Film versus digital.

Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer wrote:
I'm not trying to get a flame war going here, but based on my own
experiences as an outdoor photographer, film is obsolete in all but a
few specialized applications.

Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer

If it works for you great, that's why there's a diversity of mediums
and equipment in photography. Digital photogaphy offers a lot of
advantages over film, but I personally wouldn't declare it "obsolete in
all but a few specialized applications." They each offer their own
advantages and although many photographers have switched entirely to
digital, many photographers find using both mediums useful and many
find film is still the medium of choice. I for one use film
exclusively for it's advantages, I don't want to sit in front of a
computer, buy and learn new software packages, and resolve problems
with print(er)s. I can enjoy more time in the field. In the end, it's
simply the choices we make.

Pieces of **** cameras. Youy have no idea what the **** you are talking
about.

Why are you still breathing?

Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer wrote:
Being an outdoor writer means being a photographer, so I've been
selling photos for more than twenty years now. My main cameras have
been a Ricoh KR-5 Super and a Pentax K1000, both 35mm, both manual,
and
both very reliable in the harshest conditions. The film - mostly
slides - was expensive, and it had to be sent elsewhere for
developing
(I've always lived in the northwoods of Michigan). Still, I made do;
all of the photos in my 5th book, "The Snowshoe Handbook" were shot
with my 35s.
Then, a year ago, I bought a Kodak CX4200 point-n-shoot that was on
sale for $60 at a store in Sault Ste. Marie, MI. It was only 2
megapixel, but I'd been wanting to try digital, I needed a
point-n-shoot, and it was priced within the reach of an impoverished
outdoor writer.
I immediately began publishing photos taken with the CX4200, not
only in magazine articles, but in my last book, "The Encyclopedia of
Tracks and Scats." Despite the camera's range and resolution
limitations, these were among the best photos I'd ever taken, and I
didn't have to drive 45 miles to the nearest developer. Even better,
if I didn't like the lighting or color, I could manipulate pics with
a
software program - something no developer ever could or would do for
me.
Within 3 months I'd moved up to a really excellent Hewlett-Packard
Photosmart 945, then added a Kodak DX7590, both 5.2 Mp units, and
I'll
never go back to film. I've had both out in temps down to less than
-10 Farenheit, and while that does demand keeping the batteries warm,
neither camera has so much as hiccuped. My HP even went underwater
once when I ran into a 60 mph gale while kayaking the Tahquamenon
River
(could only happen to me); as I was trying to land the boat, the wind
literally picked it out of the water, dumping me and the camera into
the river. After thoroughly drying the HP, it worked as well as
ever.
My partner and I keep a small pack of full-blooded gray wolves
that
we employ for the purpose of public education (free of charge), and
they attract a lot of visitors with cameras. Last summer we had an
amateur photography club visit, and while all of them preached a
litany
of why film is better, every one of them was shooting a digital.
Hmmm.

I'm not trying to get a flame war going here, but based on my own
experiences as an outdoor photographer, film is obsolete in all but a
few specialized applications.

Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer www.barnesandnoble.com

Pieces of **** cameras. Youy have no idea what the **** you are talking
about.

Why are you still breathing?

Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer wrote:
Being an outdoor writer means being a photographer, so I've been
selling photos for more than twenty years now. My main cameras have
been a Ricoh KR-5 Super and a Pentax K1000, both 35mm, both manual,
and
both very reliable in the harshest conditions. The film - mostly
slides - was expensive, and it had to be sent elsewhere for
developing
(I've always lived in the northwoods of Michigan). Still, I made do;
all of the photos in my 5th book, "The Snowshoe Handbook" were shot
with my 35s.
Then, a year ago, I bought a Kodak CX4200 point-n-shoot that was on
sale for $60 at a store in Sault Ste. Marie, MI. It was only 2
megapixel, but I'd been wanting to try digital, I needed a
point-n-shoot, and it was priced within the reach of an impoverished
outdoor writer.
I immediately began publishing photos taken with the CX4200, not
only in magazine articles, but in my last book, "The Encyclopedia of
Tracks and Scats." Despite the camera's range and resolution
limitations, these were among the best photos I'd ever taken, and I
didn't have to drive 45 miles to the nearest developer. Even better,
if I didn't like the lighting or color, I could manipulate pics with
a
software program - something no developer ever could or would do for
me.
Within 3 months I'd moved up to a really excellent Hewlett-Packard
Photosmart 945, then added a Kodak DX7590, both 5.2 Mp units, and
I'll
never go back to film. I've had both out in temps down to less than
-10 Farenheit, and while that does demand keeping the batteries warm,
neither camera has so much as hiccuped. My HP even went underwater
once when I ran into a 60 mph gale while kayaking the Tahquamenon
River
(could only happen to me); as I was trying to land the boat, the wind
literally picked it out of the water, dumping me and the camera into
the river. After thoroughly drying the HP, it worked as well as
ever.
My partner and I keep a small pack of full-blooded gray wolves
that
we employ for the purpose of public education (free of charge), and
they attract a lot of visitors with cameras. Last summer we had an
amateur photography club visit, and while all of them preached a
litany
of why film is better, every one of them was shooting a digital.
Hmmm.

I'm not trying to get a flame war going here, but based on my own
experiences as an outdoor photographer, film is obsolete in all but a
few specialized applications.

Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer www.barnesandnoble.com

Hi Len,
Welcome to the world of digital! Although I currently use some high-end
Canon gear, I've had plenty of work published using my CoolPix 950, a 2 MP
camera!

Oh, and forget about the one reply you received...some people probably put
up a fight when photography changed from wet plates to film!

