Why doesn't digital capture capture me?

[samuelphoto]

I've owned a number of different higher end digital cameras over the last 7-8 years, starting with a Olympus C8080 (awful) to a LX3 (excellent), and a number of DSLRs from Fuji and Nikon, most recently a D300s (outstanding). But digital capture somehow isn't clicking with the right side of my brain and I can't figure out why, it certainly isn't a technical issue, I can handle this stuff fine. I have no issue like this with film, in fact it is the other way around. Maybe it's just because I was reared on film (I'm over 50). Anyone else have this issue?

[FrankS]

100% .

[Pickett Wilson]

I'm 60, shot film cameras for 40 years, but much prefer digital, which I've shot primarily for the last 10 years. Digital solved the frustration I had with film all of those years. I guess it's whatever floats your boat.

While I still have film cameras and shoot some film, I wouldn't miss it if it disappeared forever.

[coelacanth]

In 10-20 years, we'll be saying "Those 3D Holo-Cams just don't capture me. Good old 2D DSLR with local strage card is the real camera. You can't replace traditional RAW developing! It's just that finding those SD cards and batteries are next to impossible nowadays..."

[back alley]

i think the answer lies in therapy...

[FrankS]

I'm okay, you're okay.

[back alley]

i'm ok, you need my therapist...

[Pickett Wilson]

It's only rock & roll.

[FrankS]

You're the one with a therapist.

[back alley]

that's WHY i'm ok...

[back alley]

but seriosly folks...this debate is getting old.

[FrankS]

I don't want to get "better". I'm fine with film.

[Pherdinand]

that's a sign that it's good...the debate, that is.
Old, but still alive.

[FrankS]

When acrylic paint was invented, not all painters switched away from oil paint. One is not better than another. Pros and cons for each medium. Some painters prefer oil, some prefer to work with acrylic. Same with film and digital. Just different.

On a painting forum, the oil paint guys should still be allowed to have threads about why they prefer and stuck with oil paints and didn't make the switch to the new acrylic paints.

[mfogiel]

If I liked shooting colour, I would be surely using digital cameras. But I am only shooting B&W.

[barnwulf]

coelacanth In 10-20 years, we'll be saying "Those 3D Holo-Cams just don't capture me. Good old 2D DSLR with local strage card is the real camera. You can't replace traditional RAW developing! It's just that finding those SD cards and batteries are next to impossible nowadays..."

coelacanth, you are probably right. I have shot both. I have Nikon D300, D700 and a M8 and while they are really excellent cameras and I have gotten some excellent B&W and color shots with them and I have enjoyed them immensely. I still have a preference for film. I have been shooting film for 50 years and it still just feels right. I like the wide latitude of film. I thought it was my age but apparently there are quite a few younger photographers that like film as well. Don't really know what to make of it but I guess it's like lots of other things different people just have preferences for different things. I don't really think about it. I just got 20 new rolls of Tmax 100. - Jim

[jamesdfloyd]

Film is therapy!

I agree, that digital capture has of late failed to "capture" me, that is why I have dusted off the various rangefinders I have had in glass display cases for the past...God knows how many...years, and now I am asking annoying questions on this forum about which film people like and whether to develop & scan my own or pay to have it done.

The excitement of digital was the instant gratification of seeing the end result of the picture. Much like everything in life that has achieved instant gratification status, the lack of wait has taken the "specialness" out of the effort. Since I gave up the wedding photography business last year, there is no need to rush to the end of the story, but to experience the journey instead.

Today I am photographing almost 50 pieces of Nikon (D3) equipment for sale on eBay - its time to go back to my roots...b&w film, a hand held light meter and a purpose.

J.D.

[barnwulf]

jamesdfloyd Film is therapy!

Absolutely!! - Jim

[John Lawrence]

Originally Posted by samuelphoto

I've owned a number of different higher end digital cameras over the last 7-8 years, starting with a Olympus C8080 (awful) to a LX3 (excellent), and a number of DSLRs from Fuji and Nikon, most recently a D300s (outstanding). But digital capture somehow isn't clicking with the right side of my brain and I can't figure out why, it certainly isn't a technical issue, I can handle this stuff fine. I have no issue like this with film, in fact it is the other way around. Maybe it's just because I was reared on film (I'm over 50). Anyone else have this issue?

I do.

Still get a thrill every time I load my Leica with film.

John

[jamesdfloyd]

I know this will sound like a clique, but we all come to a "crisis point" in our lives where something simply helps. To me it is the very first camera I every bought, an Olympus Trip 35.

The "rewards" of being an executive are over rated and most litigious. Entitled 20-something year old staff members, political debates, ex-wives, train cancellations and traffic jams are taking their toll on me - even a 3 olive martini cannot help. A 35-year old camera, $4.32 worth of b&w film and a Saturday's stroll through NYC is the cheapest therapy I can ever hope for.

My biggest excitement for next week will be the anticipation of scans coming back from the lab around the corner from my office. My hope is that nothing can sour that.'

J.D.

[jarski]

Originally Posted by jamesdfloyd

Film is therapy!

especially shooting part, with film, is therapy.
but when you need to prepare photos to net (read: scan), fun ends and its same digital hangover than with full digi-workflow.

[barnwulf]

Posted by John Lawrence

I do.

Still get a thrill every time I load my Leica with film.

John

Yes absolutely! - Jim

[ishpop]

I keep trying to take photos with digitals and get the same satisfaction as my film shots, but I am not there. Digital serves a purpose for me here and there, but for personal taste and enjoyment, it's like two different thing altogether.

Who knows, maybe it will change at one point, but I am an analog guy. Still have all my vinyl as well...

It is what it is.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by FrankS

When acrylic paint was invented, not all painters switched away from oil paint. One is not better than another. Pros and cons for each medium. Some painters prefer oil, some prefer to work with acrylic. Same with film and digital. Just different.

On a painting forum, the oil paint guys should still be allowed to have threads about why they prefer and stuck with oil paints and didn't make the switch to the new acrylic paints.

Dear Frank,

Alkyds!

Oils and acrylic are hopelessly outdated. It's just that so many painters are hidebound reactionaries who can't handle new media.

Then of course there are airbrushes. Why tie bristles to a twig?

Cheers,

R.

[btgc]

If scientists could figure out how F-vs-D threads turn into energy or food, 2/3 of planetary problems would be just eliminated

People like things with moving parts inside. Even in windowing user interfaces for computers and smartphones they made moving elements because otherwise that things wouldn't work at full strength. Money hasn't moving parts but it moves itself, so it also counts. Think why most of digital camera users are chimping - simply because that is almost only way to complete gestalt and motoric reaction is in help here. During birth child moves to reach world. Infant sucks breast and milk flows. In love act there also are movements. Everything is movement. Sun moves, ocean moves, rivers move. Movement inside digital cameras just isn't sufficient. Like Prius is too quit. Progress provides means to make world better, technically, but world doesn't need to be perfect. World needs cycles and movements.