View Full Version : Rant: In the land of the Digicams
This past weekend my wife and I enjoyed exploring Monument Valley, both on the ground, and in a hot air balloon. Our party consisted of 8 tourists, our pilot, a Navajo guide and 2 ground crew. Our cumulative equipment list included 10 point and shoot digicams, one Canon digital video camera and my CLE and Fuji GS645 folder.
I briefly got my hopes up at the start of our day when one of the other couples produced a Pelican case. I figured that he was protecting a high end film camera and some lenses but when he opened it I saw foam carefully cut out to hold two HP digicams, accessory lenses, four batteries and, believe it or not, his memory cards.
The only comments that my cameras got was when I put on my CV 15 and viewfinder, the guy with the Pelican case asked what the little thing on top was for. When I explained it, he said, "What a pain. Why don't you just get a zoom lens?"
On a better note, our guide asked me if the Fuji was a roll film camera. I said yes and he said that I was going to get the best pictures of the day. I found out later that he was a retired criminal investigator who was in charge of all photography for the Tribal Police.
I don't know whether to be depressed over the attitude of the guy with the Pelican case, or feel sorry for those who will wonder why their photos don't look as good as their memories.
End of rant, but I'm really starting to feel as old as I look.
back alley
05-31-2005, 16:38
there will always be ignorant people. (ignorant as in not knowing)
i was shooting on the weekend, on whyte avenue of course, standing still for a moment just looking around.
this one younger guy approached me and looking at the camera (canon iv sb) asked, 'digital?'
i shook my head no.
'celluloid' he responded, 'cool'.
joe
joe
cp_ste.croix
05-31-2005, 16:44
meh...some people don't care about good photographs but rather, only about convienence. It's the same reasoning as to why some people go to McD's instead of learning to cook something with some quality or visit a proper restaurant...
As long as enough of us keep our photography pallette refined enough to want film and quality glass, companies will still make it.
chris
The fact that he was using HP cameras already tells me something about the guy's photography skills/knowledge.
DSLRs can and do produce outstanding results... an HP digicam ain't in that league.
BJ Bignell
05-31-2005, 19:57
Let's not forget that many people are just not interested in the technical aspects of photography. For most people, a camera should just take the picture, so that they can enjoy whatever else it is they are doing. Most people are interested only in the results, not the craft.
The next time you encounter someone with a digital (or film) p&s camera, or someone who doesn't understand why you don't 'just get a zoom', don't look down upon them or feel sorry for them, and one certainly shouldn't take their disinterest as an affront (unless, of course, it is intended as such). Take the opportunity to start a conversation with that person, and engage their interest. Tell them about your passion for photography, and how the equipment you use helps you acheive your goals. Ask them about their camera and how they use it, and maybe you'll find an opportunity to teach them, and help them achieve their goals. Share some tips that may improve their results without requiring technical knowledge. Something simple like the rule of thirds might be a good start.
Through this type of behaviour, we may encourage a sense of well-being and community among photographers of all types. And just maybe, your actions will encourage someone to take the first step in becoming an interested and passionate photographer. Maybe we'll even meet them here one day.
Good point, BJ. Spread the word.
Flinor, I would just shrug it off. Most times that this has happened to me I just smile, nod like they gave me good advice or somethign.
But I have taken advantage of the silver lining to this, going through sketchier areas. Then it's just an 'old hand-me-down' that people think is a hunk of junk, and that's totally fine by me.
wblanchard
05-31-2005, 20:17
You should see the reactions I get at fashion shoots when i pull out my contax g2 with 90mm lens. everyone else has expensive canon 20d's with zoom "L" lenses...or better yet, when i pull out the hexar af for full body shots.
they also have to make comments when i pull out a box of film....but then again, these are the same people who hate any grain in their images and like the sterile and cold look to their pictures.
bmattock
05-31-2005, 20:19
Failing that, smack them upside the head with your camera. Then toss them out of the balloon gondola.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Good points, BJ. I think I was too busy being stunned by someone carrying around two HPs in a Pelican case to comment on that aspect :). From the tale as written, though, I picked up a bit of an attitude on the HP user's part which may or may not have been there at the time.
At least the guy knows how to protect his gear :)
wlewisiii
05-31-2005, 20:52
The flip side to that kind of thing is that I've gotten comments from pros that they'd rather be shooting film when they see my Kiev in hand. I had an entertaining conversation with a gentleman at a Garbage concert last month about fast longer lenses; he was rather wishing he had something like my Jupiter 9 as everything he had was too long (200 & 300mm) to get the whole band in at a single shot in that building.
I also had a bar tender practically drool on my Iskra over the weekend - I ended up giving him Fedka's web address :D
As BJ notes, different people have differing needs and expectation. I don't talk ill of digital - I think it has it's place and I think that cell phone cams are the best thing to happen to photography since the original Brownie. Not everyone needs a rangefinder or even an interchangable lens (D or not)SLR.
William
BJ Bignell
05-31-2005, 20:53
Failing that, smack them upside the head with your camera. Then toss them out of the balloon gondola.
