Marilyn

Jim Tardio's final words are so true:<BR>Digital or film, it's still f8 and be there.

Amy

I've fallen head over heels for just about every digital gadget going. I've had a few mp3 players, I use videophone, etc. However, I can't warm up to digital cameras for my trips.<BR><BR>I looked into cost, and after having spent quite a bit on 35mm a few years ago, I just can't justify doing this again for what I've always seen as lesser quality (from people I know who've used digital cameras for the same vacation shots I would). I take a lot of photos on vacation, and would need a few memory cards to get them home; which is again, more cost. Then the cost of taking them to my photo lab to get them developed seems outrageous compared to print developing from a 35mm(do people just keep them on their HD or do they actually make albums?)...it just far outweighs what I spend now and get much better quality. I also enlarge my favorite shots from each trip for either home or my office, and I've never seen a digital shot enlarged that doesn't look super grainy or slightly blurred when it's blown up.<BR><BR>I'd love to know how people do it other than the ways I've explored that yield cost-effective and high quality results. But for quality and cost, I still find 35mm preferable. Waiting for the day I can be convinced otherwise because I'd love another toy to play with!

kathy

Another benefit of digital that I haven't seen metioned is the hassle-free approach to getting on an airplane...Hand screening of film always bumps you out of the scan line and triples the time it takes for passing through security. And noone truly interested in quality of prints would let their film go through the radiation of security scanners.<BR>If you're not a professional, a nice little digital makes for hassle-free travel photos. I love my fuji s602!

dan woodlief

I have resisted going digital and really haven't been all that tempted. The real advantages of going digital to me are (1) that I maintain a Web site and would love to not have to do all that scanning and (2) that I don't like having to pay $15 for processing and never know whether my negatives will be scratched. I have stayed away from digital to this point because I don't want to put all that money into a pro digital model, which is what it would take to satisfy me. I also like getting prints of most shots, especially family photos. While I love computers, most people in my family beyond my generation don't even use computers, so it would be hard to share photos with them. Admittedly, if I had enough money to do so, I would buy 35mm equipment along with a top-notch digital system. Digital products are changing so rapidly that I would hate to buy a very expensive camera just to have better ones come along in 6 months.<BR><BR>All that said, I don't think it is going too far to say that 35mm photography does have a different feel to it that could be called &quot;sexy.&quot; <BR><BR>I probably will get into digital but expect that to happen no sooner than five years down the road.

Andrew

Amy: I must confess that even though I saw beautiful digital prints from a D30 before I bought one, I didn't take digital too seriously - until I started making prints from my own shots. Once I saw that I could equal or even blow away (in some cases) the quality of my 35mm camera, I was hooked - beyond the other advantages. 8x10 prints look amazing - 12x18 still look very good but are at the &quot;edge&quot; of what I consider acceptable quality. That goes for 35mm too, though.<BR><BR>All I can say is: before dismissing the quality of today's digital cameras, please look at some sample prints from them. My D30 is probably too expensive for most of you (though used ones might be had under a thousand now), but even cheaper cameras like the Canon S30 or G2 can produce great images. Look at some samples to see what I mean.<BR><BR>Printing costs: Costco and Wal-Mart offer digital prints from their one-hour labs at some of their stores. Same printer that prints your one-hour 35mm photos. I can get digital prints at my local Wal-Mart for 29 cents/print - I can burn them a CD or a memory card. I wouldn't trust them with my film, but with their printer, it's hard to mess things up. There are also on-line places that will print your photos for even less than 29 cents/print; upload your digital files to their site and they mail you the prints. Or with Wal-Mart's online service, upload and order, then pick up at a Wal-Mart store if you want.<BR><BR>I backup my digital photos to CD's. If you want to make a photo album, just make prints like people do from 35mm. <BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

flygirl

but, would Brassai have been able to take the same beautiful photos, with a digital camera?

Photographer

<BR><BR>In my opinion, the most important part of a photograph, besides the lighting, is the composition. A person can use elaborate and expensive technology for photographs, in the same way a person can use elaborate and expensive technology in a recording studio, but the &quot;heart&quot; of the photograph, or song, is still the composition.

