No Love affair with Digital (Thread moved)

[removed account4]

There are always exception to the rule

It's all within an individual and I did not try to imply digital is easy in order to be of high grade. I was mainly focusing on main stream ways of shooting digital and looking at what was taken long afterwords, because in this sense it is easy to work that way. With film (and never mind alternative processes) one just does not have the luxury of endless clicking. A different and careful thought process is needed to record it as close to intentions as possible, then fine tune it later. The rate of shots taken to shots retained is vastly different between film and digital in majority of cases.

On upgrading gear? I recall a girl, an aspiring photographer, who clearly had a great eye and some high grade shots. He "needed" to upgrade her gear because ... there is a newer one (and she had pretty high grade camera in digital spec sense) but she thought that her photography would get better by doing so. I will say that same was and is happening with any gear, you can see that in discussions, people switching brands all in search for becoming a better photographer, meaning they don't know what being a good photographer means. So here I believe we are in exact agreement, nothing has changed.

I will just retain my belief that shooting digital at a 100 a minute is not same as shooting 5 on film.

but before the digital revolution didn't everyone shoot thousands of clicks? and now they are shooting thousands of clicks of something else ?
i agree about upgrading gear, it is too bad a lot of people are duped into thinking newer is better when it might not be better at all. oh well
capitalism, advertising, and people in love with "new stuff" ... but talk to anyone on this forum who worked a sales counter at a camera store
they often sold people things to upgrade existing things when they didn't need anything new ( except a roll of film ). i remember one member who
said management didn't like him because he didn't take part in the game...
100 a minute is a lot...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

but before the digital revolution didn't everyone shoot thousands of clicks? and now they are shooting thousands of clicks of something else ?
i agree about upgrading gear, it is too bad a lot of people are duped into thinking newer is better when it might not be better at all. oh well
capitalism, advertising, and people in love with "new stuff" ... but talk to anyone on this forum who worked a sales counter at a camera store
they often sold people things to upgrade existing things when they didn't need anything new ( except a roll of film ).
i remember one member who
said management didn't like him because he didn't take part in the game...
100 a minute is a lot...

Per persona no way clicks were the same, even with sensless use of film or more inteligent ... bracketing.

 

[Mal Paso]

Newer is usually better. The first digital camera I ever used was a $36K Kodak/Nikon, 256KB images and Awful. We were so glad it was a rental and could be sent back. It made 110 look good. My second Nikon is a D810 and it beats 2 1/4 sq film hands down. Never having to print C41 is icing on the cake. Not that I wouldn't use C41 if that would get me the look I wanted. I think all photography methods are viable and do not see excluding digital as a badge of honor. Especially for people already posting on an electronic forum. Seems to me like you are halfway there.

 

[blockend]

Some subjects benefit from multiple exposures, sports and wildlife for instance. That should not suggest great Olympic or bird photos weren't made before digital. There are genres of photography that have benefitted enormously from high frame rates, and opened new disciplines to amateur photographers. Other types of photography have barely been touched by the advent of digital. This afternoon I shot a portrait session for publication. The effort was dressing the room, lighting the subject and putting them at ease. I shot on digital because they wanted a quick turn around, but it wouldn't have made much difference to shooting time if I'd shot on 120 or large format.

I used an X-Pro1 with a pre-AI 50mm Nikkor, the rendering and focal length are ideal for the job, better in fact than sharper, wider aperture glass I own. 16 mp cropped roughly square, so around 10mp and plenty for its intended use.

 

[wahiba]

You are of course quite right. When I bought a bridge digital for those quick picks for selling on ebay and the like I made sure that i got one with a fold up screen so i could look down the Rollie way. I discovered that the remote is actually very useful for tripod mounted shots as there is no touch the camera for timed shots.

I have a few older digital compacts as well. Older models have a proper eye level view finder, newer ones do not. Digital has its place, but no where as much fun as analogue.

A pair of pictures. One take with a Rollie35T, the other with a Fuji 2.0 MP digital.