[rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers

  • From: FRANK DERNIE <frank.dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:00:20 +0000 (GMT)

Hi Thor,
PMFJI but I tend to agree with your reasoning but still end up using a digital 
camera, usually a Leica M8.
When I started taking pictures as a schoolboy I used to really think hard about 
each shot and never waste a frame (on purpose anyway).
I have never changed this habit even though the financial constraint has gone. 
I bought a motor drive for my Nikon F2, probably around 1980 or so and only had 
it on the camera once. I hated the bulk and weight and found I could wind on 
fast enough for me with my thumb.
I have never used the sequence or motor drive style setting on any digital 
camera I have used.
Certainly I admire the old photographers their amazing technical skills, 
largely (but not always) superceded by clever electronic automation today. But 
the most important thing is still the photographer pointing the camera in the 
right direction and pressing the button at the right moment. No amount of 
automation will do that for him/her! I think if one relies on a motor drive 
there is a possibility of a collection of frames either side of the "moment" 
but the moment missed.
I enjoy my photography. I use film rarely and digital mostly. The way I go 
about taking my picture has not changed much in 47 years, the way I look at 
them afterwards has. The convenience of changing effective film speed at will 
is a huge benefit to this amateur who has so often been caught with a slow film 
(Kodachrome) in the camera and not enough light. The joy of being able to look 
at my results on my computer in the evening even if I have only taken 1 
photograph that day, rather than waiting to finish the film, is another.
So I agree with what you say and do, I just do it with a digital camera 
nowadays.
cheers,
Frank


--- On Thu, 15/1/09, Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: 
> OT Ancient Computers
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Thursday, 15 January, 2009, 5:28 PM
> 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
> > http://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
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: