View Full Version : post-digital anyone?
wblanchard
09-15-2005, 18:27
I've recently decided to go back to film and sold most of my digital gear. I'm not sure how many are "post digital" like me...but I just had enough of all the hours of tweaking in photoshop to get results somewhat close to what my hexar af camera and good film got with the click of a button. i will not miss setting the AW balance, ISO settings, contrast, sharpness, etc..it just became too much for me.
its amazing how quickly my digital gear depreciated in value too...!
just had to vent and get it off my chest. now i have one last piece of gear to sell on ebay..my pentax *ist DS gear. maybe i will take the money and buy a R3A and lens..unless someone wants to trade. :D
Another one saved from the digital matrix. Well done!
jaypolaski
09-15-2005, 19:12
Ah yes, count me among your ranks. I jumped back to film earlier this year, and have not regretted in the least making the switch. I love watching all the other photogs swarming over the latest digital hullabaloo, pining for more in the megapixel race, and worrying about upgrading to the newest sensor. Not to mention all the complaining about sensor dust, and said dusts removal! And they say film is so expensive...HA!
I just sit back with my camera, and laugh as I load another roll of HP5 ;)
I've been going back and forth on this issue myself after a disappointing recent experience with a high-end digicam (which replaced my venerable Minolta Dimage 7i, a great camera). You can read about it here (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10671) if you want.
Now, I know somebody's going to say that a digicam ain't in the same league as a DSLR and yes, I'll accept that as a given. Other folks will say "but hasn't he defended digicams in the past?" Yeah, I have; in fact, a digicam convinced me to get serious about photography.
However, this past weekend I threw a roll of cheap Kodak C41 ISO 400 B&W film into my Konica C35 Auto as a film test and had way more fun shooting, got one-hour processing, during which I multitasked by eating lunch and shopping. I discovered when I looked at the prints that I had a higher percentage of shots I liked, 8 out of 24 exposures, that I'd gotten from the digital with far less effort shooting. I spent 15 minutes from start to finish scanning the keepers and about 10 minutes with them in Photoshop to save the original TIFF, remove the magenta cast, sharpen, and then resize and save as a JPEG for online display. If I was going for printed output I would definitely have spent more time but in this instance it wasn't required.
Part of me is still really tempted to get a digital SLR, thinking it might solve my digital woes. I have to admit, I want a shiny new toy to play with. I like fondling new gadgets and learning how they work. Doesn't help advance my skills much, though.
The other part of me says to just spend the money on a decent film scanner. I have plenty of high-quality film cameras already with all the "megapixels" I need to make large prints if I want to.
In the end, I can't see where going all-digital was all that advantageous.
shutterflower
09-15-2005, 19:30
I did the same thing, a year ago, I sold all my film stuff (except my 4x5s) and moved into digital because, as a student, the money factor was important, and I liked to be able to shoot whenever I felt like it, poor or not.
But, I have since sold that digital, and bought more film stuff, then sold that film stuff and traded for another digital. And I then bought a couple of 4x5 cameras. So I work with the two extremes. It's hard, but I am an extremist. One of those 4x5s is a Crown Graphic, so I pass the Rangefinder test.
andyturk
09-15-2005, 19:55
Yes and no. I caught a bad case of GAS after borrowing a friend's M6 one weekend. As a result, I picked up a used one and have been shooting film again for the first time in quite a while.
I do like the control offered by Photoshop for prints though. The ability to crop and tweak in front of my monitor helps make up for a lack of skill behind the lens.
I never made it. Earlier this year I decided that an R-D1 was the camera that I had to have and sold off a number of my film cameras. Providence, in the form of a financial crisis, stepped in before I could sell everything. (I never thought I'd call a financial crisis provident, but the camera money went to solve the crisis.)
Intrigued by digital, I decided to play with my wife's Nikon Collpix 5400. Not an R-D1, but a reasonably nice digicam. It produced decent results, even surprising me with an 11x14 b & w off my Epson printer, and the only things that I could really complain about was the truly bad optical finder and the length of time it took to write a tiff file to the CF card.
But I find my major problem hard to characterize other than to say that I just couldn't get my heart started by using this camera. There was no photographer involvement. Maybe the R-D1 would feel like my other cameras just with a different recording medium, but for the moment I'll stick with my old film rangefinders.
