mel

I was just reading the digital photography thread &amp; it occurred to me that although I am usually into the latest gadgets &amp; technology..I have no desire to give up my 35mm compact camera! I'm not sure quite why it is ...I guess I just find using film somehow more 'romantic' for want of a better word. <BR>-I love winding it on &amp; waiting till it advances to the first negative.<BR>-I love being surprised when I get my developed photos back &amp; discovering which ones turned out better than expected...&amp; which worse.<BR>-I love trying to decide between all the different brands &amp; speeds of film available.<BR>-I love taking time to compose the shot carefully so I don't 'waste' a shot.<BR>Am I alone in clinging on to this evermore outdated ideal?

Andrew

I'm a photographer and I use both digital and 35mm. I currently use a Canon D30 (digital SLR) which has a few limitations that necessitate using 35mm for some things, but Canon has just released the 1Ds, which is an 11MP camera and should eliminate the need for film entirely. It should rival medium format in quality of large prints.<BR><BR>Here are the things I don't miss about film when using digital:<BR><BR>- I know right away whether my shots are exposed correctly (some situations have tricky lighting).<BR>- I can change &quot;ISO&quot; ratings on the fly (between 100 ISO and 1600 ISO in my case) without swapping film for different circumstances. How many times have you loaded ISO 100 film only to go into a low-light situation next?<BR>- I don't have to worry about the photo lab losing my film, scratching my negatives, producing dusty prints, or printing the images too light or too dark...or not paying an arm and a leg for top-quality processing otherwise. No other human can mess up my images (only I can. . To do this with film I'd have to have a darkroom of my own.<BR>- I can get my photos instantly and even print them without anyone else's help - no need to run to a one-hour place, at great quality compared to a polaroid.<BR>- Because digital is &quot;free&quot; I can shoot more images than I normally would, with different compositions and angles, without worrying about cost. I can experiment as much as I want without worrying about cost or asking myself &quot;Is this worth the $15/roll the film will cost me?&quot;<BR>- I don't have to worry about archiving negatives, slides, or prints - I can burn my digital originals to multiple CD's and even store them in different locations in case one copy is ruined.<BR>The copies are as good as the originals.<BR><BR>There are probably more...<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

Tim

Add to Andrew: <BR><BR>You can easily send your pics anywhere in the world instantly. To appreciate this without taking the plunge: Next time you develop a roll of film, pop for an extra $9 or so and check the box marked PhotoCD. You'll get digipics back with your prints, along with a viewer and editor.<BR><BR>(BTW: For the REAL &quot;romantics,&quot; most digicams have a Black &amp; White mode...)

Marilyn

Andrew, all I can say is, AMEN! And how about never having to change film at the exact wrong moment? <BR><BR>mel, you're probably one of those guys who still uses a typewriter(not that there's anything wrong with it...).

mel

Ahh, actually Marilyn I'm a girl <BR>....&amp; I use my nifty laptop (complete with DVD player!) to type on...thats why I'm so perplexed that I just don't 'get' the appeal of digital photography.

Monbeam

I never got the appeal of digital either..until I got one! I run around taking pictures of everything..things I never would have bothered with before.<BR><BR>It is great fun to see your pictures instantly,to be able to fool around with effects and to email them off without the bother of scanning them, which always messed up the quality anyway.<BR><BR>Good suggestion above..get the next roll developed with a CD or floppy ( I haven't tried the floppy but I see it advertised at my photo store) and when you see those pics come up on the screen , you'll be hooked.

kathypompe

mel, You are not alone in liking the strong and magical appeal of tradional &quot;chemical based&quot; photography. Art schools and university art programs still consider this direction as the foundation to the field of photography. Although, most schools now include digital classes to keep pace with advances in the field, as well as to introduce new aspects of thought and composition to the area of photography (all those exciting things that were mentioned above in previous responses that now extend the possibilities in photography.) But, if you're like most photographers, you'll never give up tradional photography. Instead, you'll start to include the new possibilites inherent in the digital imaging area. I've been teaching photography at the univsrsity level for about twenty years and continue to do work in most photographic techniques. This holds true with most of my friends in the field.

Karo

I love my digital camera. Before, I would take several pictures of a the same sight, just in case. This was usually flowers, then I would get home, have them developed and say &quot;Why did I take so many pictures of that flower?&quot; I would use only one and 'waste' the rest of them. With the digital, I print only the one I want. After the initial output, it is a great money saver. Also, the ability to fix a picture electronically is great. Another thing is the room in my bag that film takes up - no longer a problem.<BR>

