Digital? - I'm not convinced

Well I have had a DSLR for a few months now (EOS 350D) and I have to say I
am not entirely convinced it is the way of the future for me. I still have
my EOS 30 and am now considering the purchase of a Medium Format camera.

Digital is so complicated. The range of camera's is getting ever larger
with ever larger lists of non-essential features. You need to have the
computer, the software, the printer, the flash cards the backup facilities,
the time to edit the photo's etc etc etc. Then you can press the wrong
button and delete a whole days worth of shots instead of just one (I have
done this once).

Digital is not necessarily cheaper than film - the camera's are expensive
and are out of date quickly. Whether you get photo's printed or print them
yourself they cost. Then you can't get wide angle without getting a new
lens.

I find that I am too busy and can't be bothered sitting down for hours
trolling through dozens or hundreds of photo's to edit for printing and find
myself just picking the one's I want printed putting them on a CD and
getting them printed at the mini-lab as shot on JPG. RAW? You must be
kidding - I don't have time.

I haven't even mentioned quality yet. The prints I get as shot from the
350D are not necessarily better or worse than film. Mainly I find them just
different and not as pleasant (and the paper is thinner and not as nice).
There is little noise and fairly good sharpness but they don't seem to have
the same range of tone or color or something and the organic "niceness" of a
good print is missing - they seem somehow artificial. maybe this is just
me. Hey whats wrong with grain? Some of my best photo's were taken with
TMAX 3200 - the grainiest film you can get - try getting a finish like that
with digital!

I find looking at my 35mm prints are much more satisfying. Film technology
is right near the peak of a 100 year technology developement and yet is
still improving (film emulsions etc). I think I am going to make the must
of film while it is still readily available over the next ten years or so
and maybe I might start a digital backlash!

Having said all that I will keep my digital for work (non print) purposes
and general snapshots or unimportant stuff. My serious photography will be
medium format or 35mm film.

Anyone want to join me on a film revival?

Well, you hit the nail on the head. The digital shooters I know (there are a
bunch and many are good friends), all love tinkering with computers and are
really into technology. Since my arguement for me shooting film and old
manual cameras is that I love tinkering with my old cameras and love the
sound of a real shutter and loading film into a camera is a pleasing
experience, I have to say the arguement is moot. We just like tinkering with
photography in different ways. They don't mind tinkering with high tech
stuff and computers. Other than the few forums I chat in, I despise
computers and hate cameras that are high tech like the plaque. My wife has
an Elan IIE that she started out with and I hate that camera. Now it is only
used for taking shots of the kids with print film. Even she prefers older
camera now for her macro stuff. She uses a really clean Canon AE1 and FL
lenses and tubes and bellows for her macro. She does outstanding work.

I am with ya on film. I see somewhat of a difference in digital shots and I
can't quite find the words to describe it. I call it a plastic kind of look.
It might just be me. I just don't like it.

F1

--
Message posted via PhotoKB.com
http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forums.as...-35mm/200512/1

"Itsme." wrote in
:

Well I have had a DSLR for a few months now (EOS 350D) and I have to
say I am not entirely convinced it is the way of the future for me. I
still have my EOS 30 and am now considering the purchase of a Medium
Format camera.

Digital is so complicated. The range of camera's is getting ever
larger with ever larger lists of non-essential features. You need to
have the computer, the software, the printer, the flash cards the
backup facilities, the time to edit the photo's etc etc etc. Then you
can press the wrong button and delete a whole days worth of shots
instead of just one (I have done this once).

Digital is not necessarily cheaper than film - the camera's are
expensive and are out of date quickly. Whether you get photo's
printed or print them yourself they cost. Then you can't get wide
angle without getting a new lens.

I find that I am too busy and can't be bothered sitting down for hours
trolling through dozens or hundreds of photo's to edit for printing
and find myself just picking the one's I want printed putting them on
a CD and getting them printed at the mini-lab as shot on JPG. RAW?
You must be kidding - I don't have time.

I haven't even mentioned quality yet. The prints I get as shot from
the 350D are not necessarily better or worse than film. Mainly I find
them just different and not as pleasant (and the paper is thinner and
not as nice). There is little noise and fairly good sharpness but they
don't seem to have the same range of tone or color or something and
the organic "niceness" of a good print is missing - they seem somehow
artificial. maybe this is just me. Hey whats wrong with grain? Some
of my best photo's were taken with TMAX 3200 - the grainiest film you
can get - try getting a finish like that with digital!

