View Full Version : Is digital capture easier than film?
This issue came up in another thread.
My position is that yes, digital is easier. Here's why:
If it weren't easier and more convenient, then why have most pros switched away from film to go digital?
Isn't it easier when you can see each exposure right away on the LCD screen rather than wait until after the shoot until the film is developed? If something wasn't to your liking, this allows you to make an adjustment and shoot again right away before the scene changes or the model leaves.
Isn't it easier plug a card into a computer, download, and see the results on your computer screen instead of processing film and then either scanning it, or darkroom printing it?
Your view?
This isn't a film versus digital thread. I have no issue with those who choose digital for their photography. I'm not a pro so I'm free to choose and use film which is more satisfying for me.
back alley
10-22-2008, 17:30
frank, frank, frank ...;)
Come, admit it: film takes guts! :)
charjohncarter
10-22-2008, 17:42
Frank, Frank, Frank, you compose, focus, get exposure, with film. With digital you shoot and then spend the rest of your life getting color balance, straightening, adjusting shadows (because of limited dynamic range: read latitude), sharpening, or softening, using curves and levels. And there is probably more stuff that real digital photographers do. So you decide, do you want to have the choice of all these wonderful B&W films and color films that are available today, or do you want to shoot one color sensor and try to make it look good. Alex West (on a recent thread here), I think that is his name, is a famous photographer, he just had some images on Magnum. They were somewhat like we would do if we were testing a new camera. Maybe he was, but they were not too good. But in the end, do what you want and be happy if people like it. But I would choose film, not being a Pro and with 3 Digital cameras (little used), my soul is still with film.
About digital, I can only repeat what Walker Evans said of Polaroid:
"It makes things awfully easy to have that thing pop out. It reduces everything to your brains and taste. . . .The damn thing will do anything you point it at. You have to really know something before you dare point it anywhere. You have to know what you're pointing it at, and why—even if it's only instinctive."
Al Kaplan
10-22-2008, 17:45
OMG, do you know how many great shots MIGHT have happened while you were looking at the lousy one on the LCD screen?
Photojournalists switched because of the speed the image can get to the editor's desk from anyplace on the planet. Other pros like it because it's fast and easy to manipulate in photoshop. Still, many photographers, art directors, editors, etc. just happen to like the look of film, and a lot of people prefer the look of a silver print. It can be less expensive to shoot film. Lastly, at this stage of the game the archiveability of digital images is open to question.
usagisakana
10-22-2008, 17:47
Easier perhaps, to download from a memory card to computer than develop (that said I enjoy developing, so it's a moot point really, except for speed). However I honestly find it harder to get results I like from my digital than from film.
Fred Burton
10-22-2008, 17:49
I don't think it's accurate to say digital is easier. If you are shooting jpeg snapshots with a digital P&S, and getting them printed at Walmart, then, yeah, it's easier. But there is so much more you can do with a digital file in Photoshop than you can do in a darkroom with a negative.
RAW files are extremely malleable and open to infinite variations. For me, who spent many years with film in a darkroom, digital was the stuff dreams (and photos) were made of. The limited options of a darkroom were much easier but much less satisfying artistically. YMMV, of course.
Let's keep it mind that Evans used Polaroid and liked it. It let him depend entirely on his 'vision, taste, and intelligence'. From the Hungry Eye.
Heady stuff!
I wouldn't say digital is easier. I would say it can be more convenient. Sometimes I enjoy the day and walk to the shops and sometimes I drive.
Isn't it easier plug a card into a computer, download, and see the results on your computer screen instead of processing film and then either scanning it, or darkroom printing it?
There are many who would claim that it's even easier to get someone else to do the processing, scanning and printing, and just hand you the CD + prints + negs.
What was Kodak's old slogan again? "You press the button, we'll do the rest."
I use both... it's as hard as you want to make it, and as easy as you want it to be. You can work as hard at it as you want, or be as lazy as you want. In both cases, film and digital, you'll get out of it what you put in.
It takes guts to shoot 4x5 E6 film on a 50 year old camera, especially at over $5- a shot, I still haven't taken the film into the lab yet.
sevres_babylone
10-22-2008, 18:26
OMG, do you know how many great shots MIGHT have happened while you were looking at the lousy one on the LCD screen?
About as many as I missed while reading this thread:)
But you do have a point -- though it's not a digital/analog point. When street shooting with a digital camera, it can be good practice to occasionally check the screen for exposure as you would occasionally check a light meter, and keep on shooting. Of course, there is the temptation; but stronger people than me resist it.