You're absolutely right. There's always 'Plan B', I just didn't think it needed repeating. ;)
BJ, though I agree with you on the educational part I don't agree with that it is "us film users" who need to do the educating of the unwashed masses. We film users can often use some education as well. Arrogance exists on both sides of the analog/digital frontline. I found that many digital camera users are often more careful with their equipment and take better care of it (at least compared to my throwing my CL in my bag and schlepp it everywhere almost unprotected).
And though many digital P&S shooters don't create much more than snapshots, they're most likely to enjoy the event they're attending and participating in instead of just observing it all from behind a VF.
Until my R-D1 finally comes in (yes, it's still at Customs) I won't be much enjoying digital shooting (my 300D is too big and cumbersome for me, and I've never been able to master a digital P&S properly) but my father and my siblings really enjoy their digital cameras. It's that joy that many dedicated film users have lost more or less.
Let's not forget that many people are just not interested in the technical aspects of photography. For most people, a camera should just take the picture, so that they can enjoy whatever else it is they are doing. Most people are interested only in the results, not the craft.
The next time you encounter someone with a digital (or film) p&s camera, or someone who doesn't understand why you don't 'just get a zoom', don't look down upon them or feel sorry for them, and one certainly shouldn't take their disinterest as an affront (unless, of course, it is intended as such). Take the opportunity to start a conversation with that person, and engage their interest. Tell them about your passion for photography, and how the equipment you use helps you acheive your goals. Ask them about their camera and how they use it, and maybe you'll find an opportunity to teach them, and help them achieve their goals. Share some tips that may improve their results without requiring technical knowledge. Something simple like the rule of thirds might be a good start.
Through this type of behaviour, we may encourage a sense of well-being and community among photographers of all types. And just maybe, your actions will encourage someone to take the first step in becoming an interested and passionate photographer. Maybe we'll even meet them here one day.
RObert Budding
05-31-2005, 22:54
I've found that many digicams users are curious about my cameras. Particularly my TLR. I even let some of them hold the camera and view through the finder. And I let an 8 year old take a shot with my Contax IIIa. He loved it!
Robert
Pherdinand
06-01-2005, 02:42
William, you've been at a Garbage concert? :drool:
RObert Budding
06-01-2005, 02:54
A what concert? Garbage? I thought he was describing how the band sounded.
Robert
There's a lot of them out there. Many of them are former film users. I usually ask them, "What shutter speed are you using?" to strike up a conversation. If they bite, then I'll compare notes. Someone using a lens hood or a polarizer is always a good sign.
If you want to see an aprehensive look, wipping out a 6x9 folder will do everytime.
Pherdinand
06-01-2005, 03:38
I guess they were thinking IF something goes wrong with the balloon, at least the cameras will survive serving with photographic evidence.
Garbage is a very cool band.
Well, today reading the newspaper I found a small text where they talked about the new digicams that will recognize a portrait-type photograph and will take X consecutive shots of the scene when you press the shutter.
Then, AI will take care of selecting the one where nobody has his/her eyes closed.
"Just turn it on, we'll take care of the rest" ;)
Pherdinand
06-01-2005, 03:45
:)) what a crap! But i guess it will sell. Sounds fancy enough.
But forget about taking pictures of somebody while sleeping...
"ERR-9 cannot compute. Kernel panic. Going to obsolete mode" :p
I read something like that, too. One day we'll just need to press the shutter button. And very soon afterwards we won't even have to do that as the camera will exactly know what you want to shoot. Probably you'll have to wear the camera on your head like an antenna, so it will have 360 degrees of view an can react instantaniously, even if the action takes place behind you. I hope by then I'll have passed away.... :p
Pherdinand
06-01-2005, 04:13
Soon we will be at the stage of
Client:"So, are my photos ready?"
Photographer:"Sorry, no. The camera decided you are too ugly for portraits."
Imagine a digital camera with a 'classic' mode - as in that it recognises a Cartier Bresson situation, or a Winogrand shot :-)
Bertram2
06-01-2005, 04:45
Let's not forget that many people are just not interested in the technical aspects of photography. For most people, a camera should just take the picture, so that they can enjoy whatever else it is they are doing. Most people are interested only in the results, not the craft.
.
I am sorry but I have to contradict, concerning the results.
It is a very old dream that you have a camerawhich does the job for you and you must not be "interested in the technical aspects of Photography" as you said.
Maybe it works for all the many who do not care much about the quality of the results as long as there are any and indeed the expectations of many P&S users are very low. They have no natural talent to see nor were they educated to see.
Over/unerexposing, flash blown out foregrounds,half cut off heads or legs, terrible colours , red eyes, blurred pics, all this doesn't matter as long as you can halfways recognize that this is your girl friend in front of the Eiffel Tower.
The dealer said the camera is intelligent enuff to to the job and so the result is accepted as the "best possible " one. What a misunderstanding !!!
So far this all-auto promise of the camera industry did not fullfill up 'til today, it just helped to sell more film and to produce more sad pics in the family albums.
