8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

me wrote:

Film cost money and encourages more forethought
before pressing the shutter.

I would argue that since film costs money, it
discourages shot-taking.

It also encourages more note taking afterwards.

After what? Exposure? Development? Viewing?
What is your basis for saying there is more
scholarship involved with film? I would argue
their is more possibility of confusion, loss of
negatives, mixing up notes. It is far easier to
deal with digital exposures in terms of "note-
taking," since you have the advantage of sound
and text file association.

If the aspiring photographer does this their learning
curve will be much improved.

They will learn how to deal with the exigencies of
dealing with negatives -- a rapidly-disappearing
and soon-to-be-obsolete skill.

Jon Pike wrote:

Most people, when learning film, don't go
out and spend 1000$ on a body that has
all the automatic bells & whistles.

1- Cite for this? Is this conjecture? I would
argue that these days, people who are
"learning film" are probably university
students, and invest in good equipment
or use large-format bodies supplied by
their department.

2- Most people do not learn film now,
they learn photography, and increasingly
that means digital.

3- Most cameras sold now, film and digital,
have many automated features.

Especially since you don't really need to
spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

True, but what does this prove? Good
photographs can be taken with an inexpensive
digital camera retailing for ten dollars at CVS.
They can also be taken with a cheap disposable
film camera. There is no distinction to your point.

Jon Pike wrote:

Most people, when learning film, don't go
out and spend 1000$ on a body that has
all the automatic bells & whistles.

1- Cite for this? Is this conjecture? I would
argue that these days, people who are
"learning film" are probably university
students, and invest in good equipment
or use large-format bodies supplied by
their department.

2- Most people do not learn film now,
they learn photography, and increasingly
that means digital.

3- Most cameras sold now, film and digital,
have many automated features.

Especially since you don't really need to
spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

True, but what does this prove? Good
photographs can be taken with an inexpensive
digital camera retailing for ten dollars at CVS.
They can also be taken with a cheap disposable
film camera. There is no distinction to your point.

Jon Pike wrote:

Most people, when learning film, don't go
out and spend 1000$ on a body that has
all the automatic bells & whistles.

1- Cite for this? Is this conjecture? I would
argue that these days, people who are
"learning film" are probably university
students, and invest in good equipment
or use large-format bodies supplied by
their department.

2- Most people do not learn film now,
they learn photography, and increasingly
that means digital.

3- Most cameras sold now, film and digital,
have many automated features.

Especially since you don't really need to
spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

True, but what does this prove? Good
photographs can be taken with an inexpensive
digital camera retailing for ten dollars at CVS.
They can also be taken with a cheap disposable
film camera. There is no distinction to your point.

"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
Carl wrote in :

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it achieve
this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a body
that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since you don't
really need to spend the $ to be able to take good pictures.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked in and
managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was even the idea of
digital you still had people burning through dozens of rolls of film with
little thought. Now the same type of peole fill their hard drive with crap.
Regardless of it being film or digital many people will pick up
"photography" and never put a bit of thought to an image, I think we could
call them snapshooters. One thing I have noticed with both is there will
ALWAYS be the group who think a better camera = better photography and of
course we know that really is not true. With digital I see more people
taking crappy pix and then adding a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other
programs and trying to pass it off as "art". I think it boils down to each
person and their individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up
being the deciding factor, not the medium.

Now another thing I have noticed with the influx of dSLRs is the huge amount
of computer people who come from the "I have to have the very very best I
can imagine". They buy the fastest lenses and the highest MP cameras and
produce.....crap. It is kind of sad.

Digital is a wonderful tool and its instant feedback,when actually used
properly can advance people's shooting faster.

My final thoughts? Same as I have said many times, it is the final image
that one should work towards, not the tools involved. I can produce great
stuff with Canon rebel and the 35-80 it came with in those kits Agassi
pushed, just the same as I can with my Canon 20D.

Thanks for your answer Jon, I see your points and understand where you are
coming from.
D
www.pbase.com/fitpix shot with film and digital!

"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
Carl wrote in :

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it achieve
this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a body
that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since you don't
really need to spend the $ to be able to take good pictures.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked in and
managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was even the idea of
digital you still had people burning through dozens of rolls of film with
little thought. Now the same type of peole fill their hard drive with crap.
Regardless of it being film or digital many people will pick up
"photography" and never put a bit of thought to an image, I think we could
call them snapshooters. One thing I have noticed with both is there will
ALWAYS be the group who think a better camera = better photography and of
course we know that really is not true. With digital I see more people
taking crappy pix and then adding a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other
programs and trying to pass it off as "art". I think it boils down to each
person and their individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up
being the deciding factor, not the medium.

Now another thing I have noticed with the influx of dSLRs is the huge amount
of computer people who come from the "I have to have the very very best I
can imagine". They buy the fastest lenses and the highest MP cameras and
produce.....crap. It is kind of sad.

Digital is a wonderful tool and its instant feedback,when actually used
properly can advance people's shooting faster.

My final thoughts? Same as I have said many times, it is the final image
that one should work towards, not the tools involved. I can produce great
stuff with Canon rebel and the 35-80 it came with in those kits Agassi
pushed, just the same as I can with my Canon 20D.

Thanks for your answer Jon, I see your points and understand where you are
coming from.
D
www.pbase.com/fitpix shot with film and digital!

"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
Carl wrote in :

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it achieve
this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a body
that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since you don't
really need to spend the $ to be able to take good pictures.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked in and
managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was even the idea of
digital you still had people burning through dozens of rolls of film with
little thought. Now the same type of peole fill their hard drive with crap.
Regardless of it being film or digital many people will pick up
"photography" and never put a bit of thought to an image, I think we could
call them snapshooters. One thing I have noticed with both is there will
ALWAYS be the group who think a better camera = better photography and of
course we know that really is not true. With digital I see more people
taking crappy pix and then adding a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other
programs and trying to pass it off as "art". I think it boils down to each
person and their individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up
being the deciding factor, not the medium.

Now another thing I have noticed with the influx of dSLRs is the huge amount
of computer people who come from the "I have to have the very very best I
can imagine". They buy the fastest lenses and the highest MP cameras and
produce.....crap. It is kind of sad.

Digital is a wonderful tool and its instant feedback,when actually used
properly can advance people's shooting faster.

My final thoughts? Same as I have said many times, it is the final image
that one should work towards, not the tools involved. I can produce great
stuff with Canon rebel and the 35-80 it came with in those kits Agassi
pushed, just the same as I can with my Canon 20D.

Thanks for your answer Jon, I see your points and understand where you are
coming from.
D
www.pbase.com/fitpix shot with film and digital!

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:

Film good, digital fecal!

Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet?

So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's expense.
Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's
hopeless to try and explain it to them!
me

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:

Film good, digital fecal!

Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet?

So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's expense.
Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's
hopeless to try and explain it to them!
me

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:

Film good, digital fecal!

Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet?

So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's expense.
Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's
hopeless to try and explain it to them!
me