RF-Addict
10-22-2008, 18:44
Many people would disagree with you - in the film days you grabbed your P&S, filled up your 24 exposures, dropped off the film and one hour later you had 4x6 prints in your hands - it doesn't get easier than that!
I on the other hand feel that it is equally challenging to produce a good picture - I have always developed my own film and prints and I do the same for digital. Digital is probably more convinient (not easier) because I don;t have to wait until the film is full, I don;t have to hide in my darkroom, I don;t have to mess around with chemicals.
Having said all that, I STILL love my darkroom as much as I love my 5D and CS3
thomasw_
10-22-2008, 18:48
I find digital easier in terms of shooting the image for composition, exposure etc.. Also, I find some of the PS digital processing to be tedious -- just as, admittedly, I do sometimes find the chemical developing of film. Yet I never find the developing film unsatisfying, whereas digital processing is for the most part unsatisfying for me because some program algorithm is doing the manipulation and not a tool ready-to-hand that I control. As far as printing, digital printing is much, much more straight-forward than working with the chemicals and the enlarger; wet printing is the soul of the printing art for me, it brings me delight that digital printing doesn't. So, Frank, overall, I think the digital workflow is easier in most ways. Ease of use is part of the convenience digital users experience. That said, digital users have to contend with awful troubles with which film folks do not have to contend, i.e., consider the focus shifting experienced on the M8.
Tuolumne
10-22-2008, 19:09
Yes, it is.
/T
monochromejrnl
10-22-2008, 19:09
not sure if digital is any easier, but it's certainly more convenient... i've shot enough digital to know that although it's convenient to check exposure, colour balance and composition quickly on an LCD it's hardly an accurate reflection of what the actual file looks like on a computer...
it's only easier for someone who is well versed in RAW conversion, colour calibrating a monitor/printer, owns the hardware and software to run the necessary 'tools' of the trade...
it's a fundamentally different work flow vs film and personally I find digital harder for me to get the results I want... (which is why I still shoot film)... the convenience factor offered by digital isn't worth it for me to switch over to a primarily digital work flow...
convenience of digital does not equate to easier when the final output i'm seeking is a print... in fact it's quite the opposite... i don't regularly colour calibrate my monitor, don't own a calibrated printer, don't have the necessary skills in PS/Lightroom etc. to fully realize the convenience of digital RAW capture...
Tuolumne
10-22-2008, 19:12
Just shoot jpg. RAW is over rated.
/T
printing bw and color are much faster than postprocessing digital. the only thing fast about digital is looking at your pics and maybe uploading unprocessed jpegs to the internet.
back alley
10-22-2008, 19:18
this is a no win question for both sides. frank speaks of digital being easier but really has not tried digital except for his p&s.
i, on the other hand have spent much time in a darkroom and in front of the computer -working on film and working on photoshop.
while i mostly enjoyed darkroom work, it was lots of work just setting it up and getting it all ready. many was the night that after going through all that i had no 'feel' for it and tore it all down. with photoshop if it's not working for me i just go back on the net.
i don't use the lcd and rarely check my images after shooting. i raise the camera to my eye same as my rangefinder.
as far as missing shots - how does one count the missed shots while changing film?
film is more manly than digital, just as a stick is no more manly than an automatic.
Digital is illusion of photography.
back alley
10-22-2008, 19:22
Digital is illusion of photography.
so, what drugs are you on anyway?
back alley
10-22-2008, 19:23
so, what drugs are you on anyway?
no wait, don't answer that.
just tell me, are you a philosophy major?
so, what drugs are you on anyway?
Red wine.
:cool:
No, actually i studied business. Bad idea!
Thanks everyone for the discussion! Good night.
newsgrunt
10-22-2008, 19:39
Digital is illusion of photography.
so most of the images in your gallery are illusions then ? hmmm
Is digital capture easier than film?
My position is that yes, digital is easier.
Your mixing words up here and turning them around.
Up untill the exposure is made, their is no difference at all.
This is not a philosophical point. Sounds more like trolling.
The overwhelming leading answer is, "Because I get paid faster".
I asked one fellow, if he thinks digital is easier or offers better quality. He looked at me oddly, and responded, "I'm sorry. Perhaps you didn't hear me.... I get paid faster. Where does image quality fit into my getting paid faster?"
So obviously for professionals it's about shortening the time to a paycheck.