I find looking at my 35mm prints are much more satisfying. Film
technology is right near the peak of a 100 year technology
developement and yet is still improving (film emulsions etc). I think
I am going to make the must of film while it is still readily
available over the next ten years or so and maybe I might start a
digital backlash!

Having said all that I will keep my digital for work (non print)
purposes and general snapshots or unimportant stuff. My serious
photography will be medium format or 35mm film.

Anyone want to join me on a film revival?


We thought you were joining us...

;-)


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Itsme. wrote:
Well I have had a DSLR for a few months now (EOS 350D) and I have to say I
am not entirely convinced it is the way of the future for me. I still have
my EOS 30 and am now considering the purchase of a Medium Format camera.

I recently bought a 500 C/M, 80 f/2.8 and 150 f/4, used. Very good
bargains these days. I still shoot 35mm film as well, albeit much less.

Anyone want to join me on a film revival?

It's not dead.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Itsme. wrote:
Well I have had a DSLR for a few months now (EOS 350D) and I have to say I
am not entirely convinced it is the way of the future for me. I still have
my EOS 30 and am now considering the purchase of a Medium Format camera.

Digital is so complicated. The range of camera's is getting ever larger
with ever larger lists of non-essential features. You need to have the
computer, the software, the printer, the flash cards the backup facilities,
the time to edit the photo's etc etc etc. Then you can press the wrong
button and delete a whole days worth of shots instead of just one (I have
done this once).

Digital is not necessarily cheaper than film - the camera's are expensive
and are out of date quickly. Whether you get photo's printed or print them
yourself they cost. Then you can't get wide angle without getting a new
lens.

I find that I am too busy and can't be bothered sitting down for hours
trolling through dozens or hundreds of photo's to edit for printing and find
myself just picking the one's I want printed putting them on a CD and
getting them printed at the mini-lab as shot on JPG. RAW? You must be
kidding - I don't have time.

I haven't even mentioned quality yet. The prints I get as shot from the
350D are not necessarily better or worse than film. Mainly I find them just
different and not as pleasant (and the paper is thinner and not as nice).
There is little noise and fairly good sharpness but they don't seem to have
the same range of tone or color or something and the organic "niceness" of a
good print is missing - they seem somehow artificial. maybe this is just
me. Hey whats wrong with grain? Some of my best photo's were taken with
TMAX 3200 - the grainiest film you can get - try getting a finish like that
with digital!


So I don't understand why the paper is thinner, I get my print done on
the same paper that the people shooting film get their prints done on.
I send them out to Costco, where my photos are printed on photographic
paper. As for putting your photos on CD you can up load your photos to
most labs, saves me a lot of time when I get my prints done.

Since you still have your film camera you might try going out with both
and taking the same photo with each and see which you like better if
either. This is what I did and at least for me after doing this I have
not shot another roll of film since.

If you go MF it could work out really well for you, much better quality
then 35mm. But if you do decide to go this way you might want to check
to see if there is some place locally that will process and print the
film for you.


Scott

On 16 Dec 2005 06:23:33 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

If you go MF it could work out really well for you, much better quality
then 35mm. But if you do decide to go this way you might want to check
to see if there is some place locally that will process and print the
film for you.

Or process it yourself, scan it, and print anywhere.

Which reminds me - the wife broke my lab thermometer... need to pick
up another one this weekend so that I can run C-41.

--
Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://rob.rnovak.net

Itsme. wrote:

Anyone want to join me on a film revival?


Welcome!

Actually I never left film, though I do use digital when speed and
quantity are more important than...

Canon F1 via PhotoKB.com wrote:
Well, you hit the nail on the head. The digital shooters I know (there are a
bunch and many are good friends), all love tinkering with computers and are
really into technology. Since my arguement for me shooting film and old
manual cameras is that I love tinkering with my old cameras and love the
sound of a real shutter and loading film into a camera is a pleasing
experience, I have to say the arguement is moot. --

Just for the record DSLRs have the same shutter and shutter sound as a
film SLR. Point and shoot digital cameras also have a real shutter but
it is much quieter since there is no mirror to swing out of the way,
which is what a lot of the shutter sound is.

Among the people I know even the computer haters have gone to digital.
In fairness I will say that among the people I know the only ones who
were doing serious film photography were also pretty much into
computers.

