ODing on Digital

[GeneW]

One of the hidden negatives about digital photography is that it's so convenient you end up shooting more than you can even begin to comfortably process. Well, that's my opinion after a few weeks with my new digicams.

Don't get me wrong, I like the cams immensely, but I'm ODing on images.

I'm going to switch to film exclusively for awhile so I can slow down and not feel the pressure of working up yet another batch of photos from TODAY.

Sometimes you can get too much of a good thing...

Besides, time to start spending some quality time with my new Fed-2

Thanks for listening...

Gene

[nikonbob]

Gene

That seems to be a common problem with digital photography. It is nice to have the option of photos but you have to learn how to snipe away and not give it the whole belt and weed later. A friend has a Fed that really works well and give very nice images. If he ever wants to part with it I would give it a new home. Great cameras, hope you get to spend that quality time with yours.

Bob

[GeneW]

Bob, I took my Fed-2 with me this evening to the harbour. I took a digicam too, but only to take a camera and coffee pic of the Fed

It really felt good. Just a little pocket light meter and a Jupiter-8 50/2 lens. Camera loaded with Neopan 400. I shot most of the roll and will finish it tomorrow so I can see how the camera is working. I expect it's a good one. The person I bought it from cleans and adjusts all his cameras and he's very particular. The only reason he sold it was he's narrowing down his RF's to Contax-mount cams only and this was his last remaining LTM body.

Gene

[kiev4a]

You see the digital disease all the time on the photo blogs. People shoot 200 pictures, only 10 or which are even vaguely interesting, but they post all 200 --here' my girlfriend at the picnic-here's my girlfriend smiling, frowning, scratching, picking her nose. . .ad naseum

[kamera]

Hey Wayne,

I have seen most of the scenarios you mention except the picking of the nose. Conjecture.

Which phalange was used??

Ron Head
Kalamazoo, MI

[kiev4a]

Literary license:)

[mickeyobe]

Re: Digital Disease.
I have seen professional photographers at weddings and at fashion shoots take dozens of pictures knowing full well that only a relatively few would be used. I used to think how lovely it would be if I could afford to waste film like that in order to get one good picture. Now I can. The trouble is that I am so accustomed to hoarding my shots that it goes against the grain to waste any shots. I might learn.

Mickey

[kamera]

Wayne,

That statement off the hook!!!

Mickey,

I still "waste" a lot of film...bracketing or whatever. When one considers the cost of our camera gear, the cost of film is negligable.

Also, when I am doing business, often the shots that were just spur of the moment or 'spent' are the ones that come out the best and the customer likes. So to get a keeper or two shoot, shoot and shoot.

That is not to say, though, that you do not utilize your photographic training or skills.

I kind of compare it to oil changes in a motor vehicle. Compared to the cost of the vehicle and other maintenance, an oil change is the cheapest maintenance one can do.

By the way...have you used your Argus C3 at all???

Ron Head
Kalamazoo, MI

[mickeyobe]

Ron,

I have a collection of eight or nine C3's, each different from the others. I have tried a few of them and, frankly, I can find nothing at all appealing about them. I wont go into a long rant about why I prefer almost any other camera to the 3C . I simply cannot understand why, other than their indestructibility, they were so popular for so long unless there was a serious shortage of doorstops or paperweights.
I am really asking for it aren't I?

Mickey

[kamera]

Well Mickey...your question is legitimate.

At the time, here in the US, the C3 was the only direct competitor with Kodak in the same class
of camera.

And they both were generally sold in drug stores(pharmacies).

But nonworking ones DO make a good paperweight or doorstop...LOL...!

Ron Head
Kalamazoo, MI