When Asked Why You Are Not Shooting Digital, What Do You Reply?

[Sirius Glass]

"And the beat goes on ..."

 

[Paul Goutiere]

"And the beat goes on ..."

Yep. Kinda hard getting anyone riled up by putting down digital on this site.

 

[Ralph Javins]

A Comment from One Man Who Has Learned . . . .

They are one hard disk crash from loosing all the photographs of their children growing up.

Steve has a very good point.

I had two (2) (yes, count them, two) hard disk crashes in 15 months.

My own back-up system now involves two 500 GB hard disks and some CD-ROM disks. Some of the quick back-ups are put onto USB "Thumb drives." For things I want to keep for a time period that may be measured in decades, there is also the printer and paper.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I tell them 'I prefer film.' Thats it. There's just no need to justify it because I can shoot what I want for the reasons I want. Those who show a more detailed interest in my work tend to look at the images.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"I take pride in the superior quality of my work."

Steve

 

[fstop]

Yep. Kinda hard getting anyone riled up by putting down digital on this site.

Won't make me mad. Ask me about my D100, this thing is the best advertising Sonys has. Also a good argument to stick to film.

 

[ME Super]

How's this for an answer:

"The technology isn't yet available at a reasonable price for me to do what I want to with a digital file. It's dirt cheap to do what I want to do with the image if I shoot film."

Yeah. I'm one of those guys that likes to look at projected slides. The best I can get with digital is 1-2MP. With film, there's an almost infinite number of "pixels."

ME Super

 

[jp498]

I had to giggle here an engineer friend of mine actually bought new cards every time they got full, did that for quite a while, much like a film shooter storing up rolls of film to develop later I guess.

I know people that do that. It's an excellent way to keep your digital photos safe from hard drive crashes, viruses, etc... And a good method to organize/archive them. memory cards are cheap now, especially for people who's file sizes aren't huge.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know people that do that. It's an excellent way to keep your digital photos safe from hard drive crashes, viruses, etc... And a good method to organize/archive them. memory cards are cheap now, especially for people who's file sizes aren't huge.

Except that memory card if left to sit will lose the memory. The cards do need to be refreshed periodically. Yet a nothing misconception promulgated under the uninformed opinion that "if it is new, it is always better."

 

[David Brown]

"The technology isn't yet available at a reasonable price for me to do what I want to with a digital file. It's dirt cheap to do what I want to do with the image if I shoot film."

This is part of my answer. The other part is that I have 40+ years of experience and increasing skill at what I do, and I do not wish to start over with a new medium.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"I use the latest in nano technology and store my photographs on the molecular level." Stated by me when I first joined APUG in January 2007.

Steve

 

[fstop]

"The technology isn't yet available at a reasonable price for me to do what I want to with a digital file. It's dirt cheap to do what I want to do with the image if I shoot film."

Sounds kinky.

 

[2F/2F]

Won't make me mad. Ask me about my D100, this thing is the best advertising Sonys has. Also a good argument to stick to film.

Agreed. Older Nikon digitals are terrible IMHO, at least for the way I shoot (max ISO a lot of the time). I always highly preferred their control "philosophy" and lens compatibility to Canon's, but I shot Canon digital for 7 or 8 years until Nikon finally got their act together (I just invested lightly, planning to switch some day when Nikon got their act together). Until the D3, Nikon just did not come anywhere close to cutting it for me at high ISO speeds, where I shoot a large part of the time. I got better results from 800 Fuji consumer film or my Canon 10D than I got from any Nikon until a few years ago (and that is bad, considering that the 10D is seen as a very noisy camera). Now, digital – Nikon or Canon, and probably whatever else too – does things in low light that film simply cannot do. As far as my personal work goes, hand held low light shooting is the only area where I am prepared to grant full superiority to digital. For everything else personal that I shoot, film can be at least as good, and usually better, in quality.

 

[jreitsma]

...because I have a hard time connecting the dots........


Later-Joe

 

[Russ - SVP]

Digital? Is that still around?

 

[lecarp]

When asked

If you have to ask that question, you will not comprehend the answer.

