Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

digital is wining

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 12:44:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What do you think about it:
http://www.plgaleria.com/index.php?fotografia=553
I think in analog photography cost of it is to big.

--
Qbab
www.barbasz.republika.pl

More about : digital wining

Anonymous
April 6, 2005 1:03:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
accessories, and hardware costs.

Jules
http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
on the net!
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 9:50:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112760213.636629.242280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
> to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
> accessories, and hardware costs.
>
> Jules
> http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
> on the net!

But with digital the more you shoot the cheaper it costs per shot...
Related resources
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 11:23:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Julian Tan wrote:

> Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
> to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
> accessories, and hardware costs.

Those are all one-time costs though. The CDN$1800 I dropped for my
DRebel with extended grip, two batteries and 512MB memory card is
currently at about 49 cents per picture with the 3700+ frames I've shot,
and gets cheaper with every subsequent shot. I don't have to keep
paying for them over and over.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 2:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dirty Harry wrote:
> "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112760213.636629.242280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
>>to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
>>accessories, and hardware costs.
>>
>>Jules
>>http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
>>on the net!
>
>
> But with digital the more you shoot the cheaper it costs per shot...
>
>
I spent about $450 for my current camera and memory cards. I have taken
about 1750 pictures with it so far, and have printed less than 50. So,
I am sitting around $.03 per picture at the moment, and every time I
click the shutter, it gets cheaper.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 7:46:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> writes:

> Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
> to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
> accessories, and hardware costs.

Most of those are one time costs except for the prints, and unless you print
the majority of shots you take as a 4x6 (multiple prints and larger prints
would be the same for both), digital comes out ahead. Before I bought my DSLR
and its lenses, I was definately in the digital saves me money side of the
eqaution, even considering all of the gear I've bought. I figure it will be
only a few months before I'm saving more money by using digital.

And note, equipment lust occurs in the film side of the equation too.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 8:07:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I think that in this example cost good photo is lower for digital then
analog.
Of course you can do similar in analog photography in one shot but
probability is not big :) 
In this kind of picture digital is winning :) 

--
Fotki ? Jak nie jak tak.
www.barbasz.republika.pl
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 8:07:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This talk of winning and losing seems to indicate that photography is a
zero-sum game. Isn't there room for both? To me digital is just
another format. I didn't get rid of my 35mm equipment when I got a
medium format camera, nor did I get rid of my film equipment when I got
into digital. Room for both as far as I am concerned.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 12:33:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1112807393.6e178b954f4c2fe8b05fc147dac296b9@teranews>,
Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

> This talk of winning and losing seems to indicate that photography is a
> zero-sum game. Isn't there room for both? To me digital is just
> another format. I didn't get rid of my 35mm equipment when I got a
> medium format camera, nor did I get rid of my film equipment when I got
> into digital. Room for both as far as I am concerned.

Yes there is & Your not alone.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:13:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer wrote:
> This talk of winning and losing seems to indicate that photography is a
> zero-sum game. Isn't there room for both? To me digital is just
> another format. I didn't get rid of my 35mm equipment when I got a
> medium format camera, nor did I get rid of my film equipment when I got
> into digital. Room for both as far as I am concerned.
I still have several film cameras. It would be silly to try to sell any
of them, except for one that is a collector's item, but I never expect
to actually USE one of them again. Digital just does what I want to do
better, faster, cheaper.
YMMV

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:13:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MG05e.1877$Ax7.1256@fe04.lga...
> Don Stauffer wrote:
> It would be silly to try to sell any
> of them, except for one that is a collector's item, but I never expect
> to actually USE one of them again. Digital just does what I want to do
> better, faster, cheaper.