I have seen some odd things with people using digital cameras. My
parents have been shooting nothing but digital for that last 5 years,
they are computer haters BTW. A while back I had them upgrade to a
Sony F828, there old camera was having trouble getting good photos
inside in low light. With their old cameras, film or digital, they had
gotten in the mode of just shooting everything full automatic. I tried
to show then on their old digital, a Nikon Coolpix 8500, how to use
some of the setting but they were not interested at all. So I kind of
figured they would just use the F828 if full auto mode, so be it. Well
my mother has been getting interested in all the controls and has been
learning how to use the manual setting, pretty neat. I should point
out that me parents are in their 80s.

It is interesting to note that a group that most people thought would
be slow to switch to digital, the soccer moms, has taken up digital
with enthusiasm.

Scott

"Itsme." wrote in message
...
Well I have had a DSLR for a few months now (EOS 350D) and I have to say I
am not entirely convinced it is the way of the future for me. I still
have my EOS 30 and am now considering the purchase of a Medium Format
camera.

Digital is so complicated. The range of camera's is getting ever larger
with ever larger lists of non-essential features. You need to have the
computer, the software, the printer, the flash cards the backup
facilities, the time to edit the photo's etc etc etc. Then you can press
the wrong button and delete a whole days worth of shots instead of just
one (I have done this once).

You don't need a PC any more than you needed a darkroom. But, to get the
most out of digital, you'll need to do some post processing. Besides, most
of us have PCs anyway, so the addition of the HW and SW necessary for post
processing isn't that big a deal.

If you don't want to bother, just take the memory card to Ritz, get some
prints, and have them burn the images onto a CD. Kind of like bringing them
the film, getting prints, and getting the negs back, dontcha think?


Digital is not necessarily cheaper than film - the camera's are expensive
and are out of date quickly. Whether you get photo's printed or print
them yourself they cost. Then you can't get wide angle without getting a
new lens.

Cameras go out of date when they stop performing their originally intended
funciton. Or until the die. There's no need to upgrade unless you want to.


I find that I am too busy and can't be bothered sitting down for hours
trolling through dozens or hundreds of photo's to edit for printing and
find myself just picking the one's I want printed putting them on a CD and
getting them printed at the mini-lab as shot on JPG. RAW? You must be
kidding - I don't have time.

Do you shoot slides or negs? RAW conversions are done batch, and if
necessary, you can tweak the RAW file for the few you want printed bigger,
or better.


I haven't even mentioned quality yet. The prints I get as shot from the
350D are not necessarily better or worse than film. Mainly I find them
just different and not as pleasant (and the paper is thinner and not as
nice). There is little noise and fairly good sharpness but they don't seem
to have the same range of tone or color or something and the organic
"niceness" of a good print is missing - they seem somehow artificial.
maybe this is just me. Hey whats wrong with grain? Some of my best
photo's were taken with TMAX 3200 - the grainiest film you can get - try
getting a finish like that with digital!

You want grain, add it later.


I find looking at my 35mm prints are much more satisfying. Film
technology is right near the peak of a 100 year technology developement
and yet is still improving (film emulsions etc). I think I am going to
make the must of film while it is still readily available over the next
ten years or so and maybe I might start a digital backlash!

Good luck!


Having said all that I will keep my digital for work (non print) purposes
and general snapshots or unimportant stuff. My serious photography will
be medium format or 35mm film.

Anyone want to join me on a film revival?

It's not us you have to convince. It's Kodak, Fuji, Konica, or anyone else
that's making film, and investing in new film technology. They'll make it as
long as there's a market. I stopped shooting film just recently, but not
because I was dissatisfied with the quality of film, but because finding a
"wet" lab is such a damned chore. Most labs develop the film, and then scan
the neg or slide to do all the printing and manipulation digitally. So why
bother with film? This process homogenizes the films so the subtleties of
the different emulsions are mostly lost, which is a damned shame. No good
labs, no reason to shoot film.

Scott W wrote:
Canon F1 via PhotoKB.com wrote:

Well, you hit the nail on the head. The digital shooters I know (there are a
bunch and many are good friends), all love tinkering with computers and are
really into technology. Since my arguement for me shooting film and old
manual cameras is that I love tinkering with my old cameras and love the
sound of a real shutter and loading film into a camera is a pleasing
experience, I have to say the arguement is moot. --


Just for the record DSLRs have the same shutter and shutter sound as a
film SLR.

That is reason enough to send your posts to where they belong...
No two cameras (except maybe cloned DSLRS) have the same shutter sound
or the same mirror slap.
I've used LOTS of cameras, and no two have the same shutter sound.

Please return to your masters (Canon marketing?) and ask for further
instructions...