Manual photography versus digital

I am writing an article on the art of manual photography versus digital
photography. If anyone is interested in contributing, please reply.
What reasons do you use manual cameras rather than digital cameras?
What do you like about manual photography that you wouldn't get from a
digital camera. Will the digital camera ever make the manual camera
extinct? If there is anything else you'd like to add, feel free.

Thanks so much,
Sarah

Sarah wrote:

I am writing an article on the art of manual photography versus digital
photography. If anyone is interested in contributing, please reply.
What reasons do you use manual cameras rather than digital cameras?
What do you like about manual photography that you wouldn't get from a
digital camera. Will the digital camera ever make the manual camera
extinct? If there is anything else you'd like to add, feel free.

Thanks so much,
Sarah

I presume you mean film cameras when you say 'manual'. There are fully
automatic film cameras ranging from point&shoots up to high-end slr's
that are fully automatic, and they would not be described as 'manual'
cameras, even though some may have a manual mode. But, perhaps you do
mean manual cameras, those that are manually focused, have the aperture
and shutter settings manually adjusted, and the film wound on with a
lever. And there are larger cameras like 5x4 and bigger that are all
manual, no auto anywhere.

So, to avoid answers that may be off the subject for you, would you like
to re-state your request? Since this is a 35mm group that does engage
in digital versus film debates from time to time, perhaps you could also
specify whether you are wanting info about 35mm, or are including larger
formats as well.

Colin D.

First off....its not manual camera vs. digital. It's film vs. digital. Both
types come as manual and automatic, and all sorts in between.

Digital will never get as sharp a photo as film because you can always get a
bigger sheet of film. Current digitals rival 35mm to the eye...but some
people think you have to compare tiny lines on charts.

Film cameras are machines....live things can become extinct....not machines.
Machines can, however, become virtually unusable because of a lack of spare
parts or, if consumable supplies become unavailable. This may happen soon
for film. Already companies are stopping production. It may well happen that
someone will keep something in production but choices will be limited. The
chemicals used by Mathew Brady may be available and there will be some who
experiment with coating glass plates for centuries.

While I started many years ago with film and doing my own lab work and I
think I got pretty good because of it....who am I kidding....I was destined
to be good because I have a God-given talent for it. People shoot more with
a digital....that should make them better...but it seems to do the opposite.
The cheapness of a shot seems to make them not care if they take a "movie"
and save a frame.

The proof is in the print. Digital shooters tend to make more color
prints...that was just plain difficult and expensive with film. The reduced
size of sensors over film gives the shots a different look...but that may
well change with larger sensors. Time will tell.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group

"Sarah" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am writing an article on the art of manual photography versus digital
photography. If anyone is interested in contributing, please reply.
What reasons do you use manual cameras rather than digital cameras?
What do you like about manual photography that you wouldn't get from a
digital camera. Will the digital camera ever make the manual camera
extinct? If there is anything else you'd like to add, feel free.

Thanks so much,
Sarah

"Sarah" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am writing an article on the art of manual photography versus digital
photography. If anyone is interested in contributing, please reply.
What reasons do you use manual cameras rather than digital cameras?
What do you like about manual photography that you wouldn't get from a
digital camera. Will the digital camera ever make the manual camera
extinct? If there is anything else you'd like to add, feel free.

Thanks so much,
Sarah




You are implying a dichotomy where not a precise one exists in your idea.

I think the best you could do, to present a "versus" dichotomy would be
using an SLR camera manually, inclusive of fully manual SLR's, versus
using an SLR camera in its automatic modes. Digital photography is actually
irrelevant. If you want it to be relevant, the proper dichotomy is film
versus digital, not manual versus digital. That doesn't make much sense
because you can operate many digital SLR's manually, as well. You can
operate many film SLR's manually, as well.


Patrick

"Sarah" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am writing an article on the art of manual photography versus digital
photography. If anyone is interested in contributing, please reply.
What reasons do you use manual cameras rather than digital cameras?
What do you like about manual photography that you wouldn't get from a
digital camera. Will the digital camera ever make the manual camera
extinct? If there is anything else you'd like to add, feel free.

I'd like to add a lot, but it would be full of four-letter words so I'll
spare you, but...Before you start writing anything on any subject, pleeeez
get your concepts straight and use a dictionary. On a morbid comedic level
I like your dichotomy manual vs. digital, the idea of anything inanimate
becoming extinct, et cetera, so I hope that you will be writing for The
Onion.

--
eM eL
"The traveler doesn't know where he's going, and the tourist doesn't know
where he is."
-- Henry Rollins

"Patrick L" wrote in message
news:1scJf.39941$JT.10521@fed1read06...

