[Blue]

I hope your ten year old wonder kid doesn't turn up on the same asignment as me and try to put me out of a job.

It's taken me years to get there, using film and now digital and there's me thinking being professional at ones craft still counts for something.

There are a lot of areas like this. When I first started in scanning electron microscopy, I'd spend about a day on the scope and a week in the dark-room. Now, it takes about 90 minutes on some projects that used to take a week and the results are often 100x better.

[MRRiley]

Why the never-ending war between film and digital photography? If a digital camera makes you lazy because you feel it makes things too easy, then put it in manual and turn off auto-focus. There is no demon in the camera egging you on to shoot thousands of useless photos. YOU control the camera, not the other way around.

Similarly, the digital darkroom, requires just as much skill, talent and practice to master as the film darkroom did. There is indeed a certain magic to watching the image appear on the printing paper which cannot be duplicated in your computer, but the control and "repeatability" in your computer is substantially better.

Naturally, digital is more forgiving of mistakes as each one is not irreversable but that does not make it worse or, in and of itself, encourage laziness. What it does do is to encourage experimentation since you can shoot more without significantly increasing your expenses.

In the end, if you want to shoot film, shoot film. If you want to shoot digital, shoot digital. Neither is, at this point, intrinsically better than the other, and contrary to the opinions of some, digital IS still photography!

Mike

[MRRiley]

Is digital really cheaper than film? The cost of the latest computers + expensive software + storage media, etc etc. Maybe digital isn't so cheap compared to film after all.

The difference is where the "cost loading" is. Digital is cost-loaded at the front end while film is cost-loaded on the back end. In the end the actual "cost" is similar when compared head to head. I posted the following comparison back in December.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/409796-post79.html

The comparison that reelitupandup/focalplus made was "apples and oranges." The following is at least comparing green apples to red ones...

I decided to do a little comparing... The attached spreadsheet makes the following assumptions.

1. The 2 cameras are comparable in capabilities and features, differing mainly in the fact that one is film and the other digital. Prices are current retail, body only at B&H (Sorry Chris).

2. Average lenses were chosen. I selected an appropriate "normal" lens for each and suitable zooms. The lenses are all suitable for film or digital cameras.

3. I selected and arbitrary number of 10000 images per year and adjusted to 10008 to make the numbers match between 417 rolls of film and 10008 digital pics.

4. I limited myself to 8, 2GB CF cards which will be discarded after 1 year (not realistic but it beats ammoritizing calculations)

5. I selected Kodak TMAX B&W film. This offers the lowest possible cost to the film side of the equations (for media and all related processing costs).

6. I figured average costs (based upon figures found at photographyreviews.com) for DIY film and print processing (chemicals and paper).

7. Commercial processing and print costs were sampled and averaged over several local and national pro level labs.

8. I chose only commercial print options for the digital shooter to insure prints of comparable longevity to prints made by the DIY film guys.

9. I ignored the costs for darkroom equipment and computer equipment as they are roughly comparable ($800-1000 for a decent darkroom & $800-1000 for a decent Pentium computer, a respectable inkjet printer and readily available free SW tools). I also ignored the likelyhood that most film shooters probably already have existing computer hardware. This allows me to ignore the need to ammoritize multiple-use resources.

10. Finally I assumed 1 8X10 print from each roll of film. This is probably unlikely, as I know I don't print near that much but some people might. It is however an easy number to work with.



I'm sure I've left many factors out but this shows that the 2 "formats" are actually fairly comparable cost-wise.

Now, I naturally realize you can buy much cheaper film cameras just as you can buy more expensive ones. Digital cameras can also be had much cheaper or much more expensively. Comparing $10K worth of digital equipment to $100 worth of film gear is simply a poor attempt to skew the numbers your way Pablo...

Mike

[dave sz]

Sorry, but the only thing that can make me lazy, errr lazier, is me. To blame it on technology or anything else, is just silly...

