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

  • From: "dnygr" <dnygr@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:17:32 GMT

Amen.
I know people with Large Format cameras who do well with very few exposures. Is 
there a rule of the universe that states the number of great is directly 
inverse to the number of exposures you take?
Top of the day to you all--Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: "Thor Legvold" <tlegvold@xxxxxxx>
Sent 1/15/2009 11:28:21 AM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT 
Ancient ComputersSo 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

Other related posts: