"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4ut2u39j0mpravc9saf6i6qg9ck2kf6v67@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Duncan" <writeonline@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "Woody" <woody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I had one of those - brilliant camera.
>>>>
>>>>However you will find two problems (1) sourcing the film amd (2)
getting
>>>>it processed - not to mention the cost.
>>>
>>>
>>> The cost????
>>>
>>> It isn't film that costs money, it's digital.
>>>
>>> By the time I had bought several DSLR bodies, replacing them as better
>>> ones became available, had the sensors professionally cleaned several
>>> times, replaced several of my lenses because, while they gave perfect
>>> results on film, they didn't work well on digital, upgraded my PC and
>>> bought new monitors, a monitor profiler and some very expensive
>>> software, plus additional hard disks for storage, burnt a great many
>>> CDs and DVDs, and spent a fortune on memory cards ...
>>>
>>> ... I could have bought and processed all the film I would need for at
>>> least the next 20 years.
>>>
>>> There is nothing expensive about film. Digital is a money pit.
>>>
>>
>>That saved me from writing the exact same thing. Thank you.
>
>
> You're very welcome.
>
> I'm pretty fed up of people making false claims that digital is better
> than film (it is still a long way away, especially in dynamic range)
> and that shooting digital is cheap. Well, I suppose it can be cheap
> if you just buy a cheap digital point and shoot compact camera, but
> not if you want to be serious about photography.
>
> When I totted up the sums I have spent on digital gear in the last
> five years, I was pretty shocked. Some of my gear gets a lot of hard
> use, shooting on construction sites and on or next to the sea. Cement
> and stone dust and salt water spray are camera/lens killers, so I have
> to replace my equipment surprisingly often. Upgrading cameras and
> lenses when they need replacing means that I cannot take advantage of
> anything getting cheaper.
>
> Put all this together with regular upgrades to computer hardware and
> software (two PCs at home, one for image editing and the other for the
> business side, plus a laptop) and digital photography is extremely
> expensive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either using a cheap point
> and shoot compact digicam or deluding themselves.
>
>
When I did the sums I came to much the same conclusion. And my investment
in
equipment of the years has paid off not having to buy new more expensive
kit. In fact the more I do the les I can get away with. Cameras are tools
and I choose for the job in hand.
Besides the costs as Tony has illustrated with digital I can put a modern
film emulsion into any of my age old cameras and get better results than
digital!
The only practical way to buy into digital form a professional perspective
is to lease the kit. No depreciation and full vat and value that can be
claimed back against tax.
I do have a Fuji F2 that recently had to have a new sensor. It was cost
effective to have it repaired than to buy into new kit. I still use film
camera lenses with it and even with 1.5x magnification can do most of what
I
need from digital.
Apart from the silent operation that digital cameras can offer I still use
my trusty Leica M4 for street photography with hyperfocal focussing.
I was in a conversation the other day with a digital photographer who has
no
experience of film. She is a natural photographer with excellent vision
and
composition and struggles with technical aspects. But for her she gets the
results. Alas this is not the case of the majority of digital
photographers
IME whom are no more than glorified sharpshooters with the advantage of
limitless images subject to battery life and disc capacity.
These days, as it was with the advent of desk top publi****ng where
everyone
was suddenly was a graphic designer digital photographer has made
photographers out of everyone but not always for the good.
Duncan
|