"Sarah" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am writing an article on the art of manual photography versus digital
photography. If anyone is interested in contributing, please reply.
What reasons do you use manual cameras rather than digital cameras?
What do you like about manual photography that you wouldn't get from a
digital camera. Will the digital camera ever make the manual camera
extinct? If there is anything else you'd like to add, feel free.
You are implying a dichotomy where not a precise one exists in your idea.

I think the best you could do, to present a "versus" dichotomy would be
using an SLR camera manually, inclusive of fully manual SLR's, versus
using an SLR camera in its automatic modes. Digital photography is
actually irrelevant. If you want it to be relevant, the proper dichotomy
is film versus digital, not manual versus digital. That doesn't make
much sense because you can operate many digital SLR's manually, as well.
You can operate many film SLR's manually, as well.

Perhaps a short course in basic photography at a local vocational center is
in order before writing the article.

I am writing an article on the art of manual photography versus digital
photography. If anyone is interested in contributing, please reply.
What reasons do you use manual cameras rather than digital cameras?
What do you like about manual photography that you wouldn't get from a
digital camera. Will the digital camera ever make the manual camera
extinct? If there is anything else you'd like to add, feel free.


I believe the concept you are looking for is analog vs digital.

Just for the 'artsiness' of it. Back in the 80's and 90's people were
rediscovering black and white and sepia toning. Who was it, Marshall
McLuhan? that postulated that new technologies make the old ones into art
forms.

Film cameras will probably never extinct. Keep in mind that on 9/11 there
was a photog shooting daguerrotypes with a 100 year old camera. In 20
years there will be photogs advertising they do real film photography and
charging a premium for it. Just as there is a premium for platinum prints.

That said I'm almost completely digital. At first it didn't make any sense,
I mean a couple thousand dots this way by that way. It shouldn't do what
does.

Digital is a different media from film, its seems very familiar, you use the
same cameras and lenses, but reality is that they are as different as
photography and painting.

Sarah wrote:

I am writing an article on the art of manual photography versus digital
photography. If anyone is interested in contributing, please reply. What
reasons do you use manual cameras rather than digital cameras?

I use manual digital cameras. (Most of the time, anyway.) Old-skool
manual lenses on a digital body.

What do you like about manual photography that you wouldn't get from a
digital camera.

Is that a question? Let's assume it is. I like using manual digital
cameras because I enjoy the process of exposure more than the process of
development.

Will the digital camera ever make the manual camera extinct?

I don't see why it would.

If there is anything else you'd like to add, feel free.

I already am free.

*smooch!*

Sarah wrote:
I am writing an article on the art of manual photography versus digital
photography. If anyone is interested in contributing, please reply.
What reasons do you use manual cameras rather than digital cameras?
What do you like about manual photography that you wouldn't get from a
digital camera. Will the digital camera ever make the manual camera
extinct? If there is anything else you'd like to add, feel free.
Presumably you mean a fully manual film camera vs a fully automatic
digicam. I use a fully automatic compact digicam, a fully automatic film
SLR (with manual overrides which I occasionally use), a partially
automatic film SLR (manual focus, auto exposure), a fully manual film
SLR which uses batteries for it's exposure reading only, and a fully
manual rangefinder which doesn't even take batteries. Each has it's
place. The digicam is great for compactness when carrying an SLR is not
practical. The fully auto film camera is also quite light and fast to
use, so is good for convenience. The partial manual and fully manual
SLRs are great for long exposure photography, and are good to have
onhand if I want to use a mix of film types. The fully manual
rangefinder is very handy as it is extremely quiet, light, never needs
batteries, and has an extremely sharp lens. The drawback though is that
it is a fixed focal length lens and you can't preview exactly how the
shot will look. All five cameras get regular use, and have their own
particular strengths and weaknesses.
As to digital vs film, I like the convenience of digital, the image
quality is on par with 35mm (maybe slightly lacking, but not
significant). However I like the feel/vibe however you want to describe
it of a film image. I also prefer the process - to me it feels more of a
challenge and is more rewarding when you finally discover how good/bad
the shot matched your vision when taking it. For the most part I don't
like digital, not so much because of image quality, but to me it just
feels soul-less. Like a mass-produced item of furniture vs a piece of
hand-made furniture.

Thanks so much,
Sarah

"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message
news:KKbJf.2716$qI.2502@trndny03...

While I started many years ago with film and doing my own lab work and I
think I got pretty good because of it....who am I kidding....I was
destined
to be good because I have a God-given talent for it. People shoot more
with
a digital....that should make them better...but it seems to do the
opposite.
The cheapness of a shot seems to make them not care if they take a "movie"
and save a frame.

The proof is in the print. Digital shooters tend to make more color
prints...that was just plain difficult and expensive with film.


35mm shooters get a handful of prints back everytime they pick their
developed film up from the one hour photo place, and a digital print costs
the same as an enlargement at my pro shop.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com