[alohadave]

A lot has being discussed about what our gear can do or cannot, compared to the competition and such.

Being an "old timer" from the film days, I remember well when there were only a few facts that we cared about our gear.

1) Hardware reliability: Camera bodies with consistent results from shutter speeds, durability, trusty light meters and above all, value retainabilty.

2) Glass quality: Image quality was above all. Sharpness, bokeh, color rendition and of course, glass speed and mechanics reliability. I sure miss all those "brass & glass" lenses.

3) Film quality: Grain, resolution and of course, quality proccessing and printing (when used negative film).

We learned to maximize the situations, by taking good care of all photo details and especially, about those 36 exp film rolls that were expensive to buy and more expensive to develop.

The ghosts from the past were a few: Battery failure (loose the light meter and in some cameras, loose operability. Negative scratch during proccessing.... AAAGGG! that was my worst nighmare and a few others not worth mentioning.

But with time, then technology appeared to make our lifes a little easier:

First came autowinders: Never again had to push a rapid wind lever. Then autorewinders... never again had to rewind film back into spool.

Then came autofocus: So we started relying on the camera's AF and never cared to manual focus again.

Then came matrix metering: So we never again had to use our brain to evaluate image and to compensate for less than ideal light situations.

Along the way, multiple modes of auto exposure also showed up, so never again, we had to "pay attention" on what was going on with the exposure.

Then digital came, so we could forget about film and about proccessing.

Of course, there are other tech thingies that had showed up and about the mentioned ones, it is not important which came first or last. My point is that now we are complaining and/or demanding better "performance" from gadgets we didn't have back then and were completely dependant on the photographers ability.

Good exposure in less than ideal conditions. Good focus with fast moving things. Getting the right picture in sporting events, when we had to crank every frame and rewind every 36 frames. Good proccessing in our own darkrooms or being confident enough on external labs, etc.

This is the time I say: Hell with technology! Stop complaining about the hardware! Do your homework and start taking pictures.

For once, I would love to read a thread in which photo shooting technique is discussed instead of what or which gadget/brand can make us lazier.

What to you think?

I think you are over romanticizing 'the good old days'. None of the things that you list are required to be used. You can go full manual anytime you wish, there is no law saying that you are forced to do things a certain way.

Not everyone wants or needs to manually control all functions on a camera. In your 35mm film camera, the film comes on a roll so you don't have to think about loading sheet film in a darkbag. You don't have to align your lens so that the focal plane is parallel to the film plane like a view camera.

It's a different technology, so things are different, but it's no more or less valid than the way you are familiar with. Technology serves the photographer, not the other way around.

[monochrome]

There are a lot of areas like this. When I first started in scanning electron microscopy, I'd spend about a day on the scope and a week in the dark-room. Now, it takes about 90 minutes on some projects that used to take a week and the results are often 100x better.

When I first started as a pension consultant I had to schedule mainframe time to run a a back-tested asset allocation study. I had to write a query and send it to an analyst (snail mail, to Chicago) to run at the Tech Center. The green bar output would come back snail mail.

God forbid I should incorrectly craft my query and have to get in line to wait for the next open "overnight" (not to mention answering for the cost of the time). The minimum account size to qualify for such a study was $50,000,000 - in 1988!

Then we got a fax machine - boy, was that a productivity enhancement!! Flimsy, smelly paper that we learned to photocopy right away because it faded in about a month. Output started coming back FedEx. People got sloppy and anybody could request a study. College kids ran the computers - analysts migrated out of the TEch Centers and onto consultant staffs.

Now I can run 50,000 trials on 80 years of daily correlation data in half an hour on an $800 laptop. For $500,000 accounts. By myself. At home.

Because I can, I do.

The technology is cheap enough that I COULD just fire away without thinking about crafting constraints to limit potential outcomes to useful solutions. But I still think about what I am asking the study to show me, and carefully craft the query before I run it. Takes longer to write the parameters than it does to run the program.