Ken
www.wyattphoto.com

Hi Len,
Welcome to the world of digital! Although I currently use some high-end
Canon gear, I've had plenty of work published using my CoolPix 950, a 2 MP
camera!

Oh, and forget about the one reply you received...some people probably put
up a fight when photography changed from wet plates to film!


I wouldn't discount the other reply, I think it was well thought
out and non biased. What your asking him to do is accept your
version versus the other poster, if you had actually read the other
poster you would understand his reply.

I also wouldn't call you an expert based on your "Cool pix
publishing experiences."

Hi Len,
Welcome to the world of digital! Although I currently use some high-end
Canon gear, I've had plenty of work published using my CoolPix 950, a 2 MP
camera!

Oh, and forget about the one reply you received...some people probably put
up a fight when photography changed from wet plates to film!


I wouldn't discount the other reply, I think it was well thought
out and non biased. What your asking him to do is accept your
version versus the other poster, if you had actually read the other
poster you would understand his reply.

I also wouldn't call you an expert based on your "Cool pix
publishing experiences."

Yes, the first reply was well thought out. I was referring to the following
reply, which was VERY biased and not well thought out. Perhaps you missed
it. :-)

Quote: "Pieces of **** cameras. Youy have no idea what the **** you are
talking about.

Why are you still breathing?" Endquote.

I didn't feel that comment was very constructive and didn't want Len to feel
too bad about receiving it.

By the way, I admit I stopped using the 2 MP camera several years ago and am
using a Canon 1D-II these days. Regardless, the CoolPix recorded some pretty
amazing images for it's time!

Regards, Ken


"Inaccessible" wrote in message
news

Hi Len,
Welcome to the world of digital! Although I currently use some high-end
Canon gear, I've had plenty of work published using my CoolPix 950, a 2
MP
camera!

Oh, and forget about the one reply you received...some people probably
put
up a fight when photography changed from wet plates to film!


I wouldn't discount the other reply, I think it was well thought
out and non biased. What your asking him to do is accept your
version versus the other poster, if you had actually read the other
poster you would understand his reply.

I also wouldn't call you an expert based on your "Cool pix
publishing experiences."

In article ,
"Ken Wyatt" wrote:

Yes, the first reply was well thought out. I was referring to the following
reply, which was VERY biased and not well thought out. Perhaps you missed
it. :-)

Quote: "Pieces of **** cameras. Youy have no idea what the **** you are
talking about.

Why are you still breathing?" Endquote.

I didn't feel that comment was very constructive and didn't want Len to feel
too bad about receiving it.

By the way, I admit I stopped using the 2 MP camera several years ago and am
using a Canon 1D-II these days. Regardless, the CoolPix recorded some pretty
amazing images for it's time!

Regards, Ken


Sorry; I must have that idiot in my kill file for the very reason.
Thanks for qualifying your reply.... regarding current equipment.

Why (1) are you using profanity?
(2) are you being hostile, especially when the comment is not
directed at you and the post to which you are replying is neutral in nature?
(3) are you commenting at all on a medium that I seem to recall
you have previously said you do not use - and so have no expertise in?


Francis A. Miniter


wrote:

Pieces of **** cameras. Youy have no idea what the **** you are talking
about.

Why are you still breathing?

Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer wrote:


Being an outdoor writer means being a photographer, so I've been
selling photos for more than twenty years now. My main cameras have
been a Ricoh KR-5 Super and a Pentax K1000, both 35mm, both manual,


and


both very reliable in the harshest conditions. The film - mostly
slides - was expensive, and it had to be sent elsewhere for


developing


(I've always lived in the northwoods of Michigan). Still, I made do;
all of the photos in my 5th book, "The Snowshoe Handbook" were shot
with my 35s.
Then, a year ago, I bought a Kodak CX4200 point-n-shoot that was on
sale for $60 at a store in Sault Ste. Marie, MI. It was only 2
megapixel, but I'd been wanting to try digital, I needed a
point-n-shoot, and it was priced within the reach of an impoverished
outdoor writer.
I immediately began publishing photos taken with the CX4200, not
only in magazine articles, but in my last book, "The Encyclopedia of
Tracks and Scats." Despite the camera's range and resolution
limitations, these were among the best photos I'd ever taken, and I
didn't have to drive 45 miles to the nearest developer. Even better,
if I didn't like the lighting or color, I could manipulate pics with


a


software program - something no developer ever could or would do for
me.
Within 3 months I'd moved up to a really excellent Hewlett-Packard
Photosmart 945, then added a Kodak DX7590, both 5.2 Mp units, and


I'll


never go back to film. I've had both out in temps down to less than
-10 Farenheit, and while that does demand keeping the batteries warm,
neither camera has so much as hiccuped. My HP even went underwater
once when I ran into a 60 mph gale while kayaking the Tahquamenon


River


(could only happen to me); as I was trying to land the boat, the wind
literally picked it out of the water, dumping me and the camera into
the river. After thoroughly drying the HP, it worked as well as


ever.


My partner and I keep a small pack of full-blooded gray wolves


that


we employ for the purpose of public education (free of charge), and
they attract a lot of visitors with cameras. Last summer we had an
amateur photography club visit, and while all of them preached a


litany


of why film is better, every one of them was shooting a digital.


Hmmm.


I'm not trying to get a flame war going here, but based on my own
experiences as an outdoor photographer, film is obsolete in all but a
few specialized applications.

Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer www.barnesandnoble.com

In article ,
"Francis A. Miniter" wrote:

Why (1) are you using profanity?
(2) are you being hostile, especially when the comment is not
directed at you and the post to which you are replying is neutral in nature?
(3) are you commenting at all on a medium that I seem to recall
you have previously said you do not use - and so have no expertise in?

Ah Now I understand, why I did not see the off color post :-)