Yes, if you have low standards, I am sure it is true.
> YMMV
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:15:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
>>to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
>>accessories, and hardware costs.
>
>
> Most of those are one time costs except for the prints, and unless you print
> the majority of shots you take as a 4x6 (multiple prints and larger prints
> would be the same for both), digital comes out ahead. Before I bought my DSLR
> and its lenses, I was definately in the digital saves me money side of the
> eqaution, even considering all of the gear I've bought. I figure it will be
> only a few months before I'm saving more money by using digital.
>
> And note, equipment lust occurs in the film side of the equation too.
>
At 1750 and rising, I am already about $100 ahead using going rates for
developing and printing a 24 roll of color print film on 4x6 paper.
It's all free now, right? Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:34:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"digital winning" is thru in this exampla not in all.
MF is in landscape best for me (LF is to hevy)
I think you know what I think :) 

www.barbasz.republika.pl
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:34:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d31dhk$iig$1@news.onet.pl>,
"Qbab" <barbasz.wytnij@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:

> "digital winning" is thru in this exampla not in all.
> MF is in landscape best for me (LF is to hevy)
> I think you know what I think :) 
>
> www.barbasz.republika.pl

Ah - LF is "not" too heavy,...if Josef Sudek
could manage an 8x10 so can you :-)

And so can I.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 2:59:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
: In article <d31dhk$iig$1@news.onet.pl>,
: "Qbab" <barbasz.wytnij@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:

: > "digital winning" is thru in this exampla not in all.
: > MF is in landscape best for me (LF is to hevy)
: > I think you know what I think :) 
: >
: > www.barbasz.republika.pl

: Ah - LF is "not" too heavy,...if Josef Sudek
: could manage an 8x10 so can you :-)

: And so can I.

I've got a friend with an 11x14 that weighs more then he does.
In the field he drags the camera behind him on a cart.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 3:05:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
: Dirty Harry wrote:
: > "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:1112760213.636629.242280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
: >
: >>Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
: >>to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
: >>accessories, and hardware costs.
: >>
: >>Jules
: >>http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
: >>on the net!
: >
: >
: > But with digital the more you shoot the cheaper it costs per shot...
: >
: >
: I spent about $450 for my current camera and memory cards. I have taken
: about 1750 pictures with it so far, and have printed less than 50. So,
: I am sitting around $.03 per picture at the moment, and every time I
: click the shutter, it gets cheaper.


Just think of how much effort you would have saved if you only took the 50
pictures that you ended up printing.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:05:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Wayan wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:MG05e.1877$Ax7.1256@fe04.lga...
>
>>Don Stauffer wrote:
>>It would be silly to try to sell any
>> of them, except for one that is a collector's item, but I never expect
>>to actually USE one of them again. Digital just does what I want to do
>>better, faster, cheaper.
>
>
>
> Yes, if you have low standards, I am sure it is true.
>
>>YMMV
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
>
If by 'low standards', you mean I don't insist on an 8x10 view camera,
yes, they are quite low. If you mean I don't like good pictures,
simply, and easily taken, and migrated to my computer, then you are
wrong. My most important criteria are color accuracy and detail up to
the limits of visibility on a 4x6 print, and convenience, in that order.
I don't examine 8x10 prints with a loupe, and I don't print 20x30, and I
don't carry a color matching card around. And you should know that the
cameras I am talking about are such as the Minox B, Ricoh 35 mm, and a
Kodak Pocket Instamatic 42. Which one would you want to buy? Warning,
the Minox has salt air and coral dust damage. I keep it for sentimental
reasons.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:08:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank Pittel wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> : Dirty Harry wrote:
> : > "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : > news:1112760213.636629.242280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> : >
> : >>Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
> : >>to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
> : >>accessories, and hardware costs.
> : >>
> : >>Jules
> : >>http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
> : >>on the net!
> : >
> : >
> : > But with digital the more you shoot the cheaper it costs per shot...
> : >
> : >
> : I spent about $450 for my current camera and memory cards. I have taken
> : about 1750 pictures with it so far, and have printed less than 50. So,
> : I am sitting around $.03 per picture at the moment, and every time I
> : click the shutter, it gets cheaper.
>
>
> Just think of how much effort you would have saved if you only took the 50
> pictures that you ended up printing.