mj

Mel,<BR>Rats, you let the cat out of the bag! It is romantic, in a sexy way. Film could be considered &quot;long and slow&quot; that can be sped up (somewhat) when the need arises; where digital is &quot;instant gratification&quot; <BR><BR>It's a very subjective topic and, I'm biased and firmly in the non-digital camp to the point that I'm still using a manual focus 35mm SLRs - bullet proof older Olympus OM models.<BR><BR>Without launching into a thread war, Andrew makes valid points about digital. But he's a pro and has looked at the technology with his business in mind. Amatures have no such constraints and can choose what suits their fancy.<BR><BR>From the amature's perspective here's my take for NOT choosing digital:<BR><BR><BR>Admittedly, I've spent ~$3,000 over 25 years on my equipment but you'd be hard pressed to duplicate the results I can get with any digital product. <BR><BR>A couple of reasons digital isn't so great:<BR>- You're tied to batteries and certain conditions (weather). Case in point when we went to Mt. Blanc, I'm shooting away w/a 20+ year old OM2 and the guy w/a digital is having problems getting his (w/fresh batteries) to work - it was -5F. P.S., I can still take pics w/a failed battery - try that w/a digital.<BR><BR>- It's a lot more fun (and easier) to put a (print) photo album together...that romantic thing you know, let's curl up on the couch and look at last year's trip vs. let's gather around the Monitor and... <BR>- printing time/cost for those keepsake prints you make from digital.<BR><BR>- will you be using the same digital camera 20 years from now? Somehow, I don't think so...the paradigm has changed.<BR><BR>My $0.02 is digital cameras for the masses are, IMHO, short on quality and long on price. Someday, that will change and then...the romance will be gone or redefined as the case may be. Until then, I'll stick with what I've got.<BR>

Dave

I have no desire to go back to film. I use a camera to take photos - that's it, no warm&amp;fuszzy feelings, no metaphysical undercurrents. For me, ease-of-use, optimum control and (most importantly) excellent results are what matter. Digital is the best way for me to get consistently good results efficiently.<BR><BR>-I love not waiting for film to advance, not having to changing film in awkward places, and not running out of exposures.<BR>-I love not being surprised when I get my developed photos back.<BR>-I love not having to decide between all the different brands &amp; speeds of film available.<BR>-I love taking time to compose the shot carefully while knowing that it doesn't matter if I 'waste' a shot.<BR>

x

My husband really wanted a digital camera, so we got one. He is always up on the latest stuff, and even though I love our regular 35mm and he loves his SLR, we both agree that the digital is not for us. Now it only gets used to take pictures of things to sell on eBay. But at least its getting some use

Shanna

Ah, Mel and MJ - thank you so much. I thought it was just me who loved my old SLR - Canon AE1. It can do an automatic exposure, but I seldom use that feature. After working in a dark room, I've come to like doing the magic things with chemicals. And people may think it's cheaper with digital, but you must have a computer that can handle it and so does everyone you send a photo to. And the IT bullies expect you to upgrade annually, at great expense. The grannies I know want the photo in their wallets and aren't interested in lugging a computer around to show the grandkids off to friends. The printed pictures don't seem all that great unless you have professional equipment and supplies. Digital is good for what it does, but it ain't art or romance. IMHO.

Tai

If I may jump in, I agree totally with Andrew about the advantages of digital photography, as well as some points made by others about &quot;analog&quot; photography. <BR><BR>Talking about manual winding makes me nostalgic for my first camera in the 80's, a Minolta x-700 manual focus, manual winding camera. Took lots of good pics with that one. Taught me a lot about photography, too, since film and processing are expensive for a student - I had to think about each shot as they came out to about 30 cents a pop.<BR><BR>Anyway, back to the future. Andrew said it's about $15 per roll. Add in scanning, and it's easily over $20. That's at a local discount developer. Then add in the headache of dealing with poor printing and cropping. Less headaches by going to a shop that cater to pros, but the cost is then closer to $30 a roll. Save by doing mail order, then pray your memories aren't lost in the mail. <BR><BR>I've had my digital camera, a Sony F505V, for over 2 years and have taken quite a bit over 5000 photos. That's 140 rolls x $20 = $2800 saved, conservatively. As others pointed out, a digital camera encourages experimenting since it's all &quot;free&quot;. <BR><BR>About the only disadvantage of digital cameras is that the CCD sensor is still much smaller than a 35mm negative. While this doesn't mean poor resolution, the DOF is noticeably wider than with the same focal length and aperture on a 35mm camera. So portraitures aren't as dramatic since more of the background is in focus, even at the widest aperture. <BR><BR>FYI, digitalphotocontest.com is a good place to see what digital cameras are capable of.