I've kind of settled into the middle. I went heavily into digital because I had to: I shoot a lot for nonprofit organizations for whom the cost of film and processing is a significant burden, and most of my pictures wound up on web pages, CDs, in print publications designed digitally, etc. I had tried following a film > scanner workflow for these pictures, but the time investment in scanning was so huge that it just wasn't working.
So I kept my film cameras but started out digitally with an Olympus C-2020 (the first digicam I could find that had a reasonably fast lens, manual control options, and a decent b&w mode), then moved to a C-4040 (which I still use as a 'garage camera'), and finally selling my film SLR gear and taking the plunge with a Nikon D100 system.
While this solved my scanning problems, and quality wasn't an issue, I didn't really enjoy working this way -- largely because I've never really liked SLRs, even though I've always had to use them for the sake of versatility. So, I was mostly in digital, and mostly unhappy about it.
The R-D 1 changed that. Finally (although at horrifying expense) I had a digital camera that gives results at least as good as my D100's, and that I really enjoy using.
A funny thing happened, though: Eventually, shooting with the R-D 1 also made me want to shoot more with the RF film cameras that I had kept largely for sentimental reasons -- just for the enjoyment of using them, and the "look" they can provide.
I realized that while scanning time is an issue when you need to deliver 100 pictures for a brochure, it's not so much of a problem when you're just going to select your one best picture to print for your own satisfaction.
Now, I happily use the R-D 1 for high-volume projects (especially color, even though it has a great b&w mode) and just as happily use my film RFs for small-volume personal shooting.
shutterflower
09-15-2005, 20:35
If I had a nice, plump bank account, I would never touch a digital camera. I WOULD use film scanners though. If you really know what you are doing, there is no good argument for digital cameras except that they cost little to use, and you can shoot thousands of pics without reloading. Are those good arguments? OVerall, I'd say no. But sometimes money makes the decisions.
I think you nailed it, Gerry, when you said you felt that with digital there's no photographer involvement. I use digital as well as film, and when I simply want an accurate record of a scene, I'll use the digital every time. With film I'm more involved in the whole process, from loading the film cassette from the bulk-loader, loading the camera, selecting a lens, making the judgements about focus and exposure, composing, then developing, scanning and editing the image (I don't have a wet-darkroom). Some might say I'm just burning spare hours, but I'm enjoying the journey as well as the destination.
I'm still waiting on Mr Ford to decide manual transmissions are a worthwhile option in an inexpensive car.
wblanchard
09-15-2005, 21:38
I've had the canon 20d, nikon d70, pentax *ist, and Leica D2. All of them went back and were replaced by my Hexar Af. I recently went shooting in the city with some photographer friends and they were stunned that I went back to film. They pulled out their "L" glass and started to preach canon to me. *I get this all the time. Even with computers, because I run Apple and they use Windows. *
Yes, I use photoshop cs2 for some tweaks here and there on my film scans, but it's very rare that i spend more than 10 minutes on an image. im convinced the latitude of exposure some films like neopan or other give are much better and forgiving than using a digital setting in a DSLR. Besides, i like a little grain in my pictures and not that sterile and too perfect look that digital seems to feed us today.
Well, what can I say. I was shooting film before I bought me a Eos 300D. I was disappointed with the ergonomics so I didn't touch the camera anymore after only a few weeks.
Went back to film but felt more and more frustrated with the huge amount of time I was wasting scanning film.
FInally, I bought the R-D1. No more wasting time with scanning and none of the awkward ergonomics of the 300D. I'm even shooting the 300D more now, as it supplements my R-D1 in several ways.
But I still have all of my film cameras, even my old Eos 3000. And just recently even got a very nice Kiev. (Tnx Brett!)
So, post digital? Is there really something like that? IMO every serious photographer knows that both digital and film, both SLR and rangefinder, both 35mm film and APS form factor and MF and LF and half frame, have their place. It hardly ever is either this or that.
For me, it's not so much post--digital as it is post medium format.
I still own a Hasselblad 503cw and a bag full of lenses, but since I got my xpan, my attitude and photography has changed. I am having so much fun and I am actually seeing things different, which is a plus.
For me, it's not so much post--digital as it is post medium format.
Same here, the Bronica SQB has been sitting in the closet for more than six months now. I'm having a ball with a Bessa-T and a CV25/Hexanon-50. It's the portability that makes this combo a winner.