Rebecka

&lt;I'm not sure why people are worried about &quot;longevity&quot; with digital but not with film.&gt;<BR><BR>I know less about film and photography than the rest of you, but felt I had to respond to this comment. One reason people may worry about longevity with digital cameras is the built in obsolesence of virtually any new technology today. Few of us - who are not wealthy - can keep up with the changes. Will all the computer upgrades and changes remain compatible with what will inevitably be older digital image technology? If so, might there still be some new system on the horizon that will signal the death knell for current systems? <BR><BR>Although traditional photographs and film have a limited shelf life, at least the &quot;hard copies&quot; have usually lasted decades. Who is to say if this will be the case with images saved on someone's harddrive or digicam? <BR><BR>Having said that, I'd love to try using a digital camera someday, but the prices will have to come down quite a bit first!<BR>

adams

Maybe I missed it in someone else's response, so let me add how convenient it is to toss a digital camera in your pocket to begin a day of sightseeing, without having to worry about a lot of paraphernalia and film.

Randy

If you like winding the film, waiting to get your prints back, etc., then stick with your 35mm.<BR><BR>I have used a 35mm for personal use and business over 40 years and I thought I would never use a digital camera. Two years ago I purchased a digital camera and I have not used my 33mm since.<BR><BR>I am in the real estate business and the digital camera has made my job much easier. <BR><BR>In the last five years I have gone to Europe on vacation. The first three years all I had was my 35mm, so naturlly I was happy with the results. The last two years I took my digital camera. I feel it is the only way to go. First of all it is a lot smaller package. My 35 mm is HEAVY. All the space saved by not having to carry the film and worry the film going through the airport x-ray machines.<BR><BR>When I came home I put all the photos on my computer hard drive and made a back-up CD. Then with the Publisher 2000 program I made 60 page photo album with the pictures, clip art, maps and captions. I was also able to crop and resize the photos to fit the page or layout. The finished album was a real improvement of the previous three years of pasted color photo prints.<BR><BR>You can have 8 X 10 color print enlargements (on real photo paper) made at Sam's Club for $1.96 each. I save the digital print to a floppy, take it to Sam's Club and I usually have the print in 30 minutes and the quality is exceptional.<BR><BR>I guess I should try to sell my old 35 mm camera now, while I still might be able to get a couple of dollars for it.<BR><BR>I would recommend that you give a digital camera a try and then you will be better able to deside which format is for you.

Dave

Regarding &quot;built-in&quot; obsolescence: Just because something better comes along doesn't make something good obsolete. <BR><BR>Cameras differ from PCs in that the ultimate purpose of cameras is to produce photographs - unlike computers where new software demands drive hardware changes which result in new software possibilities. A 20-year-old computer may still serve the purpose for which it was intended, but most people would rather play Doom than Pac-Man (as an example). THAT'S what makes the 20yo computer obsolete.<BR><BR>If you find a digital camera that produces satisfactory images you won't NEED to replace it with the latest model (although you may WANT to). Why do people still use manual film SLR's? Because they still perform the function for which they were intended - same is true of a digital camera, as long as meets your standard of performance. (The converse is also true; if the best digicam in your budget range doesn't produce images that satisfy you, then it doesn't matter if it's the latest model.)<BR><BR>The $500 Kodak DC4800 I bought in 2000 still produces excellent photos. Even though there are smaller, higher-resolution, lower-cost cameras on the market now does not make it obsolete - it still produces great photos, just as it did when I first bought it.<BR><BR>I recently bought a Minolta Dimage 7i, not because my 3MP Kodak digital was obsolete, but because using it expanded my photographic horizons so much that I was ready to move up to a new level. Just as someone with a P&amp;S film camera might decide to buy an SLR.<BR>

