[rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:37:45 -0800
NO, that is your interpretation as an amateur who probably has never shot a
wedding. I have and can tell you it makes a difference. Nice try though.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> So basically what you're saying is that with digital you don't have to plan
> as much. It doesn't require one to be as structured or professional.
>
> People managed to shoot weddings with Hassies and get plenty of great shots
> (at 12 frames/roll), I wouldn't say that the results have gotten better with
> 35mm or digital. You just have to organize yourself differently. With
> digital you don't have to organize yourself much at all it seems. Just fire
> away and then spend time sorting through the avalanche of data. Instead of
> spending time on capturing the proper instant, people spend time 'fixing it
> in the mix' (i.e. PhotoShop). In music (one of my trades) that just means
> more time spent fixing things, and the result will never be as good as if
> you recorded it right in the first place.
>
> I was at an amusement park last summer with my son, he was driving a
> miniature car (one of the rides). I found a nice viewpoint, metered the
> light and focused at about the point where he would appear (with a manual
> FM3a), and fired off 2 or 3 shots of him as he came around the bend. Another
> father came and stood beside me with his prosumer digital rig, his kid came
> around the bend and it sounded like a machine gun as he fired off I don't
> know how many gazillion shots. Ugh. For me that's not what photography is
> about.
>
> Maybe (maybe) I could understand the need in sports (where you absolutely
> have to get a shot), or a war zone (where you want to keep in safety), but
> on the other hand it seems that all this new kit requires less and less of
> the trade, of knowledge, awareness, of making the tools an extension of
> yourself, and is something "anyone" can do. It makes me appreciate all the
> more photographers who were able to excel while using (by todays standards)
> primitive equipment - Capa and the Contax II, Penn and the Rolleiflex spring
> to mind, I'm sure there are *countless* others.
>
> My experience is that real creativity and excellence appears more often
> when there are limitations. Today's equipment does 'everything' and removes
> all limitations, which also (IMHO) removes the photographer from really
> immersing him/her self in the act itself, of getting 'in the zone' to borrow
> a phrase from a different discipline.
>
> While I appreciate technology, I don't see it as a solution in many cases.
> Usually it carries with it it's own problems and challenges (which we have
> so far conveniently ignored as a society). And I'm a comparatively young
> guy. Both film and digital have merits, but I know for me at least, I'm a
> better photographer when working manually, with film, than with a digital
> wonder box that does everything for me. Even if I can turn off all the bells
> and whistles.
>
> Just my rant.
>
> Cheers,
> Thor
>
>
>
>
> On 15. jan.. 2009, at 00.39, Peter K. wrote:
>
> Austin,
>>
>> Look all I did was offer an opinion with some numbers. You can look at
>> things several ways and crunch numbers like you want. I have not seen many
>> places that do 35mm film development only for $2-3. It could be cost
>> effective. But now you have to add in scanning and a scanner. And the photos
>> do not magically organize themselves whether you have them in print or scans
>> of negatives. So your $12 an hour comment is meaningless. No matter how you
>> try there are still 10K images from film or digital to organize. And no way
>> around it, so for me it equals out. Plus if I am shooting an event, I do not
>> have to change rolls. Think about it. The bride walks down the aisle. Uh-oh.
>> I am on frame 35. But with digital, I have thousands of available shots.
>> Sure I could have a second camera but again then you would have a limited #
>> of shots with film. Not with digital and a decent size memory card. And I
>> can take 3000 shots and throw away 2000 and have 1000 great shots and guess
>> what, it cost me nothing but the time to look at them. A big benefit for a
>> wedding photographer. I can shoot 3-5 shots of a group, if someone closes
>> there eyes in one I go to the next where they are open.
>>
>> Austin, somehow I knew you would want to argue this. Not sure why you
>> always do this but I am not looking to start a long thread here. So let's
>> just say, different strokes for different folks. You like film, great.
>> Others like digital. Let's leave it alone.
>>
>> Respond all you want but I will not answer because it will only lead to
>> more posts.
>>
>> Peter K
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM, austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx <
>> austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> > So if we take a roll of 36 exp and figure $10 for processing
>>
>> Simply develop only is a LOT cheaper, like $2-$3.
>>
>> > ...still a $2100 savings over processing.
>>
>> Amount of time to deal with (copy, organize, Photoshop, print etc.) 10,000
>> digital images...worth far more than $2100. Unless you are unemployed, or
>> make just above $12/hour, or simply like spending your spare time dealing
>> with 10,000 digital images.
>>
>> In reality, Peter, you're not including a LOT of expenses that, for some
>> strange reason, digital justifiers tend to handily leave out in order to
>> "make their case" for digital offering a "savings" over film. It does for
>> some, no doubt, but for most people, it's just not the case.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Austin
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter K
>> Ó¿Õ¬
>>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in
> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
Other related posts:
