"Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dudley@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:bnaMj.1978$682.1546@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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...
>
When I got my first digital camera that is exactly what I did. It took
some
time to trust the digital camera to actually work. :-)
> 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.
>
But you made that choice, you can be just as aware of the variables when
shooting digital. You have chosen to devalue the digital image because
it's
"free." It's not free and anyone shooting a DSLR will tell you how not
free
it is. :-)
> 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.
>
Depends on your shooting style. Are you experimenting because you don't
know
what you really want to see or do you know what you want to see and are
just
using this particular camera to get there?
> 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.
What's the old saying 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters in a 1000 years?
>
> 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.
>
My question to you then is "Why?" You should, and I'm using the generic
you,
because you are a special case in photography, pretty much know what you
are
going to get before you trip the shutter release.
> 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.
>
Again that is your choice to add the "monetary" im****tance to the film
image, start shooting digital like you do film and each image will have
the
same im****tance. - Jim
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
|