William

I am no professional, nor even a serious amateur, but I have just switched to digital in anticipation of our trip to Europe.<BR><BR>I still have the old cameras, including some I inherited that require cut film, but it is difficult to get batteries now for my newest SLR, and I don't want to have to haul around the lenses, filters, and film necessary to use that camera. The pictures I have taken are pretty haphazard, and I think that is because it is hard to learn photography when you have to wait so long to see your results.<BR><BR>I really like the convenience of digital; I can keep or discard results instantly and virtually without cost. Because I can see my results instantly, I am learning to be a better photographer. I can view all my shots in a relatively large format on my pc, and I can print copies of those shots I want to give to people who don't have pcs. When my grandchild is born next year, I anticipate receiving photos instantly by email.<BR><BR>As far as cost, I think digital has caught up and will soon beat film hands down. Right now film is cheap, but that is because a lot of people are still buying it. As these people move to digital, the cost of film will certainly increase, probably to the point where it will only be used by the same category of people who today use amplifiers with tubes and search in vain for new vinyl recordings. We will be spending three weeks in Europe, and I anticipate being fully armed at a cost of about $1500, including a good camera at $700, a 1G microdrive at $210, 20G of storage, which will double as an MPG player, for $330, and a wide angle lens and UV and polarizing filters, at $250. I almost forgot, add $60 for a backup battery for the camera. I will return with hundreds or thousands of shots, which we can view without additional cost. My next trip, of course, will be absolutely free, unless the hotels start charging extra for recharging my batteries.<BR><BR>I would say, if you are already equipped with non-digital equipment, go ahead and haul around all that film; but if you are getting new equipment, digital is the better buy.

Rod

Well, personally I've found this thread interesting reading and although I think that this race is about done, I’d like to add a parting shot: Most consumer grade digitals do take from 1 up to 3 seconds to “fire.” As an on-the-spot photo journalist that is flatly unacceptable.<BR><BR>Also, as a journalist I know full well that for some of the applications mentioned by Dixon and others, 35mm is not a PROFESSIONAL format. Now before anyone takes umbrage at that, yes, pro’s do use them for certain applications such as in my own field, but most people who work in fine arts photography, catalog art, and portraiture still sniff at even medium format cameras (2x2 inch, 6x4.5 cm, 6x7 cm. Negatives) as only a step or two above snapshot cameras. 35mm are generally held in some disregard. <BR><BR>Some of my friends are so glad that they can get good 8x10’s from digital and 11x14 from 35mm cameras, but people like Ansel Adams made prints from negatives that were 8x10 inches!<BR><BR>Yes, digital is FINE for the average shutterbug, particularly considering that the average person with a 35mm camera either shoots it on full auto or else has little or no idea how the camera works in a manual function mode. But, even with 35mm, no one that I know of in my profession would even consider using an automatic camera. Sometimes we really need to control depth-of-field which is patently impossible with digital. In addition the wide array of professional print (and slide) films are extremely forgiving concerning exposure latitude. On the pro end at least, digital is not. Creative focus and hyper-focus are indeed impossible with digital.<BR><BR>I too have read about the x3 technology (last month’s Discover magazine) and how a low end manufacturer, Sigma, has a camera out for at or under $1000 using the new technology and it’s testing at far above other professional digitals selling for closer to ten thousand dollars! Until the industry makes some hard decisions about standardizing it is really a case of “let the buyer beware”. Does anyone out there remember Beta video? It was superior to vhs in virtually every form of comparison but, be that as it may, you’d still be hard pressed to just pop into a video or camera shop and buy a box of beta tapes.<BR><BR>On my trips to Europe I carry a 30-year-old Nikon F with 1 lens, a 2x converter (which turns my standard 50mm lens into 100 mm) and a lead lined film bag. When I leave the hotel I have the (loaded) camera, the small converter in my jacket pocket, and a couple of extra rolls of film, hardly what you’d call packing a “lot of gear”. Really no more than a digital, extra memory card, and a sack of batteries.<BR>

ttt

digital phtography posts are the best. never dump tthem censors!