I have a slight move in the opposite direction at the moment, as I got my first digital camera yesterday. It is a KM X50, about the size of two rolls of 120, which fits easily in a pocket.
I just decided that the small size and weight gave something I could not get with the film cameras I use (Leica M sized is the smallest). It would also be nice to try a digital camera as I cannot forsee any for me suitable digital camera coming on the market anytime soon (that I can afford). Besides, the price was right (ex-demo).
No, it was not GAS, it was curiosity, sort of. :rolleyes:
/Håkan
I'm still waiting on Mr Ford to decide manual transmissions are a worthwhile option in an inexpensive car.
That is a very USA type of remark ;) the rest of the world is more or less the other way around....An automatic transmission was not even available for my Jag which, though not really inexpensive, is, in the end, one of Mr. Ford´s offerings :D .
On the digital vs. film topic: I moved from SLR (Leica R) to DSLR (Canon 10D), shot only digital for a year,got superb, silky smooth, sharp and stunning shots, bought a Leica Digilux2 and that started me using the Leica M stuff I had, gathering dust, again for reasons I couldn't explain. Now the 10D is relegated to makro and long tele, the Canon lens collection is largely sold and it is± 10D 10%-Digilux2 50%-Leica M 40%. I sat down and looked through my albums again some days ago, and found that the Canon shots were well... dead, despite the technical quality, the Digilux shots were far better in a photographic sense and technically fine as well and prints from the scanned Leica M shots still slightly more pleasing, despite seeming to loose out very slightly in technical sharpness etc. to the Digilux, probably due to my learning curve on scanning technique. But then I projected some slides! :angel:. So I figure the best thing to do is carry on the way I am now, in some halfway semi-digital limbo. But I must find a cure for this GAS :bang:
>>>Quote:
Originally Posted by XAos
I'm still waiting on Mr Ford to decide manual transmissions are a worthwhile option in an inexpensive car. <
>>.That is a very USA type of remark the rest of the world is more or less the other way around....<<
Jaapv,
I understood XAos's remark to refer to the venerable Model T, which had a very peculiar two-gear semi-automatic transmission by modern standards. Most inexpensive cars in the United States have a manual-transmission option. It's the more mainstream family cars that don't have manuals. I moved back from Europe in 1999 and searched for a used Toyota four-door family car with a manual transmission similar to what I'd just had in Germany. The dealers thought I was quite eccentric, and I never did find one.
MacDaddy
09-16-2005, 02:28
Well, I have to join the crowd and say I just went back to film from 5 years of digital as well. For me, it was some of the same issues Gerry stated; namely, that my heart couldn't "get" into digital like it's now into film.
Call me crazy, but I felt that I didn't have control of the creative process with digital as much as with film. Besides, as someone else pointed out, I spent more time fiddling with camera controls than with composition and actually taking photos as opposed to pictures ( Now THERE'S a topic for a good discussion!)
Having spent the last five years of my IT career supporting various Advertising agencies and their networks, I can also identify with Jim (thanks again for the Leningrad!) about costs and the need for a fast workflow. My personal thoughts are that pros have embraced digital so quickly because of those reasons, not because of any kind of love affair with it. The ones I've talked to, at least, tell me they still enjoy the creative process more with film than with digital.
Having stated that, though, I hope WE wind up like I have with computers, where my beloved Macintoshes now co—exist with windoze machines, and find a happy medium where we can all have some of both cameras, but love our film ones more.
Wow...20 posts on and still no flame war. A civil thread...this sure ain't like that other big photography forum ;) .
I happily use both formats and there's only one thing that bugs me about digital: it's still an emerging technology in many respects. Cameras, sensors and procesors are becoming obsolete nearly as fast as they are introduced. Personally, I'm not ready to upgrade my camera every 16 months, nor do I wish to. I'm still using my Canon A40 because every time I considered an upgrade, Canon pulled the plug on the model I was trying to upgrade to :( (A75, A95).
There are advantages and disadvantages to both formats and learning to work with the strengths of each one is challenging and fun. That's why we're all here, right?
I never left film, I added digital. And fast depreciation is not an issue as I still use the D60 I bought used and I don't think it will stop working when the 30d is released sometime next year.