One wedding photographer even told me that he was amazed at how many bigger checks (ie, bigger orders) he got when he proofed the pictures on his laptop with the family, during or after the wedding reception.
So, going back to the original question, it appears that professionals do not factor in "easiness" except as to how it affects "compensation". Therefore, including professionals in the original question is a faulty criteria for whether digital is easier.
Personally, I think it is not. It may be cleaner, but I advance the notion that most people who take into consideration the time spent in learning all the digital workflow, the editing and organization systems and the processes that need to be put into place to protect images over time, will find that digital is ultimately more costly and requires MORE time, all things considered. The huge investment in equipment overshadows the cost of film and processing costs by a huge amount. The only offset to the "costly" comment is if you are making a living from Photography.
Good Night!
Your mixing words up here and turning them around.
Up untill the exposure is made, their is no difference at all.
This is not a philosophical point. Sounds more like trolling.
Agreed, I still need to frame, focus and meter with my M8 same as I do with my film cameras so I don't see the difference (and no, I don't look at the LCD after, I just wait until I am at home). Definetely sounds like trolling!
thomasw_
10-22-2008, 19:59
Your mixing words up here and turning them around.
Up untill the exposure is made, their is no difference at all.
This is not a philosophical point. Sounds more like trolling.
Your assumption of Frank's post is just wrong; I know him and he is not a troll. Further, I think you are overlooking the mental aspects of capturing a scene. It is clear that many adopt a different attitude and system of composing images when digital gear is used. As such, to say there "...is no difference at all" is false.
It is clear that many adopt a different attitude and system of composing images when digital gear is used. As such, to say there "...is no difference at all" is false.
Nonsense!
Why would anyone change their mental attitude to composition when shooting digital?
dimitris
10-22-2008, 20:08
To me digital is more convenient. Sometime I think about going back to film but then i remember the time I would get 3-4 good photos per roll and I grab my digital again. I guess you can put limitations to the way you take photos like not looking at the histogram.
so most of the images in your gallery are illusions then ? hmmm
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=918423&postcount=67
back alley
10-22-2008, 20:22
to be clear, i do not for a second think that frank is trolling.
he's only just a little confused from breathing in too much fixer;)
j/k frank.
Frank1969
10-22-2008, 20:28
Yes it is easier, when you shoot in raw. I have a Fuji S5pro. When I just had it, I tried a shot with correct exposure and one that I overexposed 4 stops. After just very little reworking the overexposed image image in the raw processing program, I got a photo that was indistinguishable from the correct exposed image.
Digital is nice and comes in handy but it sure makes you lazy. However, it got me some shots that I could not have made with my medium format film cameras.
making pictures is not just about pointing a camera and shooting and for many it never has been. what happens in the lab is an integral part of the process. So I would say its absolutely easier in one crucial respect - post processing! In the film based world I would never have had a darkroom for post processing. Therefore I was forced to do all of my editing in camera. I had liitle choice but to take what came out of the camera as the final product. Post processing for me was just too hard.
Now with digital, I inevitably spend time in Photoshop post processing. Every shot gets sharpening, contrast/ brightness and saturation adjustment. The better ones get more extensive / exotic treatment - be it just converting to black and white or sometimes the use of artistic filters. It is now much easier to turn out really good photos of the sort that I never attempted in the film world as it was plain too hard. Now I can turn out something approaching a work of art -and most of this is in post processing.
Ok if I use film today, I can still scan the photos and then make the digital transformations I mentioned above but thats still one step extra (scanning) - with I might add, the extra cost of film and the inconvenience of the delay, combined with the uncertainty as to just how the shot will turn out.
I keep my film cameras due to an emotional attachment to them but the cruel truth is digital is so seductive because it is so easy and I am using it more and more in preference to my film cameras.
Petroleum V. Nasby
10-22-2008, 21:11
The people who rail on against being cheated on eBay, computers that don't work, "soulessness" of digital photography are the exact same people who don't really understand them and are always going to be baffled, befuddled, angry, and unable to use the new tools.
They are the target audience for "high end audiophile" $5,000 AC power cords or $10,000 interconnects. Clueless doofi.
The more evolved, intelligent, tool-using mutations, such as myself, know how to use these wonderful new devices and take to them like ducks to water.
We like using film cameras too. We like ALL sorts of stuff.
We don't like the Government stealing all our money to nationalize banks, but that's a horse of different color.
Sure, digital is easier. So is indoor plumbing. So is urinating in a nice warm bathroom at night instead of walking outside in the freezing cold to use an outhouse.
thomasw_
10-22-2008, 21:46
Nonsense!