None. IT would have been wasted as the ones I printed are not among the
best, just the ones OTHERS wanted. I only print for other people. I
view my pictures on the computer.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 12:31:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> I still have several film cameras. It would be silly to try to sell any
> of them, except for one that is a collector's item, but I never expect
> to actually USE one of them again. Digital just does what I want to do
> better, faster, cheaper.
> YMMV
>
I would LOVE to have a real DSLR. However, I can't seem to find them as
cheap as my film SLR. My wife just bought a film Nikon N65, for around
200 bucks. Cheapest DSLR I can find is over 800. Some of my photography
is macro stuff, where it is important to place plane of best focus very
precisely along objects. LCD readout just doesn't hack it. So I need
SLR. But can't afford a digital one.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 1:08:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

: Many, if not most, of my pictures are simply records of times, places,
: or people. Maximum possible quality is not as important as capturing
: the moment.

I agree. When I take photos the fall into several categories. One
category is "publish worthy". There may be 2 or 3 per thousand taken that
would be of the quality of the ones in publications such as magazines. The
next category is "show off". These are the ones that I may print off and
show to my friends and relatives. Frequently these are vacation photos
documenting place and event. This probably comes to about 20 or 30 per
hundred. The vast majority of my photos are "memorys". They will never
mean much to anyone but me. Theme, composition, subject, etc they are on
par with the photos that you get from a child with a P&S camera. :)  But
since their main purpose is to spark memories of the time and place and
what I was thinking and feeling at that moment, they don't have to have
much "polish".

Now from day to day the numbers change. There are some days when I get
lucky and find 1 per hundred photos to be "publish". On other days I'm
lucky if I get 10 memories in the entire day. On the latter day a camera
is more use as a paper weight. :)  I am philosophical about it. Since I
rarely plan out photos in advance (beyond the most broad outline) I
realize that it is basically the luck of the draw. If I'm in the right
place, at the right time, looking in the right direction, with my camera
at hand, Magic can happen. Other days nothing more dramatic than grass
growing catches my eye.

It is true that the majority of my photos don't need a high quality
camera, but I am never sure when the great photo will pop into my view.
And since I don't need to carry two cameras, I shoot everything with my
good camera.

So I agree that some discussions here about acceptable image quality is
two people talking about different purposes. Both are right, from their
personal point of view. Some may be disappointed that they only get 2
photos per 500 that are of the quality as they see in photo magazines.
Others are happy if they get 90 of a hundred that show what the photog is
seeing, with one photo out of several DAYS of shooting that catches the
eye and imagination. Both views are right and both views are wrong. :) 

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 3:51:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
> : Many, if not most, of my pictures are simply records of times, places,
> : or people. Maximum possible quality is not as important as capturing
> : the moment.
>
> I agree. When I take photos the fall into several categories. One
> category is "publish worthy". There may be 2 or 3 per thousand taken that
> would be of the quality of the ones in publications such as magazines. The
> next category is "show off". These are the ones that I may print off and
> show to my friends and relatives. Frequently these are vacation photos
> documenting place and event. This probably comes to about 20 or 30 per
> hundred. The vast majority of my photos are "memorys". They will never
> mean much to anyone but me. Theme, composition, subject, etc they are on
> par with the photos that you get from a child with a P&S camera. :)  But
> since their main purpose is to spark memories of the time and place and
> what I was thinking and feeling at that moment, they don't have to have
> much "polish".
>
> Now from day to day the numbers change. There are some days when I get
> lucky and find 1 per hundred photos to be "publish". On other days I'm
> lucky if I get 10 memories in the entire day. On the latter day a camera
> is more use as a paper weight. :)  I am philosophical about it. Since I
> rarely plan out photos in advance (beyond the most broad outline) I
> realize that it is basically the luck of the draw. If I'm in the right
> place, at the right time, looking in the right direction, with my camera
> at hand, Magic can happen. Other days nothing more dramatic than grass
> growing catches my eye.
>
> It is true that the majority of my photos don't need a high quality
> camera, but I am never sure when the great photo will pop into my view.
> And since I don't need to carry two cameras, I shoot everything with my
> good camera.
>
> So I agree that some discussions here about acceptable image quality is
> two people talking about different purposes. Both are right, from their
> personal point of view. Some may be disappointed that they only get 2
> photos per 500 that are of the quality as they see in photo magazines.
> Others are happy if they get 90 of a hundred that show what the photog is
> seeing, with one photo out of several DAYS of shooting that catches the
> eye and imagination. Both views are right and both views are wrong. :) 
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>