>>>Quote:
Originally Posted by XAos
I'm still waiting on Mr Ford to decide manual transmissions are a worthwhile option in an inexpensive car. <
>>.That is a very USA type of remark the rest of the world is more or less the other way around....<<
Jaapv,
I understood XAos's remark to refer to the venerable Model T, which had a very peculiar two-gear semi-automatic transmission by modern standards. Most inexpensive cars in the United States have a manual-transmission option. It's the more mainstream family cars that don't have manuals. I moved back from Europe in 1999 and searched for a used Toyota four-door family car with a manual transmission similar to what I'd just had in Germany. The dealers thought I was quite eccentric, and I never did find one.
Me stupid, I should have picked that one up! thanks Vince!
Actually, I wasn't aware of that much detail about the model T and had you asked, I would have guessed it to have a manual transmission. BUT - it was analogy. Most cars here in the US you have an option for manual or automatic transmission. Even in this modern era, there are still a number of reasons someone might want a manual transmission. It's not seen as a luddite type thingy.
Right now most digitals are still in the auto everything no ifs ands or buts. Any color you want as long as it's black. Oh sure they may give you an Av, Tv, and M mode now on some inexpensive cameras but there are no digicams which are inexpensive, have Av, Tv, M and ALLOW (I'd be willing to live with require - but I dont expect that to happen) manual focusing, and take interchangable lenses. If they can ever put out one of those for $400 I'm in.
Sean Reid
09-16-2005, 04:55
Just to add to the flavor and contrast of this discussion... I've switched entirely over to digital capture (particularly with the R-D1) and have no plans for going back to film. I have fond memories of film and the darkroom but this new medium provides a better workflow for me. At this point in the maturity of digital cameras, I'm not compromising manual control, ergonomics, sixe, etc. to be working this way. In 1999, when I began with digital, it was a different story, but much has changed.
Cheers,
Sean
Yes, I use photoshop cs2 for some tweaks here and there on my film scans, but it's very rare that i spend more than 10 minutes on an image. im convinced the latitude of exposure some films like neopan or other give are much better and forgiving than using a digital setting in a DSLR. Besides, i like a little grain in my pictures and not that sterile and too perfect look that digital seems to feed us today.
I agree here completely. I sold my film stuff to get into digital and have since bought back some film stuff and am shooting more film. Digital is great for color work but I find film to be much more satidfying for B&W work. I find myself wanting to add grain to my digital B&W work ;)
OT:
With the Model T, you adjusted the gas with a hand-throttle, much like a modern gas-powered lawnmower. What we think of today as a gas pedal was a transmission pedal. You stomped it to the floor for low speed, low gear. You then took your foot completely off for a footloose cruising speed of 30-40 mph, depending on how you'd set the hand throttle. At least, I think that's how it worked. I've never driven one, but my older brother is an old-car buff, so when I was growing up, the only reading material in the house was often car magazines.
Back on Topic:
I agree completely about the lack of manual controls on digital cameras. I have a Canon G1 and my wife has a G2. For several years, we did all of our family-photo shooting with them, and my wife used the G1 and then the G2 for occassional newspaper work. These are fine point-and-shoot cameras than can produce professional-quality results in pinch. I even shoot them pretty much like a rangefinder, keeping the LCD swiveled closed and sighting through the smallish uncluttered unparallax-corrected viewfinder. But I learned photography 25 years ago, when manual cameras were the entry-level product and automation cost more. I never really warmed to automated cameras and preferred manual focus, manual-control models with no motor drive. Clearly the consumer market was moving in the opposite direction (they still dub motor-drive sounds in movies when you see a gaggle of would-be press photographers). The Canon G1 and G2 sort of have traditional camera ertonomics, but the controls are all different. You can't just reach for aperature and shutter speed.
It's annoying that there's no digital equivalent to the old Pentax K1000 or Nikon FM10 or other entry-level low-budget manual film cameras. If my lenses weren't all in the Nikon F and Nikon rangefinder system, I might be tempted by the Epson RD-1. But I'm no longer doing photojournalism, only family photos, so I can't justify the lofty boutique price.
Early this year, I did get annoyed at the shortcoming of the Canon digital point-and-shoot. I pulled my beat-up rangefinders out of the closet and shot a roll of the kids and rediscovered the joy of photography. I do scan the negs and use a digital darkroom, so I'm trying to use the best of both worlds.
Bertram2
09-16-2005, 07:31
Hey:)
I'm just starting the editorial hustle here in the UK, and I know that many of the people I go to see will ask if I shoot digital. Some won't mind if I say "no", others will tell me not to come back until I do. :bang: The fact is that someone trying to make a living out of photography needs to be able to shoot both digital and film,
ManGo
From reasons of costs and productivity for most pros there is no choice. They simply weren't competitive.