 

[ME Super]

This may be a little off-topic but I picked up a 36" x 36" (or so) beaded Da-Lite screen at a Salvation Army store for $5 last week. It was in pretty good shape, and the 35mm slides look good projected on it. Unfortunately with numeric-represented pictures, if I step closer to the screen, all I see are bigger pixels. With slides, I see more details.

But yes, sometimes I shoot digital too. If it's a shot I can't get with the film I have in the SLR, out comes the digisnapper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Digital was replaced by video.

 

[ricardo12458]

Mark my words. In about 6 months, you will be out $1500 for a camera that lasted a little over 2 years. MY camera, on the other hand, cost $375 (1980 dollars) and still works now! It's older than me.

BTW: Most of the time, if stored properly, the pictures (slides, negatives, etc.) will outlive you. It's a family heirloom.

 

[2F/2F]

Digital cameras physically last longer than 2 years. It is just that people with more money than brains feel the need to upgrade constantly. My 10D lasted almost 8 years before I decided I needed to upgrade. A short period, sure, but not 6 months or 2 years...and the camera paid for itself many times over, even though I am not a full time professional photographer, and have made only 18,000 pix with it so far (an average of 6-7 shots per day, and far less than most people hammer their digital SLRs with, I think). And I am keeping it until it dies for good. So, IMO, the problem with cameras being short lived is mainly with users, not the cameras themselves.

 

[ricardo12458]

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say. Digital camera users feel the need to replace their cameras as soon as the latest and greatest model rolls out of the factory. I bought a Canon AE-1 earlier this week. It may be the only film camera I buy. It has stood the test of time.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

"When Asked Why You Are Not Shooting Digital, What Do You Reply?"

Go away!

 

[Roger Cole]

"When Asked Why You Are Not Shooting Digital, What Do You Reply?"

Go away!

That's a great way to show people who may be curious that there are advantages to film.

It's usually pretty quick to tell which might be interested and which are just going to think you're behind the times regardless, but it's worth a few words.

I was in Huntsville Alabama over the weekend with my girlfriend and her family, and we took her little nieces to the botanical gardens where I was shooting E100G in my Pentax LX and Portra 400 in my Yashica Mat, one camera bag and both cameras over my neck. I passed one guy with an expensive DSLR who gave me curious looks but didn't say anything and one lady with one who said "I remember that" in a sort of slightly superior tone and smile, which I ignored. Neither stopped to actually talk. Had they, I wouldn't have barked "go away!" even to the lady who seemed a bit smug.

Interestingly enough, I also had the Yashica Mat with me when the g.f. and I hiked to the top of Roan Mountain in east TN while visiting my folks, and we passed several people hiking the Appalachian trail, a small segment of which we were on. Almost all of them admired the Yashica and several said some variation of "cool camera!" Somehow I think those compliments were worth any number of sneers from the mass consumerists.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

That's a great way to show people who may be curious that there are advantages to film.

To tell the truth I was being just a little flippant.

I encourage people to either return to film or take it up. Most are somewhat interested, but for the majority they would rather not go through the relative hassle of film.

I have noticed that those who are really interested in photography generally have a few film cameras and are inclined to use them whenever they can. I personally know three professional photographers who use film as well as digital and about five "fine art" photographers who use film exclusively. Then myself, and I use film exclusively.

There is a doctor just across the road from us who will take up film photography when he retires. Already he has amassed some darkroom equipment and is setting aside a nice room in his basement to be plumbed for a darkroom. I like to think I have encouraged him.

I was approached by a fellow who actually chastised me for messing up the environment with my "coal powered, smoke belching" Hasselblad. I was polite! (How many other people here would be polite?)

 

[wblynch]

I was out in the local tourist town of Julian today with an OM-1 and my wife had her Olympus Stylus Epic. Ran into a fellow shooting a mid-80's Canon. Had a nice little chat.

It turns out the guy was tired of his digicam and decided he wants back in.

So it was more a, "Cool, I'm not the only one shooting film", kind of a thing.