And it did not fullfill with the digicams either, S.O.S. ( = same old sh*t).
The pics of these photogs are as poor as they always were, but now you can watch this crap on a little mouse screen on the backside. That's what this "FUN" is all about leaving aside the "fun" of putting nudes and self porn on web galleries.
ALL photogs are interested in RESULTS, in what else ? But you do not get decent pics without any technical basic knowledge. Because this solely makes you see with the eye of a camera. Maybe 3 from 1000 photogs have a natural understanding of that tool, all the rest must learn it and some never do.
Did not all our disapointments first of all come from a misunderstood tool ?
Because the pic did not look like we had seen it with our eyes ?
Results, yes, that's what it is all about, but decent ones, no crap please.
This kind of dialog happens from time to time, related to my Bessa L plus finder and level:
"Does that work with steam ?? Hoho!"
"No, not with steam, with brain, man, just brain, you know ? !"
I admit this is not the right way to open a dialog, but it would be useless anyway.
Emulsionly,
Bertram
bmattock
06-01-2005, 05:02
It's not all bad. I was showing off my new Pentax *ist DS to a non-camera co-worker the other day and he asked me where the film went. I told it it was a *digital* camera. He looked at me blankly, sighed, and said "OK, so where does the *digital* film go?"
I try to use the appropriate tool for the appropriate job. DSLR, RF, SLR, TLR, LF, Pinhole, Holga, Lomography, DV, and finger-painting: as far as I'm concerned, it's all beans, eggs, bacon, and a fried slice.
I figger those balloon people don't know what they're missing, so they don't miss it. They get their 4x6 prints back and paste them in the scrapbooks and that's fine with them. They might on occasion like a particular print and try to get it printed at 8x10, and look at it and say "Ooh, that's a bit dodgy, innit?" and demand their money back for the print, never knowing that it was their tiny digicam that let them down. But that's just grist for the mill.
Some folks drink Folger's coffee and like it. Frankly, I can't understand that when good Ethiopian Yrgechef is available. But on the other hand, I drink American Bourbon and prefer it to fine single-malt Scotch. I'm such a heathen. Get it? Heathen? Heather? Scotland? Ah, nevermind. I need more coffee.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
06-01-2005, 05:05
"Does that work with steam ?? Hoho!"
"No, not with steam, with brain, man, just brain, you know ? !"
I admit this is not the right way to open a dialog, but it would be useless anyway.
Emulsionly,
Bertram
A wise man once said "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Pherdinand
06-01-2005, 05:13
A propos 4x6 prints...
I just got some back, from my local lab, some pics i made on friday of my colleagues playing a football game with another group from the faculty. There are some nice moments captured but most of the images are very blurry. Last set of prints i got back was from a yashica GSN i've never used before, so i thought the RF is out of alignment or such (although not ALL the photos are blurry). But this one, comes from a bright sunny day outdoor activity with a very very good lens (135/2.8) on my minolta af slr, 1/500 shutter speeds at f/8-ish. So i said wait a minute, and checked the negative with a loupe. It's all there, the white middle of the pimples on the football players face can be seen. While on the 4x6 prints the faces are unrecognizable on many frames.
Frankly, i'm pissed off. The lab worked good so far, i was happy with the colour neg results, but lately i got quite some blur in my pics. I suspected bad camera, too much coffee, myself getting older - and it turns out it's the enlarging process!
That's all about "results are important". So many factors why people can be unhappy with the results! Maybe i should shoot slides?
Nikon Bob
06-01-2005, 05:29
I am sorry but I have to contradict, concerning the results.
It is a very old dream that you have a camerawhich does the job for you and you must not be "interested in the technical aspects of Photography" as you said.
Maybe it works for all the many who do not care much about the quality of the results as long as there are any and indeed the expectations of many P&S users are very low. They have no natural talent to see nor were they educated to see.
Over/unerexposing, flash blown out foregrounds,half cut off heads or legs, terrible colours , red eyes, blurred pics, all this doesn't matter as long as you can halfways recognize that this is your girl friend in front of the Eiffel Tower.
The dealer said the camera is intelligent enuff to to the job and so the result is accepted as the "best possible " one. What a misunderstanding !!!
So far this all-auto promise of the camera industry did not fullfill up 'til today, it just helped to sell more film and to produce more sad pics in the family albums.
And it did not fullfill with the digicams either, S.O.S. ( = same old sh*t).
The pics of these photogs are as poor as they always were, but now you can watch this crap on a little mouse screen on the backside. That's what this "FUN" is all about leaving aside the "fun" of putting nudes and self porn on web galleries.
ALL photogs are interested in RESULTS, in what else ? But you do not get decent pics without any technical basic knowledge. Because this solely makes you see with the eye of a camera. Maybe 3 from 1000 photogs have a natural understanding of that tool, all the rest must learn it and some never do.
Did not all our disapointments first of all come from a misunderstood tool ?
Because the pic did not look like we had seen it with our eyes ?
Results, yes, that's what it is all about, but decent ones, no crap please.