For most of them there isn't a choice any longer , but not for all. It depends on their personal business, as I was said for some magazine work still film is used, even 4X5. But that is a tiny niche now.
Anyway, most of us are no pros. Nonetheless it's getting all mixed up again and again in forum discussion and maybe this is one of the reasons why digital /analog discussions always get very emotional after a while and end with tears and / or bloody noses so often.
One should keep that properly separated. If amateurs defend their digital invests then they should use amateur arguments, not pro arguments.
If an amateur tells me I am too lazy for darkroom or scanning I say o.k. , no good reason , but at least a reason one can respect :)
If an amateur tells me he saves 400 rolls of film now and thus the system pays itself i say o.k., tell THAT your barber, he cannot run away and must stay polite. :D
Leaving aside that for an amateur it is no argument to use a system just because it pays itself.Does the rest not count at all ?
We had this pro-mania attitude of amateur photogs already in former threads. For me a kinda mystery, personally I am glad that I do not have to sell my photos.
Is it the glory of some great names which makes so many amateurs wanting to be and to look like a professional ? With the 120 pocket vest and the
f 0.95 /15-1000mm zoom ?
If they really would know a bit about the world of the pros they would be happy to amateurs.
Many pros are lousy photogs btw, pro is not a stamp of quality at all.
Best wishes for the new business. As far as quality is concerned you pics are more professional than many pro fotos , I really hpe hope you can sell your work successfully !
Bertam
Bertam,
I agree that professional photographers often have no edge in quality but are under a lot of time stress that requires them to shoot digital.
FYI, Here's an interesting quote in Photo District News about the currently widely circulated Reuters photograph of President Bush writing a note during a UN session in which he said he needs a bathroom break:
"The photo, which quickly became fodder for blogs and e-mails among friends, was taken by Rick Wilking, a contract photographer based in Denver who recently covered the flooding in New Orleans. [Gary] Hershorn, Reuters' news editor for pictures for the Americas, says he's responsible for zooming in on the note and deciding to transmit the photo to Reuters clients. He says Wilking didn't know what the note said when he shot the picture.
"'I'm so adamant that Rick has nothing to do with this. He was just the guy who pushed the button,' Hershorn says."
Full article (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001137642)
In this case, you have the photo editor describing the professional photographer as "just the guy who pushed the button."
How's that for creative control of your work?
Brian Sweeney
09-16-2005, 08:16
I use the two D1x's at work, for documentation in the lab and creating reports. I have two Nikon F3HP's that straddle the 2M SN mark. They have not seen much use. The E3 would be easier to use as it works with the SB29 ringlight. But that is my "home" digital, along with a D1, Kodak DCS200ir, and Kodak DCS420c. All of these offer full manual, the D1 is plenty for shooting JPEG's for Mom when she visits. They all use my Manual Nikkor lenses.
At home, I primarily shoot film. I do not scan as much, if I need a digital image I grab the D1 or E3. If I want to play with IR and Monochrome, the DCS200IR is the choice.
SolaresLarrave
09-16-2005, 08:29
I may have to turn into digital... when my lab stops developing E-6 film. However... it's not the only escape route. There's always the mail-order route! :)
However, I must admit that my relative fascination with digital resides in that I like playing with new toys. Like Doug K., new gizmos appeal to me in such a way I feel like I gotta have them.
Now, the only thing that scares me about digital is the amount of time I may have to spend in front of a computer. While I don't do much scanning nowadays (and I find it frustrating sometimes because I don't know how to do it and I know it's not the gear's fault), I am not quite crazy about NOT doing it and syphoning images from the camera into my computer. Why? Again, time.
Plus, I like to look at my slides and, sometimes, project them.
But then, the world is pushing me that way... Can we make it so that amateur shutterbugs don't feel the "need" to go digital?
Sean Reid
09-16-2005, 08:31
Well...just for the record...
1. Both the R-D1 and Digilux 2 have manual controls in (mostly) the usual places. Most DSLRs are fairly easy to use in full manual mode. Small-sensor compact cameras have some limitations that some of the more expensive cameras do not.