Dave

I thought doing magic things with chemicals was illegal - or do you live in the Netherlands?<BR><BR>As for cost/quality, it's very difficult to compare without being specific. FOR ME, digital results in lower-cost, better-quality photos. I do still print out many photos and create photo albums - faster and cheaper than developing film (again, FOR ME).<BR>

TC

I never thought I'd love a digital, but I do. Why? For all the above stated reasons, and...<BR>-because I can pop my Sony Cyber-shot in an underwater housing and use it while snorkeling and diving.<BR>-because I get much better color than with film developed at the photo marts.<BR>-because the airport scanners can't destroy my images.<BR>-because I can zoom in on images after they have been downloaded into my computer without losing quality.<BR>-because I can &quot;fix&quot; images after the fact - like removing unwanted people, signage, etc.<BR>-because I can take a completely dark photo and enhance the light after the fact as if it had been shot with a flash.<BR>-because I have so much fun adding &quot;illusions&quot; to the photos creating &quot;watercolors&quot;, &quot;oil paintings&quot;, &quot;etchings&quot; and the like.<BR>I still have my 35mm Pentax, but I'm hooked on digital.

Anne

For my Europe trip in October, we had the best of both. I took my point &amp; shoot, Dad took his digital. I've already developed my pics and have them in an album. I had photo CDs done at the same time. Whenever Dad gets his pc hooked back up (nothing like coming back from Europe then moving two weeks later!), he'll burn his on a CD for me. Here's where I need help...what next? I'd like to make an &quot;electronic&quot; photo album, so the pictures are organized and labeled. Any of you do anything like this? What software do you recommend? Once I get our Europe photo album, I'll be scanning all of our old family photos and doing family albums to share on CD. I'd appreciate any advice (including referrals to websites to help with my research!)<BR><BR><BR>thanks.<BR>Anne

xxx

<BR>Mel, I think it's quite typical, with any new technology, for people to not understand the appeal until they actually use it. I'm like you in that it currently doesn't really appeal to me but, on the other hand, I have yet to use a digital camera. Have you ever tried using one? <BR><BR>Also, new technology does not mean that old technology has to disappear. Even with the overwhelming conquest of music CDs, some people still prefer the sound of vinyl, and the pervasiveness of telephones doesn't mean everyone has stopped writing letters.

Marilyn

xxx has just used the exact analogy I was thinking about as I read the posts since my earlier one. Digital is a wonderful addition to both the art and technology of photography, but it certainly will not eliminate traditional film. Sometimes you write a letter, sometimes you make a phone call, and sometimes you send an email. They are all useful and valuable means of communication, variously appropriate or convenient under different circumstances. For travel photography, digital is often very convenient, but for shooting studio portraits, for example, one might choose otherwise.<BR><BR>mel, sorry I got your gender wrong. It's so darn hard to tell with electronic communication. And what about all those xxx's?

Mina

I am a recent convert. I can definitely see that a good traditional camera yields better results, but since what I always used was a point and shoot, the digitial camera is an improvement.<BR><BR>It also has made me a better photographer (Since I take terrible pictures, that's not saying much.) With my 35mm, I would look through the viewfinder and only focus on the subject. With the digital display, I learned to be aware of every corner of the picture, which made for a better photo overall. (I didn't cut things off as much!) Also, as many have already mentioned, I got to &quot;practice&quot; on the same subject, and learned about some of the subtle things that made for a better shot.<BR><BR>But if I ever really get good at this, I'll probably go back to film!

S. C. DIXON

Well, as a Commercial studio owner for 29 years as of last November, let me weigh in here. My studios have had digital capabilities since 1991 and we use it in myriad ways (retouching, image manipulation, etc.)<BR><BR> However, it is our rule that NOTHING important (i.e. weddings, family portraits) is to be shot on digital. There are just too many variables, files can be erased, destroyed externally, or lost in cyberspace too easily, there are too many competing formats out there to insure achievability. Film is tried and true and has been so for well over a century. At the time of processing we often have a CD-ROM made, but the foundation is always built on film.<BR><BR>As far as image quality the new Kodak Portra medium and large format films are absolutely unapproachable by anything available (yet) in digital. The color, shading, and nuance of the film is absolutely unsurpassed. <BR><BR>Black and white photographic images can remain stable indefinitely; we still have the prints that Brady made of Lincoln in the early 1860’s. As to the half-life of a digital image who can say?<BR><BR>A video taped TV show or movie will always pale in comparison to 35mm movie film, particularly in black and white.<BR><BR>Now a new technology, X3, an innovation on existing digital foundations, will probably make anything on the market today, even cameras for the pro’s that costs THOUSANDS of dollars, obsolete in as little as 2 or 3 years.<BR><BR>If you are a serious photographer digital can be construed as a step backwards in some respects, i.e. time we used to spend in the darkroom is now spent at the computer. You can’t be earning money with your camera while chained down to a monitor. That’s why professional labs liberated us from the darkroom in the first place.<BR><BR>As far as saving money on film, flashcards, sticks, etc. are very expensive and, personally speaking, when I’m shooting digital I will almost always spend as much on batteries or power packs as I would ever have spent on film.<BR><BR>Other than just from the business standpoint, I know several respected photographic artists and none of them are working in digital. All have tried it and found it lacking in at least one or two respects with film. Rest assured that film is going to be around for a while yet.<BR>