you went out to get a news story you phoned the copy in to a copy taker, even if you were only a mile or so away. And you had to ask the layout sub beforehand how many words he wanted.
At first I found it very hard to visualise how long to dictate for, say, 500 words, but it came with practice, and it was excellent for organising your thoughts. It also helped that we had a very good chief sub who would knock the story into shape, and then take the trouble to explain to you why he'd done what he'd done.
The training was invaluable when I was on assignment abroad and had to phone back a 'taster' story to hook the reader for the full story and pictures in the following issue. I also used to act as a 'stringer' sometimes on industrial news for the heavyweight Nationals (Times, Fin. Times, Guardian, Observer and so on) and here you had to keep not just issue deadlines but edition deadlines in mind. There often just wasn't time write stuff out.
All this, of course, was in the days before the internet and emails. It was either phone or teleprint, and no way could you persuade a German, Swedish or whatever teleprinter operator to let you take over his or her machine for ten minutes. They wanted the copy written out, or preferably typed, for them to send, and it took its place in the queue.
After a couple of years of this, sitting in the office in front of a typewriter, and having time to organise your thoughts for a feature story was a doddle.
I have a great admiration for TV news reporters in the field who have to organise their thoughts and give the story in front of the camera, live, often with only a few minutes notice.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Mar 7, 2007 19:29:23 GMT -5
I say it to her every week Wayne! Going to have to stop soon, 'cause she's starting to believe it herself!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 7, 2007 20:05:31 GMT -5
Peter. Like you I never learned to type. What formal typing lessons I had in school were compromised when I started operating the typesetting machine (Linotype) at my parents newspaper. To this day--even as an editor--I never use more than two fingers on each hand and have to look at the keyboard. Still, I can type 60 wpm if I don't have to follow copy.
Wayne
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Mar 7, 2007 20:52:35 GMT -5
Wayne, I never used a Linotype, I was in the wrong union and wasn't allowed to 'handle lead', but I remember watching the operators at the printers, and I don't think the keyboard was qwerty. I seem to remember that if the operator got in a complete mess, like missing a line reading copy, he ran his hand along one of the rows and got something like 'sherdlu' to tell the compositor on the stone that he was starting that para again. No wonder your typing training was compromised.
I tried to learn touch typing once, and can remember sitting at a typewriter with no letters on the keys typing silly sentences on the middle row - things like 'a sad lad had a jag gash', and then bringing in the top row with things like 'the wise jill spoke to sad sarahs dad', and got to about 12 wpm! But I never found time to learn the whole keyboard.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 7, 2007 22:16:25 GMT -5
Caps were on one side of KB and lc on the other. The line was actually "ETAOIN SHRDLU." Those were the first two vertical lines of keys on the left side of the keyboard. Sometimes you filled out a line with those letters to signify it was no good. Sometimes you did it when you started the Linotype up--sort of "1, 2,3 testing." My father said when he was learning the Linotype back in the 1920s it was common to make newcomers set the pharse "The old gray mare she s--t on the whiffle tree." over and over again. (a whiffle tree is part of the tongue assembly on a horse-drawn wagon). Apparently the phrase sometimes escaped from the practice tray and showed up in newspapers so the practice died out. The highlight of running a Linotype was not getting a line tight enough. When the hot lead was injected into a loose line you got something called a "squirt" meaning the lead shot out of the gap in the mold. If you were wearing low cut shoes the lead sometimes went into the gap between the shoe top and your stocking. Somewhat painful. I remember my dad telling me in the early 1960s that "If you are a good Linotype operator, you'll never be out of a job." That was one of the few bad pieces of advice he ever gave me. Ten years later offset printing had taken over, followed by computers and the only Linotypes still operating were in museums. Sorry to run so long but another side note: Both my dad and his brother operated weekly newspapers and both died in their mid '70s from cancer. The rest of their siblings lived to their 90s. I suspect breathing in fumes from melted lead all those years probably was a factor in their ealy deaths. Here's dad operating a Linotype at his weekly newspaper in 1968--the year he retired, shot by your's truly with a Nikon F.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 10, 2007 10:59:28 GMT -5
I have returned from our two-week jaunt to Europe even more of a believer in digital. Shot about 700 pictures in raw format. At any given stop I would shoot many more pictures than I could keep, then edit them down to the best ones while on the way to the next stop. Folks with film cameras had to have their unexposed rolls examined when they went through airport security. The just ignored my DSLR and the scanners have no effect on memory cards.
My only problem was my zoom only went to 28mm--which is actually 42mm on my Nikon. There were a number of times when I could get the shot I wanted because I couldn't get far enough away from the subject. First thing I did on arriving home was order an 18-70 zoom which gives me the coverage of a 28mm film camera on the wide end.
I know this forum is focused on film--and I'll continued to shoot some film from time-to-time. But after spending two weeks with my 6.5 megapixel D100 constantly on my shoulder, I'm sold on the technology. The only question is how soon can I move to the D200.
|
|
|
Post by herron on Apr 10, 2007 11:14:29 GMT -5
Wayne: I have to admit, the lure of digital is enormous. I took my Canon DSLR with me on the cruise...as well as a few film cameras, including a medium-format folder, a rangefinder and an SLR. As you can imagine, my camera bag was my carry-on!
I didn't have any trouble getting my film hand inspected (I had it all out of the cartons and in a zip-lock bag), and no one even looked at the camera bag beyond that.
But the film cameras all had "normal" lenses, whereas the digital had an 18-70mm zoom (the equivalent of 28-112 w/film), and the wider angle sure came in handy in a few places. I got some great shots with film, but agree that a wider angle lens would have come in handy in so many places!
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Apr 10, 2007 17:24:59 GMT -5
Main reason I just ordered the Tokina 12-24 after using the Tokina 20-35 I was sold on their lenses
|
|