2. Not all professional photographers do mediocre work. There's a mixture of good, bad and adequate.
Sean
Actually, I do use the Canon G1 quite a bit for note-taking in my work. When I'm presented with briefing slides, I snap away at any of the important images and so don't have to track down a copy of the presentation afterwards. Also, it's saved me more than once when my laptop locked up while I was working on a story or report ... I snapped a shot of the screen before rebooting and losing all the work.
I've thought about getting an outdated professional SLR like a D1 to take advantage of my SLR lenses. But I haven't made the leap yet.
For awhile, about five years ago, I held out hope that someone would develop a digital insert the size of a film casette with the film leader sticking out that would transform any camera into a digital capturing device. I've come to realize that, while this may be technically feasible, there simply isn't enough market to justify its R&D.
Brian Sweeney
09-16-2005, 08:38
You mean this concept:
http://www.edigitalphoto.com/accessories/0006edp_silicons/
I think the battery problem killed them.
I think some of the frustration is that you have to go fairly high end to get manual controls.
However, to put things in perspective, when the all-mechanical film cameras from the 1950s and 60s were new, they were very, very pricey. After inflation, they cost the equivalent of one of today's high-end digital SLRs or an RD-1.
>>You mean this concept:
http://www.edigitalphoto.com/access...06edp_silicons/
I think the battery problem killed them.<<
Yup. Woulda been grand, if it had worked.
I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, someone like Cosina-Voigtlaender made a cottage niche industry out of creating digital backs for some classic cameras. Unfortunately, the affordability of components is probably five or more years off, and the biggest market -- Leica -- would be challenged by the bottom-loading cast bodies that don't lend themselves to new backs the way a Nikon or Contax RF would.
Well, while we're setting the record straight, the RD-1 is nowhere NEAR inexpensive. They said - hey rangefinders go for a lot of money, I think we can increase our profit margins selling to this niche of wackos. IMO they took all the wrong lessons from it. It will die soon enough, because big iron PC product makers don't understand the tens of thousand units market.
Digital for colour, film for b&w, med fmt & lrg fmt. I'll probably spring for some E6 film in med and maybe even lrg fmt with the fall colours coming.
99% of my pics are crap anyhow, so I don't do hours of wet/chemical or digital photoshop work. If I can't fix it in 1 min in PS, I forget about it. That applies to digi shots or scans.
4 or 5 years ago my interest in photography was sparked by the Canon G1, which lead me on to the 300d and 20d SLRs. I have my 20d and absolutely love it, its lenses, and the sheer quality it can produce.
My quest for a really nice smaller camera was much harder though. I've ended up with the Hexar AF because there isn't a camera as good as this that is digital (for my personal purposes). I'm very very happy with the Hexar and haven't touched the 20d for a while, but I WILL go back to it. I loathe scanning the film, but somehow Tri-X has the magic ingredient for me.
julianphotoart
09-16-2005, 13:03
Not post-digital, not pre-digital, not ever digital. Neopan 100, Astia, Ilford paper and Cibachrome. All nice and wet, smelly, full of chemicals, and magic. "Photography" and "Digital Image Capture" (DICk for short) are different things. But seriously, Bruce Birnbaum in last month's Photo Techniques had a wonderful editorial about why he is, and will be, a film guy.
Al Patterson
09-16-2005, 14:17
I never left film, I added digital. And fast depreciation is not an issue as I still use the D60 I bought used and I don't think it will stop working when the 30d is released sometime next year.
Your post describes where I am. I have replaced color print film with digital, currently a Sony V3. Nice camera. It looks kind of like a rangefinder.
I also shoot slide film with my Canon A-1s, and Black & White print films with my rangefinders. Usually Ilford XP2 with a Leica CL, but also use other film and cameras as the mood strikes me.
All,
Like many poster - I straddle several photo "worlds"
I came to photography via film SLR (mid '70's with a Nikkormat FT-2) and continue to travel that path (albeit now with a F5 and F100 plus the oldies).
But a few years ago I first dabbled in digital via a P&S Canon G2 and was quite smitten by the ease of use and small size. Of course, problem is output - with film I have always favored trannies - so now what do I do with all these P&S digishots? [Oh, BTW, my better half still just prefers to use the old Olympus Infinity P&S!]
Continuing on to recent times, last Winter I went for a new Nikon D70 (and because we have more than one residence also a used D100 for our vacation home).
But I couldn't give up film - so I also got a couple of F-100's and the F5 - have to have all bases covered!