Snoopy

You're right, I'll take umbrage . . . a professionals are defined as &quot;persons receiving financial return for a service&quot; and boat loads of people, as you acknowledge, in action-related field work receive financial return and use 35mm format. Ansel Adams never spent any time on the sidelines of a professional football game with an 8x10 format camera. The VAST majority of people travelling to Europe on vacation -- afterall that's what this forum is about -- won't be taking a view camera or anything approaching an 8x10 format on their trip with them. So what's the purpose of arguing the merits of analog 8x10 over digital capability? What's more, Rod, I am sure there are plenty of people who bought SLRs that couldn't tell you what &quot;24mm f2.8&quot; actually refers to. So what? Those that can make up a very small percentage of the non-professional grade digital camera market.<BR><BR>My point -- and it is not just to be argumentative, although it probably appears that way -- has been made by several posters on this forum and it keeps getting clouded by people claiming authority status as professional photographers; there's a place for digital cameras or they wouldn't be selling like crazy. Slow to fire, no depth of field control, and small CCD footprint are about the last &quot;problem&quot; issues among the reasonably priced digital offerings today. Aside from the asthetically pleasing features of a 35mm SLR that mel alludes to in her question, there's no reason for a non-professional photographer to ignore the digital camera market for &quot;snap shot&quot; type travel photography.<BR><BR>Yes, I keep hearing that &quot;pros&quot; still take their digital work and archive it to film -- &quot;That's the way we've always done it&quot; is a goofy professional position to take. Further, I don't necessarily believe that makes a lot of sense because film is far more sensitive to temperature and humidity alterations than magnetic storage media. Think about it . . . people leave CDs and Tapes in cars that reach 120 degrees in the summer and sub-zero in the winter. What do you think that would do to film? People do lots of wierd stuff because it's familiar and they can't let go of what they know best.<BR><BR>I am not saying that analog is out. On the contrary, it will be around for a very long time. Some of the &quot;professionals&quot; on this post sound as if they are debating whether or not digital cameras are going to replace analog cameras. That's not even close to the issue. Digital cameras are simply another tool in the bag.

Tim

No depth-of-field control in digital?<BR><BR>These days the $400 class of digitals offer aperature or shutter priority; the $500 class have manual focusing for the artistic types. And the Nikons have macro capabilities that would make any photographer drool.<BR><BR>This being a Travel Forum, maybe I should emphasize two especially cool things about digicams.<BR><BR>One is the ability to stich together adjacent shots for super-wide panorama pictures -- even 360 degrees! Canon and Olympus have special provisions and software that makes it quite easy and effective.<BR><BR>Another great thing: the size. Try smuggling an SLR out of the bag for a Candid Camera shot. A pocket-size digicam will take more shots -- you won't be thinking, &quot;Geez, do I really want to lug this down to the trattoria with me?&quot;

Jim Tardio

You're absolutely right, Snoopy...&quot;there's no reason for a non-professional photographer to ignore the digital camera market for &quot;snap shot&quot; type travel photography.&quot;<BR><BR>Digitals are great for this. But so are the countless 35mm film based cameras that sell for half the price, offer 1 hour development all over the world, provide you with a hard-copy negative, prints, and the option to digitize.<BR><BR>There's no dispute that digitals are great for travel. I just feel that they're not any better than film, and introduce another set of expenses. And digital pictures have a funny way of never going beyond the computer of the person who took them. I bet many of you reading this are waiting to see digital prints promised to you by someone with a digital camera, or you yourself have made this promise but haven't delivered yet.<BR><BR>But there's no need to argue. Whether film or digital is your choice, whatever works best for you is the best way to go.<BR><BR>Understand that camera makers have to keep reinventing the same product here to stay in business. They have to sell us virtually the same thing over and over dressed in different clothes. <BR><BR>I'm looking forward to using digital when the format is standardized, and all the wrinkles have been ironed out, and the pricing is more in line with current 35mm offerings. <BR><BR><BR>

Mina

Well, whatever you shoot with Jim, your pictures are very inspiring. I thoroughly enjoyed perusing your website!

Snoopy

Point taken, Jim. I've been in the communications / data processing industry since 1974 and think nothing of the bother it can be for some people to use computers, software, and other digital gadgets. My family and inlaws all share digital media via the web, email, and CD exchange. There's not too much that we feel compelled to print anymore. Our camcorder and digital camera pics show very nicely on a large screen TV and we've made it very easy for the kids to call up practically any video or photo we've taken -- including my 35mm slides from long ago -- using the remote in the living room.

xxx

<BR><BR>And now for something completely different...<BR><BR>How about pinhole cameras? Seriously. Anyone ever used one? You can get very interesting artistic images. <BR><BR>http://www.pinhole.org/