This kind of dialog happens from time to time, related to my Bessa L plus finder and level:
"Does that work with steam ?? Hoho!"
"No, not with steam, with brain, man, just brain, you know ? !"
I admit this is not the right way to open a dialog, but it would be useless anyway.
Emulsionly,
Bertram
I would take no offense at someone being happy with their results even though it may not meet the stringent technical standards of others. They are no less valuable as family snaps for being less than brilliant technically. They are happy in their ignorance so why should I make myself unhappy over that situation? Each to his own but enjoy it.
Bob
Bertram2
06-01-2005, 05:36
That's all about "results are important". So many factors why people can be unhappy with the results! Maybe i should shoot slides?
A hundred times already I swore to do so because the lab was driving me insane with crap work, but the slide film is not so universal and tolerant as I need it.
But I use slide as often as I can because , still not owning my own scanner,
only the slides tell me what I really DID ! All kind of manipulation in the process is excluded, leaving aside bad soup maybe. That's a special fascination in film photography .
Regards,
Bertram
Bertram, and others not already doing so: I urge you, if at all possible to get into B+W neg film and home processing. From that point, you can either go the traditional wet darkroom route if you have the space, or digitally scan you negs. Relying on someone else to run a machine to print from colour negs, is doing photography only partially.
Bertram2
06-01-2005, 05:51
A wise man once said "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
A waste of time indeed, because even if you would show him the difference he would not see it or he would keep it as not relevant.
In general I am not somebody who wants to teach people how they can get happy and I hate it to get proselytized myself. To each his own and let ME alone. ;)
Regards
Bertram
BJ Bignell
06-01-2005, 05:57
Well stated, Bertram. I agree that we are all interested in the results, but I guess what I was trying to say is that as passionate, interested photographers, we also care about how we get those results. Most people don't care about the how. If these people don't get the exact result they're expecting, they don't know enough to realise that they could get the result they want:
The dealer said the camera is intelligent enuff to to the job and so the result is accepted as the "best possible " one. What a misunderstanding !!!
"Does that work with steam ?? Hoho!"
"No, not with steam, with brain, man, just brain, you know ? !"
That's actually kind of funny. Next time someone asks you a really stupid question like this, look them straight in the eye and say "Yes it does! How did you know?" Faux sincerity with deadpan delivery will shut them up for good. My guess: They'll be embarassed for being such a fool and ask a real question, because they are actually interested, but weren't mature enough to just come out and say it.
Or, if you're running around with something substantial like a TLR, or better yet a monopod, just hit them with it. They'll learn! :D
Bertram2
06-01-2005, 06:00
. Relying on someone else to run a machine to print from colour negs, is doing photography only partially.
You are right of course, I've just been too lazy, for buying all that and learning how to use it, that's all.
But I feel there is no escape , sigh. :rolleyes:
Regards,
Bertram
Max Power
06-01-2005, 07:41
Most people who take photography seriously are in fact interested in the results, although, for myself, the process is a huge part of it. In fact, such a huge part that I don't really like to use a digicam when I can use any of my film cameras. My wife shoots the digicam and I shoot film, the reason, amusingly enough, is that I simply cannot get the digicam to do what I want it to do :D
I suppose that notions such as shutter speeds, f-stops, DOF etc etc are so lodged in my brain that with a quick mental check for light levels, and what aperture I want to use, everything just falls into place. In other words, I make the camera do what I want it to do...The camera does not dictate to me. If I want to force the digicam to become my tool and for me to take posession of it, I must trip through some totally unintuitive menus which are hard to see because the LCD doesn't display well, then I have to twiddle some dials and push some buttons and on and on and on and by the time I'm ready, the moment is gone :bang:
My X-700, C220 and FED 5 do what I tell them to do, my digicam tells me what to do, and for me, that is totally absurd and unacceptable.
Just my $.02
bmattock
06-01-2005, 07:47
My new Pentax *ist DS has a T-mount Spiratone 85mm f1.8 lens on it right now. The camera is set to 'manual'. I set the f-stop, then I use the thumbwheel on the camera to set the shutter speed. Then I press the shutter release. There is no delay - zero. No AF, no AE (unless I want it, which is kinda nice with an ancient T-mount lens, I have to admit). I could press the shutter with no lens mounted and it would do it. It does just exactly what I tell it to - no argument.
I've only had it a week. The only faults I find with it so far is that 6mp is not nearly enough to let me crop as deeply as I'm used to, and since it does not shoot in B&W, my red filter is getting no joy lately. I can 'save' in B&W, but no point to doing that in-camera.
A tool is a tool. Some better for some jobs and not as good at others. Pick the right tool for the job and be happy. Digital is just another tool.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Brian Sweeney
06-01-2005, 07:56
I get to use my R60, Wratten 87c, and 88a Filters! I normally put the R60 on the lens so that I can see through the viewfinder. I will probably put an 87c filter over the CCD to get just IR and be able to see through the finder. Setting the exposure is fun, the meter does not "see" in IR, so some work is required. Usually ev-3 does it, but lots of bracketing. You can also use an IR cut filter for regular black and white.