The 'pros' in the group are concerned with marketability, and the
serious amateurs are more interested in artistic merit, and technical
values. Most of us are satisfied if the picture renders a scene more or
less as we recall seeing it. Of the 450 pictures I have posted of my
Alaskan Cruise, about a dozen have some artistic merit, and the rest
just document the experience.
I doubt anyone would pay for any of them, but then you never know what
will strike the fancy of a buyer....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 4:00:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> I still have several film cameras. It would be silly to try to sell
>> any of them, except for one that is a collector's item, but I never
>> expect to actually USE one of them again. Digital just does what I
>> want to do better, faster, cheaper.
>> YMMV
>>
> I would LOVE to have a real DSLR. However, I can't seem to find them as
> cheap as my film SLR. My wife just bought a film Nikon N65, for around
> 200 bucks. Cheapest DSLR I can find is over 800. Some of my photography
> is macro stuff, where it is important to place plane of best focus very
> precisely along objects. LCD readout just doesn't hack it. So I need
> SLR. But can't afford a digital one.

Purchase price is certainly a bar to entry into the digital world for
many, and will be for some time. It IS getting better, though. I spend
$65 for a 256MB SD card back in May last year, and now they are under
$20. Prices will come down. Also, if you adjust the prices for
inflation, you may find that the $800 digital is actually 'cheaper' than
the old SLR you bought 15 years ago.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:03:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <6J05e.1882$Ax7.1030@fe04.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>At 1750 and rising, I am already about $100 ahead using going rates for
>developing and printing a 24 roll of color print film on 4x6 paper.
>It's all free now, right? Grin.

Somehow, the 'take more pictures because it is free' doesn't work for me.
I don't see a point in typing a lot of text in a text editor because it
doesn't cost any money. Same thing with video: just let the tape run, you
can erase it afterwards. Except that you have to spend the time cataloging
the tape.

When I carefully plan a shot, taking composition, lighting, DoF, 'decisive
moment', etc. into account then I simply don't take that many shots.

If I start out with the idea that I simply take a large number of shots and
select the best one later, then it very likely that there is something
wrong with all of the shots. The only way to get it right is to think
long enough about the shot before you take it.

Of course there are other situations where a picture is more of an experiment
(and then of course the direct feedback of digital helps a lot). And there
are situations where you just have to rely on luck.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:03:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <rpuir011li5m5cvuiohvgj38m2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:
>
> Somehow, the 'take more pictures because it is free' doesn't work for me.
> I don't see a point in typing a lot of text in a text editor because it
> doesn't cost any money. Same thing with video: just let the tape run, you
> can erase it afterwards. Except that you have to spend the time cataloging
> the tape.
>
> When I carefully plan a shot, taking composition, lighting, DoF, 'decisive
> moment', etc. into account then I simply don't take that many shots.
>
> If I start out with the idea that I simply take a large number of shots and
> select the best one later, then it very likely that there is something
> wrong with all of the shots. The only way to get it right is to think
> long enough about the shot before you take it.
>
> Of course there are other situations where a picture is more of an experiment
> (and then of course the direct feedback of digital helps a lot). And there
> are situations where you just have to rely on luck.

