|
Post by GeneW on Apr 17, 2007 7:07:44 GMT -5
What cruise line are you sailing with? lol, had to ask Marion It's Holland America. Gene
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 17, 2007 8:30:57 GMT -5
We were on Princess but everywhere we went we either were following a Holland ship of they were following us. All their ship include "dam" in the name, as in Rotterdam, so we naturally called them "The dam ships."
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 17, 2007 12:03:52 GMT -5
Gene
We drove to Whitehorse in 1999 and took the Alaskan ferry back from Skagway to Prince Rupert. I found that a range of focal lengths from 24mm to 300/400mm in film would be useful. Maybe we should try the none cheap way some year. Hope you have a great trip.
Bob
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on May 25, 2007 11:30:53 GMT -5
Well, that was a bit rude of me. Join the board, get as far as saying hello, then end up so busy I don't have time to post another word. Anyway, deep breath, and I'm back again.
I've now ploughed my way through this whole thread (alright, I skimmed a couple of bits) and there's a lot to agree with from all concerned. Couple of points:
From the purely collecting viewpoint, I really can't see anyone ever getting misty-eyed and nostalgic over recent DSLR's. Like modern car-design, (don't get me started !) the appearance isn't anyone's main priority. Where some, but by no means all, classic cameras were designed to look good, as well as function well, new cameras just have to work; what they look like doesn't matter. The idea of a 5D or D70 ending up as a shelf-queen just doesn't compute.
I have one overriding reason for shooting my weddings with film, only using digital as back-up or where it's appropriate. The sheer amount of work that I'm required to put in after the show is over. With my lovely EOS3 and matching pair of EOS5's (A2's), when the roll runs out, I remove it, put it in my pocket, go home, handing it in at my local lab on the way, and Hey Presto, the following day, they hand me back a big bunch of prints which I hand over to the happy couple, large cheque, handshakes, good luck for the future, don't lose my number, I also do baby-pictures, Goodnight Vienna.
Most Digital operators wouldn't dream of releasing a picture before it's been through the whole panoply of unsharp mask, adjusting levels and curves, analysing histograms, converting RAW files, cropping, and heaven knows what else. And that's 250 shots I just took. And if you think the manuals for dslr's are weighty, welcome to the Photoshop 7 Bible. In all seriousness, I do it myself, often, but I don't enjoy it much, and it's nothing to do with photography. I spend hours on the computer just getting the pictures looking as good as the film prints do already.
I actually use a Canon D30, (that's D30, not 30D) all 3 1/2 megapixels of it, so I'm obviously not too bothered about the obsolescence problem. I've done sixty or so weddings, and never yet had anybody complain about the quality, or indeed anyone who could tell the difference.
The other thing I felt when I started, and this is only a personal viewpoint, and it has been mentioned here, it made me sloppy. Out of a roll of 36, by now, I can be confident that I'll only have to throw away 3 or 4. Firing off my dslr grape-shot style, I noticed pretty quickly that I wasn't paying the same attention to framing the shot properly, and rushing things. I just felt that I could always tidy it up later. Not terribly professional, I know, but there you go.
Anyway, just my little bit of input. Congrats on a fascinating thread.
Regards, Tim.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on May 25, 2007 12:15:58 GMT -5
Tim:
Welcome to the fourm. The more the merrier.
In regard to shooting weddings, digital v. film. I agree with you to a degree. You can drop off film and the next day, voila!, you have prints to show to the happy couple rather than futsing around with "post processing." But the technology is improving and I suspect there already are pro labs that can do the same thing with a memory card that they do with a roll of film.
Recently our company had a big party celebrating its 100th anniversary and asked me to shoot picture to record the event. I shot about 100 photos--jpeg rather than RAW. After the festivities I went down to a local drug store, popped the CF card into a terminal, choose the pictures I wanted printed and the size. A half hour later I came back and picked up the photos.
Now granted, the quality of the proofs probably weren't all up to wedding lab standards -- although there were a lot of the shots that I would have been very comfortable showing to newlyweds. But management here was very pleased with the results. And if I can do that well with 6.1 megapixels and drugstore processing, the possibilities with a D2X or 5D and a pro lab geared to digital, evens the playing field considerably.
I will admit, however if someone is shooting a wedding medium format film, there's no way any 35mm digital (or film for that matter) is going to compare if you are blowing up prints to 11x14 or 16x20.