Are you beginning to detect GAS here?
Now, of course, I also felt that the old manual Nikon SLR needed some "friends" such as a F3 and FT-3 and an EL (well after all - the lenses are interchangeable - aren't they!?!?)
I think we are definetely detecting GAS here.
So to complete the picture - now - partially as a result of the corrupting influence of this website (and GAS curiousity as a general disease), I developed a "need" to learn about RF technique so have purchased a user Nikon S2 w/a couple of lenses on eBay. Which of course means I am now looking at CQ's remaining Bessa R2S kits for a backup camera. You know, one for color and one for B&W....
Talk about GAS!!!!
And now I get to the original post (err..) Post-Digital.
We're all likely travelling on a ship of happy fools!
Yes, I believe that there will be a "reaction" to digital by present day photo "afficianados". I mean, after all, if you read PopPhoto, to stay current, you have to throw away your DSLR each month (lenses included unless they're Sigma's). How long can that thrive? [Oh and BTW: did you notice how all of their pics of the month for September 2005 were shot on film?]
We all have to keep in mind that DSLRs (and the higher-end digital P&S's) have revived the entire camera industry. These days, suburban and exurban soccer moms just HAVE TO HAVE a DSLR in order to "save face"! DSLRs and higher-end digital P&S cameras are status symbols for the current generation of 20 to 40 somethings - just as film SLRs were to their parents and grandparents thirty years ago!
This "acquisition craze" will pale soon, and many of these DSLRs etc. will wind up on closet shelves. But the harder reality is, just like so many other technological endeavors, the "kids" today are only going to learn and know digital format photography.
Within a couple of years it will be hard to even find a course anywhere on film shooting (much less developing) technique.
Now for a 54+ y.o. "geezer" like me - that's no problem.
But give it a couple of decades and who (except a tiny group of "wierdo luddites") will even know about film anymore?
Love this website,
George
copake_ham
Well, while we're setting the record straight, the RD-1 is nowhere NEAR inexpensive. They said - hey rangefinders go for a lot of money, I think we can increase our profit margins selling to this niche of wackos. IMO they took all the wrong lessons from it. It will die soon enough, because big iron PC product makers don't understand the tens of thousand units market.
Yes, it is expensive but so is the new special edition of the Leica MP.
Yes, they probably did slap on quite a good profit margin but they get away with it, and a company is there to make a profit; not to give money away.
Yes, the R-D1 serves a niche but that could very well be its reason for survival. Niche markets are usually too small for the BIG boys to play in.
Yes, the BIG ones probably don't understand a 10.000 unit market but Cosina does. And Epson has been delegating lots of the work on the R-D1 to Cosina.
So, no, I don't think the digital RF will die soon. It will, however, never be a market saturated with products from all the BIG names. It will definitely remain a niche market where perhaps 2 or 3 manufacturers will play. Epson/Cosina, Leica and Zeiss, most likely.
If an amateur tells me he saves 400 rolls of film now and thus the system pays itself i say o.k., tell THAT your barber, he cannot run away and must stay polite. :D
Leaving aside that for an amateur it is no argument to use a system just because it pays itself.Does the rest not count at all ?
While the original post had me thinking, this above reminded me of still another reason why I could be "post-digital." "Does the rest not count at all?" Nice. Nice because the rest of it--making a picture--does count: I became so concerned with post-processing digital images that I found I missed the picture, literally.
Had done a fair amount of printmaking(lithography, intaglio, etching and b/w photo) and all the while shooting film... then I fell into digital, but into SGIs, 3D and video(still recovering from Avid Matador tools... painting with (digital) light so subtle it makes Adobe PS seem like house paint)... "...the rest" was obscured behind a color callibrated CRT!
My pro/earning a living by photography friends went digital (MF mostly) because their clients *expected* digital files, and, importantly, digital detail... a lot of the image quality in 4x5 was simply not needed. They could also reduce the per image cost and thus offer a lower bid and get more business.
I have a few negs and slides to scan, from over 20 years of shooting, but the call to get out of the house and shoot has delayed this work... both eyes open, and looking out far further than half a meter to a CRT, that's the "rest" that really counts, again.
I must say, however, that composing with the LCD of my CoolPix 950 has a pleasant MF feel about it... but the lens ain't all that ;)
Forums like this are the most I get from digital in photography.
EDIT: I forgot to say, thank you!
rgds,
Dave
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.