A couple of points:

Most users, not pro's or serious amateurs are of the same mind set as
Ron. From their stand point there is nothing wrong with the P&S
mentality. Arguing will be of no avail, why because for most digital
provides a better solution for their desire to take more pictures and in
general to get better than previous results when 4x6 prints are wanted.

Most people never want a bigger print than 8x10 and then the differences
between what is good and bad are very sketchy,.... most people can see
the two when compared side by side but relative interest in
understanding why is quickly lost on the general populous. That's not
say people in general can not see great work and appreciate it. Most
when offered the chance see Ansel Adams work and buy it versus printing
it off a low resolution website would opt for the latter. (This is an
exaggeration but can be applied to any artwork of greater or lesser
value, the general consumer wants cheap and lots of it.)

On the other hand "we" those that actually do imaging as a profession
take time to look at all the benefits and draw conclusions based our
experiences. When one becomes methodical in ones work, which is apart
but should be not independent of creativity (for a pro) Then ones work
bespeaks that thought filled process regardless of what one is using to
create the result. This last point seems to be missed on both sides of
the for and against digital discussion.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:03:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <6J05e.1882$Ax7.1030@fe04.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>At 1750 and rising, I am already about $100 ahead using going rates for
>>developing and printing a 24 roll of color print film on 4x6 paper.
>>It's all free now, right? Grin.
>
>
> Somehow, the 'take more pictures because it is free' doesn't work for me.
> I don't see a point in typing a lot of text in a text editor because it
> doesn't cost any money. Same thing with video: just let the tape run, you
> can erase it afterwards. Except that you have to spend the time cataloging
> the tape.
>
> When I carefully plan a shot, taking composition, lighting, DoF, 'decisive
> moment', etc. into account then I simply don't take that many shots.
>
> If I start out with the idea that I simply take a large number of shots and
> select the best one later, then it very likely that there is something
> wrong with all of the shots. The only way to get it right is to think
> long enough about the shot before you take it.
>
> Of course there are other situations where a picture is more of an experiment
> (and then of course the direct feedback of digital helps a lot). And there
> are situations where you just have to rely on luck.
>
>
I TRY to take all those factors into consideration, but I don't obsess
about it to the point of getting no shot at all. Sometimes you just
have to do the best you can, and get the shot before the moment passes.
I can recall taking about 30 minutes to set up a shot on vacation in
Arizona, and then had to settle for less than perfect position because
the light was going. Still consider it the best picture I have ever
taken, but since it is a print, I have no idea where it actually IS.
THAT'S the main reason I like digital.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:48:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <OBd5e.7528$eF4.208@fe03.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>I TRY to take all those factors into consideration, but I don't obsess
>about it to the point of getting no shot at all.

It doesn't matter whether you take a less than perfect shot or not. What
matters is that it slows you down enough that film costs are no longer
a big issue.

The other side of the story is that I paid more for a film scanner than
what an entry level DSLR costs today. But I figured that I would need the
scanner anyhow for what I already have on film.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:48:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <OBd5e.7528$eF4.208@fe03.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>I TRY to take all those factors into consideration, but I don't obsess
>>about it to the point of getting no shot at all.
>
>
> It doesn't matter whether you take a less than perfect shot or not. What
> matters is that it slows you down enough that film costs are no longer
> a big issue.
>
> The other side of the story is that I paid more for a film scanner than
> what an entry level DSLR costs today. But I figured that I would need the
> scanner anyhow for what I already have on film.
>
>
Yes, scanners do have a place, especially if, like you, one has a large
number of prints, or negatives, that he wants on the computer. I just
figured that since all my pictures were going on the computer, I would
cut out the intermediate steps, saving both time, and money.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 8:13:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:

: When I carefully plan a shot, taking composition, lighting, DoF,
: 'decisive moment', etc. into account then I simply don't take that many
: shots.

: If I start out with the idea that I simply take a large number of shots
: and select the best one later, then it very likely that there is
: something wrong with all of the shots. The only way to get it right is
: to think long enough about the shot before you take it.