Why would anyone change their mental attitude to composition when shooting digital?
Nonsense that 1. chimping occurs which changes one's take on a scene? 2. that rapid fire blind composing occurs which changes one's take on composition? 3. that composing patience is lost when one 'composes' for the decisive moment and every other moment, too?
Accordingly, it doesn't seem that it is nonsense; far from it, Morris. There are other more challenging notions to explain that can be lost as well; such as, 'identifying with the subject'. Clearly these are but a few of the ways one's mental attitude to composition can be altered when shooting digital.
Nonsense that 1. chimping occurs which changes one's take on a scene? 2. that rapid fire blind composing occurs which changes one's take on composition? 3. that composing patience is lost when one 'composes' for the decisive moment and every other moment, too?
Accordingly, it doesn't seem that it is nonsense; far from it, Morris. There are other more challenging notions to explain that can be lost as well; such as, 'identifying with the subject'. Clearly these are but a few of the ways one's mental attitude to composition can be altered when shooting digital.
Only your #1, chimping, is a possibility not available to film photographers.
Your other points are equally possible with film or digital.
Myself, I only shoot RAW with the screen turned off.
for good b&w images I think film is easier and more reliable, even factoring in scanning my negatives.
Roger Hicks
10-23-2008, 01:01
Too many factors are being conflated here.
At the most basic level, as has already been said, "You press the button, we do the rest." This is equally true of film or digital.
At another level up, the camera you use is likely to affect the way you shoot. This includes the possibility (or otherwise) of chimping.
Move up another level, and it's a question of what you want. It's probably 'easier' to shoot colour in my M8, convert to mono (or use the mono option), do some Photoshop fiddling, and make an inkjet print. But I don't like the result as much, so it's easier to get a good print with the MP and HP5.
On the other hand, for a pack shot, it's a lot easier to shoot colour with a Nikon DSLR or even a Visoflex -- so that's what I do.
Cheers,
R.
I think there is something blurring the discussion here. When I read things like 'digital is just pushing the button', film requires reflection, it looks to me as if digital is done only with P&S cameras and film only with rangenfider, MF, meterless cameras. I mean, digital vs film change some things but the type of camera used (P&S, rangefinder, SRL), irrespective they are film or digital, also matters.
All things equal (=same camera approach, automatisms, etc) I'd say that digital gives: (1) immediate feedback. You can repeat the shoot until you get the right one, hence 'less' missed pictures; (2) faster first result (e.g. an out-of-the-camera jpg) for distribution or printing; (3) far more flexibility in dark room (editing RAWs). So I would say it is faster and more flexible if you want to spend hours editing a RAW. I can not say if it is 'easier', I find the question a bit wrongly posed.
Another falacy is that 'digital is cheaper' because you do not spend in more film rolls. Digital demands an upfront investment in equipment (also computer, screen, storage space, printer) and the equipment looses value from day 1.
Having said that, I use both and I enjoy both, but they are different.
Arturo
No trolling, just starting a discussion.
Recording an image on sheet film definitely takes more commitment than on rollfilm. I'm more contemplative when using rollfilm than with 135 film, just a different style of shooting. Isn't deciding when to press the button even easier with digital, since all that's used up is memory space on a card that can be erased and reused? This is what I was trying to get at.
Roger Hicks
10-23-2008, 04:31
No trolling, just starting a discussion.
Recording an image on sheet film definitely takes more commitment than on rollfilm. I'm more contemplative when using rollfilm than with 135 film, just a different style of shooting. Isn't deciding when to press the button even easier with digital, since all that's used up is memory space on a card that can be erased and reused? This is what I was trying to get at.
Dear Frank,
No, I don't think so, even with the extreme example of sheet film -- possibly because I used to shoot a lot of 5x4 colour professionally, often after lots of Polaroids. Yes, if cost is a factor, of course there's a difference -- but no more than many other differences such as (for example) being able to chimp or not, or having the option of movements or not.
The actual capture is no more difficult with any camera: pressing the release. The preparation may or may not be more difficult; the after-treatment may or may not be more difficult (again, I'm thinking of the days when we put the exposed 'chromes on the bike to the lab, and they came back on the bike).
Cheers,
Roger
djonesii
10-23-2008, 04:37
The root of the discussion seems to be "easier" and interpreting where that applies and what it means.