I do have a color attachment for my digital camera; remove the digital back, put on a regular back, and load it with Kodacolor.
Allen Gilman
06-01-2005, 09:13
Yeah, know what you all mean - all those people holding the the digital p&s's just haven't got a clue. It's a good thing we're on the knowing side - I mean, we really know what's goin on here and, if we're smart about it, we could just keep quiet and let it be our little secret. Just smile knowingly at those ignorant little fools and know that we're in the know.
Duncan Ross
06-01-2005, 10:20
Over/unerexposing, flash blown out foregrounds,half cut off heads or legs, terrible colours , red eyes, blurred pics, all this doesn't matter as long as you can halfways recognize that this is your girl friend in front of the Eiffel Tower.
Aw. I spend Sunday evening walking in the countryside with my Cosmic 35 which specialises in all the above!
I feel really bad now... :(
Duncan Ross
06-01-2005, 10:29
A wise man once said "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I /love/ that quote Bill, it is such a great remark! My other favourite is one I heard from a Polish friend; "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
When Customs release my R-D1 I'll be shooting digital. For now I'll shoot film. If the R-D1 is truly a traditional RF with a sensor instead of loaded with film, I couldn't give a star's arse whether some people frown upon digital cameras. For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.
For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.
I believe it's the photographer not the gear.
tamerlin
06-01-2005, 11:51
For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.
I believe it's the photographer not the gear.
Same here... that's why I subscribe to the philosophy that there is actually a best camera: the one
you use. :)
Pherdinand
06-01-2005, 12:46
It's not the gear, true, but the photographer has to be comfortable with using the camera. Has to LIKE using the gear. If the gear is getting in the way of photography, then it becomes very important.
I think there's nothing wrong with trying out many different types of equipment, in order to give ourselves a chance to find the right one. The right one being that which we can use without thinking about it, just like an extension of hands and eyes and brain.
It's not the gear, true, but the photographer has to be comfortable with using the camera. Has to LIKE using the gear. If the gear is getting in the way of photography, then it becomes very important.
I think there's nothing wrong with trying out many different types of equipment, in order to give ourselves a chance to find the right one. The right one being that which we can use without thinking about it, just like an extension of hands and eyes and brain.
Hear hear.
Eloquence isn't my forte but it's like Csab' says. SLRs get in my way while my RFs don't. I feel comfortable shooting my RFs while I feel hampered when shooting SLRs. It's not only using the right tool for the right job but also finding the right tool for the right (wo)man.
Uncle Bill
06-01-2005, 21:14
Digicams, ok this is the convience culture gone totally nuts. I have yet someone to come up to me and ridicule my Leica M3/Contax IIIa/ Canonet, however when I am shooting with my Nikon F when I am in the mood for SLR, I am seen as one ecentric Gen X crank. I just smile as I know wether I am using SLR or rangefinder, my pictures either in colour or black and white will kick digital ass any day of the week with the old school glass I am using (note right fist in the air in revolutionary salute)
Bill
back alley
06-01-2005, 21:21
For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.
I believe it's the photographer not the gear.
yet you are so proud about being a wet darkroom worker and not a scanner/printer kind of guy...a contradiction?
i think it's about results based on gear.
that's why i like old canon lenses better than newer more contrasty lenses.
i prefer canon bodies because they are NOT rounded on the sides.
of course the gear is important.
joe
I don't see why some people have to project their own beliefs and standards onto other people, and then find those people to be stupid or somehow lacking. What you believe their photographs should be, may not be what they believe their photographs should be.
If you do formal research into why people take photos, it often the case that they don't take photos in order to make pretty pictures (contrary to what many photographers assume).
Take a look at this link (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~vanhouse/photo_project_overview.htm) for some results of research.
The "unwashed masses" are not the idiots that some people in this thread to paint them to be - they trade the things they don't care about, for the things they do care about. My parents have photos from their Samsung zoom camera that look fine, remind them of the places they went, the people they were with and so on. They certainly appreciate the quality of photos from my fancy cameras, but for them, the photo is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Bertram2
06-02-2005, 06:27
When Customs release my R-D1 I'll be shooting digital. For now I'll shoot film. If the R-D1 is truly a traditional RF with a sensor instead of loaded with film, I couldn't give a star's arse whether some people frown upon digital cameras. For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.
And for me only one thing is important, that's how the result LOOKS. If digital one day will look like the films I use at the time then even I will think about purchasing a digital camera.
How does the photo look when it is done, that't for me the central point on which all technical decisions depend.
Bertram
I just wrote a long piece on why I think film is better than digital for people to learn on, as a rebuttal to someones statement that "Digital is better to learn on because you don't have to worry about buying film."
What he said:
But that is part of my point, which is that digital lets you go buckwild, and not worry about cost. I wouldn't have taken 1/3 as many pictures as I have in the last year, if I had been shooting film, and wouldn't have learned even a 1/4 of the knowledge I've gained just through trial and error.
What I said (long):
Might be good, might be bad. I'm going to preface what I'm going to say next with this: I'm not talking about anyone in particular, I'm just stating some serious thoughts and questions that I have thought quite a bit about.
