"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, you took proper
> notes, but then than would help with digital too.
Successful shooting with film requires a different mind set: when you know
that your mistakes will be preserved on film for as long as 200 years or
more, you are more aware of the camera settings. When I go for a walk with
a
camera, I find myself adjusting the settings as conditions change, whether
I
plan to shoot or not. Since most of my outdoor shooting is based on the
"sunny-16" rule, I can probably tell you what the settings were by looking
at the negative (with it's edge code to tell me the film type).
> 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.
>
Finish the roll and develope it, it should all come back to you.
> 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.
>
Instant feedback is a crutch. As long as you know that you can just delete
it if it isn't right, you won't make sure that everything is right the
first
time. The only instant feedback I need is the sound of the shutter. I
already know that the subject is what I want when I fire the shutter. If
the
camera makes the right sound, I know that the image is on film. When I
shoot, I typically shoot for at least 90% 'keepers'. With the cost of film
and developing at about $0.35 per shot (about the same as inkjet prints
when
you include the ink and paper), film is very economical.
> Now you could become totally deranged and use your digital camera to
> do***ent your film shooting. :-)
> Jim
That's the only use of a digital camera that makes sense to me!
>
>
|