Is manipulating a digital image easier than developing black and white film at home. I have no space and two small children. Thus even if I wanted too, it would be impossible for the space reason, and I prefer to have less rather than more poisons in the house. So for me, the ONLY choice is digital is if I want to manipulate an image.
I can get a frame rate of about 6fps SUSTAINED on my Nikon D300, that makes it easier to capture some sporting events. Even with the right tools, that still does not give me SI photos. I get some keepers however.
With my MF Range finder, I have run one roll + several frames of black film, gosh darn lens cap! Never done that with digital, but thats RF vs SLR, not really a digital issue. Does that make digital easier?
No matter what system I use, SLR, MF range finder, 35mm Range finder, the image still comes down to my skills: for me, its choosing the tool for the job, visualizing the image, getting the craft part right ( exposure, speed, film choice sensor setting), and then somehow transforming that into the output medium. No part of that process is inherently easier for me. All have taken study to get me to the point where I can sometimes get images that make me smile.
Dave
sleepyhead
10-23-2008, 04:37
for me, DIGITAL FASCILITATES EASIER LEARNING.
I'm basically a film shooter (I like the look and mechanical cameras), but I have an Epson R-D1s for (a) taking pictures of my kids so friends and relatives can see recent photos of them, and (b) to experiment and learn with.
For example, I'm very in-experienced in flash photography. So during the dark days and nights of last years Scandanavian winter, I spent some time fooling around with the R-D1 and two flashes (one attached to a 3 meter PC cord, the other slaved). Each flash was on manual with variable output from full power to 1/128th power. In a matter of a few days I learned a lot by using digital and getting quick feedback on my various "experiments". Sure, I could have done it with a film Leica, a flash meter, careful note-taking,etc. but it would have been infinitely more difficult, more expensive, and less fun.
I also agree with previous posters in that for some reason I find it "easier" to get Black & White results I'm happy with with a film camera, and colour with the R-D1s. When I scan colour film I almost always have to struggle to get the colours right, but with the R-D1s on auto white balancing the colours usually come out fine with no or little adjustment.
"Another falacy is that 'digital is cheaper' because you do not spend in more film rolls. Digital demands an upfront investment in equipment (also computer, screen, storage space, printer) and the equipment looses value from day 1
Who says you need a computer?
I can take a single picture, stick the memory card into a printing kiosk at the mall, put a few cents in a slot and have a single print made. Try doing that with film..
Digital is cheaper..
dimitris
10-23-2008, 05:22
In terms of cost I think it comes down to what your expectations are. First most of us have a computer already so using it for post processing isnt an extra cost. As long as you take a fair amount of photos and you dont have a desire to upgrade to latestest and newest digital camera out there then digital is cheaper.
Roger Hicks
10-23-2008, 05:26
Who says you need a computer?
RFF is a bit of a problem if you don't have one...
Cheers,
R.
RFF is a bit of a problem if you don't have one...
Cheers,
R.
Public library.. no problem..
One is easier than the other? I don't know. If you do everything yourself, they are just different skill sets. But compared to the real difficulty of seeing, developing an eye, whatever you want to call that part of the process, the technical differences are inconsequential.
That's a bit like asking, "If you are writing a novel, is it easier to use a typewriter, a computer or a pencil?"
Thanks to mhv for the Evans quote. Best post here.
Cheers,
Gary
Originally Posted by newsgrunt
so most of the images in your gallery are illusions then ? hmmm
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=918423&postcount=67
Obviously someone who doesn't understand, white-balancing with C-41 film, using graded or variable contrast papers with B&W, Panalure and the million other tricks in the wet darkroom.
shadowfox
10-23-2008, 10:16
I think digital is easier to get into, to learn with, and to get proficient with to a certain high degree. But because it's so easy to change things, it's hard to nail down the moment when you're truly happy with the result. Keep tweaking, keep changing. Less satisfying in the long run, IMHO.
But the real deal is the hybrid approach, in which chemical and digital process are combined to create something new, now that's real fun.
For example creating a perfectly clean/scratch free digital "negative" and printing it using the enlarger on a good paper, now that's satisfying because you don't have to mess with dust/scratch removal process, and you still experience that magic moment when the picture materialize in front of your eyes :)
.... and no, waiting for the print to come out of an inkjet is *not* as satisfying, I've done it both ways.
What do you mean by "easier"?
What is "easy" to one person may be extremely "difficult" to another - horses, courses yadda yadda yadda...