You're right, digital lets you go buckwild. I could go out right now with my D70, and easily come back with 300 raw shots and spend the rest of the night processing them. The question isn't one of quantity, it's one of quality. With a digital, you are more inclined to take grab shots and throw away shots. Shots you know are probably not going to turn out. Why? Because electrons are free, man. I ask you, what does that attitude do to your photography? On one hand, you are experimenting to see if something can work, but on the other, you are automatically devaluing what you are doing because it's "free". For instance, rather than waiting for the precise moment to take a photo, you can just set your camera for continuous shooting and fire off some rapid shots thinking "One of them will turn out".
I haven't learned a thing from digital. I forgot things because of digital. Things like metering, taking it slow. I used to shoot large format. I'm not going to say that every shot I took was great, but if I were to separate the 500 some odd shots that I took into four groups about a quarter of them would be in the pretty damn good/excellent category with about a hundred in technical/exposure/development failures 50 or so in the utter crap category with the rest being passable. I can't even begin to claim that sort of success rate with digital.
I went through all of my digital shots for the last year, and while there were some good shots I realized that I wasn't as proud of them as I was of my shots taken with my film cameras. Why is that? Is it because I have money riding on it? Because I have paid for the film that I use and I want to get the most out of my money? Could be. Probably, actually though not the whole story.
Because of that investment (messups cost money) I have heavily self-edited my shots. "No, that won't work, too (insert reason here)." When I shoot film, I take the time to get it right. Not just the money issue but I find that I actually care if a shot turns out or not. Without getting too corny (I hope), when I take a photo I think "There go those little light reactive salts, changing and forming a latent image." When I'm done with a roll, it's like magic in a canister. I know that I have 36 little moments of time that I have stolen, and every time I develop a roll of film, it's like christmas. "Did I get it? COME ON, HURRY UP STUPID FIXER! I NEED TO KNOW!"
Maybe it's obvious, but there's still a bit of romance in film photography for me. I mean, think of medium format. What other type of photography lets you kiss the film when it's done?
MAYBE FILM PHOTOGRAPHY IS WRONG. IF IT IS, I DON'T WANT TO BE RIGHT!
Seriously, I think digital is great but I think it actually takes longer to learn the lessons you need to learn with digital than with film, because you aren't as invested in the final product. There's also the matter of final output. If you're shooting for web/computer work then the removal of extra steps is convenient and proper. However, I don't think anything teaches you as much about photography as going out with a manual film camera loaded with some good slide/B&W film and doing everything yourself.
Normally I wouldn't c&p from another forum, but I'm too lazy to write out my views on it again tonight.
>I haven't learned a thing from digital. I forgot things because of digital.
Well said
The "unwashed masses" are not the idiots that some people in this thread to paint them to be - they trade the things they don't care about, for the things they do care about. My parents have photos from their Samsung zoom camera that look fine, remind them of the places they went, the people they were with and so on. They certainly appreciate the quality of photos from my fancy cameras, but for them, the photo is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Which is why so many roll their eyes when we stop to take a picture, go for a different angle etc. The "aren't you done yet" look :). For them, good enough, is good enough. It's not that they're idiots, but it just a matter of priorities. In fact, you could probably get them to start a thread on having to put up with "us" (photographers/classic RF users/collectors) and I'm sure there'll be plenty of stories there too :D.
Can you imagine the reaction we'd get if we tried to explain this thread to one of them!
Might be good, might be bad. ... Seriously, I think digital is great but I think it actually takes longer to learn the lessons you need to learn with digital than with film, because you aren't as invested in the final product. There's also the matter of final output. If you're shooting for web/computer work then the removal of extra steps is convenient and proper. However, I don't think anything teaches you as much about photography as going out with a manual film camera loaded with some good slide/B&W film and doing everything yourself.
I disagree with a good deal of what you say in this post (I clipped a lot of it out of the quote for brevity's sake).
For me, there is significant learning value in being able to see if the approach I chose worked or not while I'm there and can shoot again before the moment is gone (mostly true since I usually deal with trees, buildings, and other objects that don't normally move very quickly). If I'm not sure I got the shot or think I might want to try something different I'll shoot again with different settings and without fear that I'm shooting more film than necessary. It's also a great way to learn DOF and the effects of shutter speed very quickly. I could have done the same thing with film, true, but it would have taken longer (delay between shooting and seeing the results) and been more expensive in film and developing costs.
What makes the difference IMNSHO is having the self-discipline to never delete anything in the field. The in-camera LCD is only a rough guideline to how the shot really looks - you won't be able to truly tell if it's a keeper (unless it's grossly out of focus, finger in the picture, or something like that) until you can look at it on the monitor and can place the shots side-by-side to see which interpretation worked better.
tekgypsy
06-02-2005, 14:27
hmmm.. digital vs film.... SLR vs RF vs PnS
i use all of the above.... even the occasional disposable.... the point is to get the pic, to capture the moment in time.
choose the tool for the job.
when i go hiking/camping/climbing i take a digital because i can get several thousand pix on a few memory cards. it would require a draft animal of some sort to carry the film equivalent. when the weather is inclement i grab the Epic weatherproof (film) because i know it can handle it. i have had digital and film SLRs
ultimately the idea is to capture the moment.. someone else said there are snobs on all sides....
i guess this thread has proved it
I wouldn't consider myself a snob or biased to either side. I'm just sick of all the FUD surrounding digital vs. film. Neither is going away anytime soon, much to the chagrin of both camps. Maybe we should learn how to live with each other...?