: Of course there are other situations where a picture is more of an
: experiment (and then of course the direct feedback of digital helps a
: lot). And there are situations where you just have to rely on luck.

I can understand your point about "more is better" not being necissarily
better. But I do find that the ability to shoot several possible settings
and weed them out later works in many of the situations I shoot in. I am
not attempting to take photos for sale, or for artistic display. I just
want some images that make me feel something when I see them.

For example. About a year ago I had a free weekend day and decided to go
on "photo safari" in search of signs of spring. I went to a nearby
forested area. The trees had not begun leafing out but there were many
spring flowers beginning to bloom. This made for many opportunities for
catching very high contrast images. Stark, trees brightly lit on one side
with dark shadows. And all around many flowers and grasses that also
spread from bright light to dark shadow. If I had been shooting film (and
being a frugal person --read broke--) I would have probably guessed which
area to meter on for the photo. I would have had one shot at catching the
emotion I was looking for. But with my digital camera it cost me no more
to shoot one photo metered on the bright side of the trees, one metered on
the shadow side of trees, one on the sunlit field of flowers, and one on
the flowers in shade. This is in addition to a few with different camera
orientation (portrait, landscape) and a few shots altering the framing of
different portions of the scene to see which "subject" would evoke which
emotions. If I had been shooting film I could have used up an entire roll
of film on the one scene. But with digital I was able to feel comfortable
shooting many different photos from which I liked and kept 3 or 4. And I
had enough memory that I could continue wandering and shooting after this
mega shoot. Sure I probably shot 2 to 3 times the total number of photos I
needed, but if I had been contemplating the same shots through the dollar
signs involved with film costs, processing, etc, I would have missed most
of the photos that were in the latter iterations of the same subject.

So while I agree that more is not better by itself, the freedom from
additional expense for experimentation can be good.

One more advantage of digital is the storage. I have several dozen
cardboard boxes full of prints and negatives from the many years of film
photography. Because of the shear volume of stuff in those boxes, I rarely
look at them. But my digital photos can be stored on disk in a much
smaller space. And I only have to have the "show off" photos printed and
can keep my personal memory photos only in computer format. I am happy to
look at them on the computer screen.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:38:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> Purchase price is certainly a bar to entry into the digital world for
> many, and will be for some time. It IS getting better, though. I spend
> $65 for a 256MB SD card back in May last year, and now they are under
> $20. Prices will come down. Also, if you adjust the prices for
> inflation, you may find that the $800 digital is actually 'cheaper' than
> the old SLR you bought 15 years ago.
>
>
>
I bought mine used. But my wife just bought a new Nikon film SLR, for
$200 with zoom lens. So that is not very close to $800 in my book.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 6:21:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:1112807393.6e178b954f4c2fe8b05fc147dac296b9@teranews...
> This talk of winning and losing seems to indicate that photography is a
> zero-sum game. Isn't there room for both? To me digital is just another
> format. I didn't get rid of my 35mm equipment when I got a medium format
> camera, nor did I get rid of my film equipment when I got into digital.
> Room for both as far as I am concerned.
>

You are right on the money IMO. Digital and film complement each other for
me. I use the same brand film and digital boxes, so I just put the film and
digital box in the same case and go. There are situations where I will want
to shoot film and when I want to take a lot of shots digital wins out there.
Today's mid-range DSLRs have very similar quality to 35mm. I know that might
tick off some hard core film folks, but that is my experience. I have no
qualms whatsoever in just grabbing whichever camera is handy if I need a
quick shot. With film, I need to take a bit more time (not much) to be sure
of my exposure/shutter settings and with digital it is easy to quickly
bracket a lot of shots just to make sure. My 35mm has a high speed motor
drive that can go through a 36 exposure roll in about 6-7 seconds (I used to
shoot a lot of sports and also maneuvers for a military paper) so it has
some benefits too in that regard in AE mode. There is plenty of room for
both. Neither is better or worse, just different.


ed
!