What I personally believe is that digital "wants to" capture as much information as possible where as film tends to the opposite. The best analogy I could use is; using digital, if you're looking for subtlety, is like using shotgun to draw attention to the fact that dinner is served. Using film would be akin to ringing a dinner bell.
By this I mean that when using film, you can, if you understand exposure etc. , get the "feel" that you want correct right from the moment you trip the shutter. The print, will look awfully close to what you envisage. With digital there is likely a lot of post processing to be done before it comes out looking "just so" - and if you're not familiar with Photoshop well.. then you're in big trouble if you're looking for "easy" :D
Dave
Roger Hicks
10-23-2008, 11:10
.... and no, waiting for the print to come out of an inkjet is *not* as satisfying, I've done it both ways.
It always reminds me of the phrase, "Watching paint dry."
(And I've got both too).
Cheers,
R.
"Digital is cheaper.."
no digital is not always cheaper, especially when you compare like quality. The example of shooting on shot and making a print is fine... once you spend at least twice the money for a (crappy) digital camera... and once you start comparing FF DSLRs to used film SLRs it gets even more complicated (IE. unless you fire off thousands of photos every month, you never get your money out of them).
Personally, I'm not shooting one or the other out of cheapness... film really, even though the DSLR is sitting on the shelf and for me, at this point, digital would be far cheaper.
sevres_babylone
10-23-2008, 12:28
.... and no, waiting for the print to come out of an inkjet is *not* as satisfying, I've done it both ways.
With colour printing though, the gap in satisfaction while waiting for the print narrows significantly. Waiting for the inkjet print vs. watching TV at the darkroom rental place while the C-print machine does its stuff, or waiting for the inkjet print vs. rolling the cibachrome tube for 11 minutes or whatever it took.
thomasw_
10-23-2008, 18:55
Only your #1, chimping, is a possibility not available to film photographers.
Your other points are equally possible with film or digital.
Myself, I only shoot RAW with the screen turned off.
That is irrelevant that you don't do those things, I wouldn't have assumed you do, but it is very relevant that the tendency to change the way one composes is much more the way I suggest for most digital users than it is for any film user; I think it is related to the convenience and inexpensive aspect of just shooting away. Film tends to make one slow down a bit and deliberate more as a rule....though, I admit, not necessarily; it is just the general tendencies in composing that I have observed with the different mediums.
thomasw,
You seem to be speaking for "most digital users".
I can only speak for myself. I compose and frame my photographs in the same manner whether I am using a film camera or a digital camera.
It's funny that you find my method irrelevant, but I won't argue with you.
kshapero
10-23-2008, 19:21
I love film and always will, but driving 8 miles in congestion to Costco for 3200 dpi scans really sucks. A pro lab about 20 miles away, said I could mail in my film for scans. Now I am happy again.
people who say digital is "easier" have not spent serious time learning how to properly post process. I don't know a pro that uses digital solely because he can check his exposure on the LCD.
I have respect for both film and digital and while they are both forms of photography the require a completely different set of skills post capture.
shadowfox
10-24-2008, 06:26
I love film and always will, but driving 8 miles in congestion to Costco for 3200 dpi scans really sucks. A pro lab about 20 miles away, said I could mail in my film for scans. Now I am happy again.
Akiva, a Plustek brand film-only scanner is only $150 (or somewhere thereabout). By the time you scanned your 50th roll, you'd probably already recouped the scanner cost compared to mailing (two ways) and paying for the pro lab to scan your rolls.
I did that calculation two years ago, clenched my teeth and got myself a used Nikon Coolscan. Never looked back since.
shadowfox
10-24-2008, 06:31
What is "easy" to one person may be extremely "difficult" to another - horses, courses yadda yadda yadda...
Dave, this is true, but it is also a motivation for a newcomer to try both.
What I am sad for the most part about is the fact that the popularity of digital -- thanks to its efficiency and convenience -- "masks" the fact that film is still and will always be a valid way to capture an image into a photograph.
Not all people would enjoy film processes, but nowadays, not a whole lot of people (who might enjoy it) get to try it. That's unfortunate.
Not all people would enjoy film processes, but nowadays, not a whole lot of people (who might enjoy it) get to try it. That's unfortunate.
That's a good point Will
As companies move more and more towards all digital (heck, look what happened to Minolta.. remember them? :) ) there is little left in terms of film bodies/cameras for people to "try".
That said, if folks are savvy enough they can peruse Ebay and Criagslist and get film bodies once priced out of reach of most for a "song".....
Dave
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.