"jimkramer" <Newsreader1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ftr8hk$94n$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dudley@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:O79Mj.1127$682.917@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Richard Freeman" <r-usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:iG8Mj.2669$iI3.224@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Ken Hart wrote:
>>>> A film camera can handle those more demanding situations easily,
simply
>>>> by
>>>> selecting the proper film. Additionally, as new films are made, you
can
>>>> easily "upgrade" your film camera, by selecting the newer film. As
for
>>>> "action at a distance", there are a plethora of used telephoto lens
on
>>>> the
>>>> market for older film cameras.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd actually given a little thought to this. We have an old Minolta
>>> 3000i
>>> with a 55mm f1.7 lens lying around, and obviously we could just put
800
>>> iso
>>> film into it. That has to be good for at least a few f-stops...
>>>
>>> The main downside is the expense and inconvenience of film/processing.
>>> With
>>> our digital camera we take hundreds of photos and I think nothing of
>>> taking
>>> candid shots. With film I just feel like I have to count every frame.
>>
>> This can be a good thing, in that it stimulates the photographer to
>> really think about what they are doing. Afterwards, when they get back
>> the shots and find something they like, the photographer is more likely
>> to remember what he / she has done to get the desired effect. With
>> digital, it is often tough to remember just how the pic was taken --
even
>> with the EXIF
>> data.
>>
> Are you sure you didn't just mix the two up? Why would it be any easier
> to remember how the film was shot? Unless, of course,
I'm not talking about camera settings, here. I'm referring more to the
inttangibles of what direction minor light sources are coming from, the
quality of light, the attitude of the subject, distractions, things I
might
have done to improve composition, etc.
you took proper notes,
> but then than would help with digital too.
>
> I still have 1/2 a roll of B&W sitting in the camera from the trip to
the
> botanical gardens. I'm having difficulty even recalling what it was
that
> I shot there on film.
>
> From a creativity / learning stand point the instant feed back from
> digital is a clear winner. If you already know how to use a camera and
> you know what you want to do then it really doesn't make any difference
> which you shoot, as long as you get the results you (or the person
paying
> you) want.
>
> Now you could become totally deranged and use your digital camera to
> document your film shooting. :-)
Hey, I like that one. The next time I take out the old EOS film camera
I'll
use the A720 to take a picture of all my settings on the film shots. Sort
of like film EXIF...
Just kidding...
I guess it all depends on how one does things.
When I shoot film, I'm quite conscious of the cost of each shot, so I tend
to think about more things. I'll spend more time checking where the light
is coming from and take more meter readings. This gives me a heightened
awareness of the variables I'm working with for each shot.
With digital, I tend to just point and shoot. If I don't like the
results,
I just delete. I end up thinking about the setup a lot less.
However, you are right, Jim, the instant feedback is hard to beat. And,
one
could argue that it is easier to get better shots with digital without
having to put in as much mental effort. The shutter finger just gets a
more
strenuous workout.
Thinking about what I just wrote, I have to ask myself whether one uses
less
mental energy with digital, or whether one actually uses more -- but, in a
different way.
With film, I use a lot of time thinking about what is going to happen when
I
click the shutter, and the bulk of my mental effort goes into applying
past
experience to the shot at hand. With digital, the mental process is
different. It is more evaluating the shots one has taken, and using the
feedback to juggle things around in order to improve upon it. The memory
gets used less, but one's analytical abilities gets used more.
In my case, my linguistic skills get a fairly good workout as well, since
I
have to interpret what others tell me about the shots I've taken, then
visualize what i'm in the middle of, and finally make adjustments in order
to get a better shot.
Oops, I'm starting to ramble...
Getting back to topic. The thing with film is that, if you are on a
limited
budget, the cost per shot adds a bit more im****tance to each shot, so I
think I do take more notes (with my digital voice recorder) than I do with
digital. With digital, I usually have the option to reshoot, so I limit
my
notes, which hurts my progress I fear.
Take Care,
Dudley
|