I'll admit that I shoot a lot more frames with digital than with film but as I noted after a recent trip to Europe, if I had shot 800 film frames on that trip I would have been tickled to find 300 real "keepers" when the film was developed. With digital, editing as I went, I came back with over 700 shot I feel good about. Maybe that just means I'm a sloppy photographer. But with film you can shoot a photo that seems perfectly composed, and the subjects have perfect smiles but discover when you get the proofs back that the exposure was off or some little kid is peeking out from behind the alter. With digital you'll see those problems while everyone is still around and you can shoot again.
I agree that from a collecting standpoint, it will be a long time--if ever--before digital cameras will be a hot item.
|
|
|
Post by herron on May 25, 2007 12:44:33 GMT -5
Well...at least I agree on the "non-collectable" aspect of dSLR's....certainly not in the same vein as collecting old film cameras -- most of which you have a reasonable expectation of being able to use. Once the electronic circuitry is shot, and far enough into the future to make replacing it impossible, I cannot see a whole lot of folks sitting a 12mp Canon on a shelf and dusting it every week (no matter how much it cost at one time...that point is relative...I can remember buying gas at 18¢ a gallon, too). Of course, there are folks now who don't see the purpose in my 150+ film cameras, most of which work, but most of which I don't use very often. As to number of images....I don't find I take any more with a digital than I would with film....but then, I'm a stodgy old fa*t who likes to think of himself as fairly disciplined, so I tend to set up much the same way whichever medium I'm using (I even double-check those fancy in-camera meter readings with a hand-held Gossen). The advantage of the dSLR that I see is in the ability to toss out those images that, despite all the set-up, just don't work, for whatever reason (usually related to the shutter depressee - me).
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on May 25, 2007 13:32:56 GMT -5
I think actually I'm standing firmly astride the fence. I work with one of each, sometimes simultaneously, so I can hardly take sides.
One other thing, though, and this is relevant in a working environment, and that's the relative fragility of modern plastic marvels. I could drop most of my film cameras and the only thing that would suffer would be my foot, (thinking of the F1, T90 and any number of Zenits). I'd hate to find out how many times a dslr would bounce.
The crack about sloppiness was purely a personal thing of mine, so don't anybody go taking it personally, please. When I get soap-boxy about that other debate about what makes a good photographer, I often say that it's knowing when to take a picture and knowing when not to bother. If I find I've been firing off at anything that moves and throwing most of it away, my professional pride takes a knock.
There's definitely something to be said for the "cool" factor of a classic. Having a Zorki in a pocket somewhere is a great ice-breaker, particularly with the bride's father, and working this side of the Big Water, I've broken some ice with an Argus "brick". Mind you, you could break practically anything with one of those.
Yours Tim.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on May 25, 2007 13:58:45 GMT -5
Tim:
Know what you mean about the Cool Factor. Several times I've taken a Zorki or FED 1 to some local event and I can figure I'll be stopped several times by folks who want a closer look at my "cool old Leica." Nobody asked about my D100.
|
|
galenk
Lifetime Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by galenk on May 26, 2007 11:46:55 GMT -5
"I've broken some ice with an Argus "brick". Mind you, you could break practically anything with one of those. "
I've got 2 of those "bricks" that are in great shape but I haven't put any film through them yet. I do get a lot of looks from people when using my Retina though, You don't see many of the old folders being used any more.
I just bought my first digital, a Kodak Z650 with 6.1mp with 10X zoom and yes I find myself not taking the time to frame shots like I do with film,
With film each shot cost money, and with digital you can just delete the shot and shoot again.
|
|
|
Post by lulalake on May 28, 2007 9:18:50 GMT -5
"I've broken some ice with an Argus "brick". Mind you, you could break practically anything with one of those. " I've got 2 of those "bricks" that are in great shape but I haven't put any film through them yet. I do get a lot of looks from people when using my Retina though, You don't see many of the old folders being used any more. I just bought my first digital, a Kodak Z650 with 6.1mp with 10X zoom and yes I find myself not taking the time to frame shots like I do with film, With film each shot cost money, and with digital you can just delete the shot and shoot again. Oh yeah. I have 4 of them. Do shoot with them, they are incredibly sharp. Cheers Jules
|
|
|
Post by minoltaman on Jun 18, 2007 8:56:15 GMT -5
I've been using my first purchased digital camera, a Kodak Z710, for about 2 weeks now. The camera is great! And it has many features, including Aperature and Shutter priority as well as full manual. Those features allow a die hard film buff like me to feel like I'm actually practicing photography instead of just pointing and shooting.
I love film cameras, like my 35mm Minoltas and my old Mamiya, but if you're traveling or in situations where you don't have the time to set up shots properly, digital cameras are the way to go.
But there's still nothing like the ruggedness and weight of a pre-1980's 35mm SLR. And if you shoot 35mm slide film, the color rendition cannot be beat by digital.....at least not yet.
|
|