Nah, that wouldn't be any fun :)
I agree that there is significant learning value with digitals. I own 2 of them, and I use them. I was stating my opinion and speaking of my experience. I find that the style of shooting digital promotes (rapid-fire) can reduce the quality of your shots. and that if I take my time, I take better photos. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of people.
I disagree with a good deal of what you say in this post (I clipped a lot of it out of the quote for brevity's sake).
For me, there is significant learning value in being able to see if the approach I chose worked or not while I'm there and can shoot again before the moment is gone (mostly true since I usually deal with trees, buildings, and other objects that don't normally move very quickly). If I'm not sure I got the shot or think I might want to try something different I'll shoot again with different settings and without fear that I'm shooting more film than necessary. It's also a great way to learn DOF and the effects of shutter speed very quickly. I could have done the same thing with film, true, but it would have taken longer (delay between shooting and seeing the results) and been more expensive in film and developing costs.
What makes the difference IMNSHO is having the self-discipline to never delete anything in the field. The in-camera LCD is only a rough guideline to how the shot really looks - you won't be able to truly tell if it's a keeper (unless it's grossly out of focus, finger in the picture, or something like that) until you can look at it on the monitor and can place the shots side-by-side to see which interpretation worked better.
Just slightly on the side : since i have too much spare time I´v found out that the quotes belongs to Paul Dickson and Abraham Maslow, Paul Dickson with the pig and Maslow with the hammer.
Btw : wonder where a rangefinder camera fits into Maslows model ? :D
vha.
I agree that there is significant learning value with digitals. I own 2 of them, and I use them. I was stating my opinion and speaking of my experience. I find that the style of shooting digital promotes (rapid-fire) can reduce the quality of your shots. and that if I take my time, I take better photos. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of people.
I wish someone would make the equivalent of a 3MP k1000. Now THAT would be a student camera - reducing the delay in user feedback could be a huge asset (as would saving exposure information.)
I started messing with film after having finally found a P&S Digital that I liked, mostly because I wanted something for low light, and this is an area which cheap digitals royally stink at - lens and sensitivity wise. I have my doubts about the K1000D, but I do sincerely wish that someone would figure out that nothing about interchangeable lenses requires the camera to be an SLR, nor horribly expensive. A P&S could take KAF lenses, so could a rangefinder.
I want a digital Contax G, but with Leica's viewfinder...and a few other tweaks.
Brian Sweeney
06-03-2005, 01:58
> I have yet someone to come up to me and ridicule my Leica M3/Contax IIIa/ Canonet,
>however when I am shooting with my Nikon F when I am in the mood for SLR, I am seen
>as one ecentric Gen X crank.
Uncle Bill,
It is probably because they see the viewfinder and think it is auto-focus.
I was taking Christmas portraits this past year at Nikki's school this past Winter with my N8008s. One of the Dad's looked at it and said "Still shooting film. I've got a four SLR's that I don't use after switching to Digital." I looked over and told him "This used to be a Digital Camera. I converted it to film." The camera had started life as a Kodak DCS200ci.
I use all types of cameras, even digital. I love to use them, collect them, and repair them. Lately I picked up a Kodak DCS420c for $75 and find it is really good for wildlife shots where a Telephoto Lens is required. That is definitely the domain of SLR's and DSLR's. "Environmental Portraits" are the domain of the Rangefinder cameras. Fire the shutter, no latency, see the expression through the finder as the shutter clicks.
"Why, my digital camera is so old the pictures have sprocket holes in them"
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/buds1BMP.JPG
I wish someone would make the equivalent of a 3MP k1000. Now THAT would be a student camera - reducing the delay in user feedback could be a huge asset (as would saving exposure information.
That's a great concept, but reason why most non-dSLR digicams suck in low light has to do with the size of their sensors. - Smaller sensors require smaller sized pixel sites, which leads to noise in low light. -
My Nikon 8700, which is a high-end digicam, uses an 8 megapixel sensor that is 6.6 by 8.8 mm in size.
The compact 7 megapixel digicams use a 5.3 by 7.2 mm sensor.
Compact digicams with 5 megapixel or lower use a sensor that is even smaller, 4.3 by 5.7 mm. Think of the multiplyer effect with your current 35mm film lenses, if you slapped that puppy into a Pentax K-100 body.
Enter the Pentax *ist DS. Its sensor size is 15.5 by 23.7 mm, which is much more manageable using lenses from film cameras and it makes ISO 400, even 800 doable. Bottom line the cost of an entry level SLR has jumped by a factor of three.
