"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"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.
Shoot with film, and in 50 years your images will be
fading, and by 100 years most will be almost useless.
The few that do last 200 years will be horrible.
Use digital, and there is no reason that a *perfect*
copy of an image will not be available 500 years from
now.
>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).
And when you go for a walk, you're generally stuck with
one type of film... few photographers either carry half
a dozen different films or try switching from one film
type to another.
Of course with digital, by shooting raw and changing ISO
values, one can use a dozen different "types" in a dozen
different shots.
>> 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.
That's bull****. Most people can't remember all the
settings used on a 36 exposure roll, or even close.
And only a few take notes.
On any modern digital camera the camera settings of
course are recorded automatically. And on many cameras
it is possible to make a voice recording of whatever you
wish to remember about each shot.
>> 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.
An absurd statement. It is a tool. It is a *great*
tool for those who are either learning or who do not
devote full time to photography. And in fact, most full
time professional photographers find it a very useful
tool, though granted that for some jobs or types of
photography it has no particular value. But it is
*never* a detriment.
>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.
And you won't get nearly as many keepers, simply because
you cannot "preview" the image immediately, and instead
must wait until it is developed and printed.
>The only instant feedback I need is the sound of the shutter.
Another abjectly biased and false statement.
>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.
The cost of film is $0.35 per shot, and that is
economical?
That means anyone who shoots 10,000 shots per year
($3500) can buy a Nikon D3 today, and in a year and a
half replace it with whatever the next top of the line
model is... because it takes less than 15,000 shots to
pay for the camera in money saved not buying film.
Your film camera doesn't hold a candle to what a D3
produces; so where is the economy in wasting that much
money on 3rd rate equipment that doesn't provide
comparable results?
>> 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!
You should consider the significance of making absurd
statements.
For the OP... film can be a *lot* of fun, and if you
enjoy developing and printing with that technology, go
for it! But don't let some technological dufus with
purely Luddite commentary kid you, almost any current
model DSLR is so far advanced over 35mm film that
virtually *everyone* has abandoned 35mm film for
anything other than the joy of playing with film.
Digital produces better results, it's easier to learn
and use, and it is *far* more economical.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