It is definitely frustrating that there isn't a truly affordable basic DSLR/rangefinder out there like the film-based K1000. Something like that would be an awesome student tool, although I'd say make it 5 megapixels just to ensure enough available resolution for an 8x10 (yes, i know you can do it with 3). That way I could have the best of both worlds: a fine mechanical camera with the convenience of digital.
If wishes were fishes...
I call it the tail wags dog syndrome. Consumer digicams are an off-shoot of the computer industry. Consumer digicams have become another computer peripherial. Filter threads, shutter dials and aperture rings? What are those? Who needs those when there are pull-down menus and 10 or more buttons to push? :D
I started taking pictures with a digital P&S (minolta dimage x) and wanted something to improve my photography so I started using rangefinders. I have nothing against digital, its just that there is no digital camera out right now that I can afford and enjoy. I kind of thought about saving up for a Pentax *ist but its really too expensive for me right now, also I dont like SLRs too much. What are the chances of an affordable (that would mean the $1000 range I guess) digital rangefinder in M mount coming out any time soon? I think Voigtlander should look into that. Then again film is fun too, and I like developing my own B&W shots, even if getting them on the web is a pain.
Nikon Bob
06-03-2005, 06:39
hmmm.. digital vs film.... SLR vs RF vs PnS
i use all of the above.... even the occasional disposable.... the point is to get the pic, to capture the moment in time.
choose the tool for the job.
when i go hiking/camping/climbing i take a digital because i can get several thousand pix on a few memory cards. it would require a draft animal of some sort to carry the film equivalent. when the weather is inclement i grab the Epic weatherproof (film) because i know it can handle it. i have had digital and film SLRs
ultimately the idea is to capture the moment.. someone else said there are snobs on all sides....
i guess this thread has proved it
It is all good and no sense being snobby about either way. If anything this thread proves how polarized both camps are. There are others here who would like a basic digital camera that operates like a traditional film camera and that is affordable. That is my only complaint about digital. I hate the button, button, push, push way of operating, just let me set the aperature and shutter speed in the traditional manner. The Epson RD1 comes closest so far aside from the cost being too high to be really affordable and I hope more will follow ( digital Nikon FM please).
Bob
I personally think point and shoot digital cameras and camera phones have the potential to be a really positive step for photography but this potential is rarely realised. I see a camera as a tool just like a pencil, it can be used to make people laugh, cry or think. it can draw a picture, tell a story or simply be used to jot down a note. I think most cameras sold, just like most pencils sold are used for simply jotting down notes but they have the potential for so much more (Perhaps a rather corny analogy ).
My first post here :)
[U]If one sees what the marketing boys promise the general uninformed buyer:
Unparalleled clarity (as clear as a flawless diamond), vibrant colours, 10 Mp super blahblah I'd ditch my digilux2 immediately for this! :bang:
http://www.thpsales.com/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=1122&idAffiliate=16&campaign=google
^thats pretty funny, sepecially the part that says: "Up to 141 pictures in built-in 16MB memory"
Yeah-but think of the poor schmuck that actually pays 400$ for the thing thinking it will turn him into a second Cartier Bresson.......
mohan, i actually like your analogy. cameras are tools. to my husband, his canon P&S digital gets more frequently used than his stash of film cameras. i cringe at his aesthetic output but he captures what he wants and is a firm believer in "i'll crop it in post". (cringe)
but i agree with earlier comments that, for as much as i wanted to believe that a dSLR would help me be a better photographer, it was teaching me to be a different kind of photographer than i wanted to be. be damned white balance! down with lens multipier! no ISO 100? eek.
yes, my D70 has a place in my camera arsenal but it is not at the center of my camera world anymore. what an expensive lesson that was!
That is my only complaint about digital. I hate the button, button, push, push way of operating, just let me set the aperature and shutter speed in the traditional manner. The Epson RD1 comes closest so far aside from the cost being too high to be really affordable and I hope more will follow ( digital Nikon FM please).
Bob
The digital p&s's mirror closely their film predecessors. Show me a film p&s that has separate shutter & aperture controls (if they have any controls at all). In fact, show me a new film slr that has separate shutter & aperture dials. My 20 year old Maxxum 5000 is all push button & one multi-function selector dial, so is my XTsi, EOS 650. I believe most of the newer Nikons, Canons, Minoltas and Pentaxes are all like that, with the exception of some of the higher end models.
With good design tho, I can change aperture & shutter speeds with just my finger and thumb without looking up from the viewfinder on all my electronic film & digital slr's. I still like the manual aperture ring on my other SLR's.
OTOH, none of my RF's show the aperture or shutter speed in the VF, so I do tend to do more hyperfocal shooting or stick with one shutter speed/aperture setting. I can live with that.
Nikon Bob
06-03-2005, 09:11
Kin
You are right, push buttons, multi-function dials and multi-programne modes have been a long time evolving even in film cameras. I did not say I liked it there either. Each to his own but I wish I had a choice in the way I wish to work in digital as I do in film.
Bob
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.