Digital technology is dumb - even camera technology is just 1's and 0's - but it's consistent. Math (technology is, at its core, just math) is objective. The output is determined solely by the inputs.

Somewhere in there is a metaphor that applies to this thread, I think.

[stevebrot]

...Because I can, I do.

The technology is cheap enough that I COULD just fire away without thinking about crafting constraints to limit potential outcomes to useful solutions. But I still think about what I am asking the study to show me, and carefully craft the query before I run it. Takes longer to write the parameters than it does to run the program.

Digital technology is dumb - even camera technology is just 1's and 0's - but it's consistent. Math (technology is, at its core, just math) is objective. The output is determined solely by the inputs.

Somewhere in there is a metaphor that applies to this thread, I think.

Wow, you made a significant statement. Your tools have changed, but the challenge for excellence and an artful approach is still there.

Steve

(Of course maybe it only makes sense because I write software and believe in the crafted, artful approach...)

[stevebrot]

Ruminating a big on Mike's cost comparisons and the nostalgic tone of several posts, I was struck again by the simmering desire for a minimalist digital product. I would love to have a finely crafted compact SLR body with a digital detector, modal exposure options using the non-crippled A mount, no AF, no built-in flash, and (please don't flame me) FF sensor for maximum compatibility with legacy glass.

The kind of camera Zeiss should make to complement their fine Cosina-made manual focus lenses. Or perhaps Cosina could be persuaded to make a digital version of the Bessaflex.

Steve

[dylansalt]

For sure "laziness" is a personal choice

Dylan

[KungPOW]

ok. life today is different then it was 10, 15 25 years ago.

The tools we use for almost everything we do have changed. I learnt how to design using a drafting table, pencils, squares, lettering guides. Now I use 3D modeling software. Yes I miss the penciles when the computer or network crashes. But when I need to run a dozen stability studies... love that computer!

We live in an amazing time to be a photographer. Right at the change from film to digital. We can still shoot film on the best cameras ever made. Want an MX? Easily find one for less then 150 bucks. Get it CLA'd and it will outlast most of us.

Get a scanner. Develope your own film. Process in Lightroom. Personally, I would rather do the work on a computer then in a darkroom. But that's just me. Thats what is great about NOW, we have a choice. Sure there are allot of films that are gone, and its hard to find some chemicals, but it can be done. We can choose the technologies we want to use.

Don't like film? Fine. Use a digital. Want simple K1000 old school feel? Set your camera to zone metering. Use a SMC-A lens. Use manual only. Set the stop graduations to 1. Turn off the LCD, shoot raw and set WB to auto. You can only change ISO if you dig around in you camera bag first, then sit in a shady spot and pretend to change the film.

Or, set your DSLR to full auto, and go out and blaze away. Shoot 500 frames, and sort them latter. Do whatever floats your boat. Its your choice.

Things I like about photography here, now, today:

The digital dark room is cheaper, more portable, and gives me better results then ANYTHING I was able to do with what I had in the past.

I can shoot with the same K1000 I used 20 years ago. I expect to still use it 20 years from now.

I can use a DSLR that has better flexibility, better images over ISO 200, and it can shoot a couple hundred shots before I need to change a card.

The digital darkroom I have now, can process COLOUR! My darkroom of the past was B/W only.

I can share lenses between my film cameras and my DSLR.

I can aford to own multiple film cameras.

[losecontrol]

I hope your ten year old wonder kid doesn't turn up on the same asignment as me and try to put me out of a job.

It's taken me years to get there, using film and now digital and there's me thinking being professional at ones craft still counts for something.

don't missunderstand me. There are a lots of situations where you have to know a lot for do great photos. It was just one example that if I stand in the same place as one pro shooting hockey, and we both got Nikon D3 and I just press the shutter all the time and he/she too, we would get the same great pics.

Before you had to exposure well, and have a lot of knowledge in some situacions.

The todays super-cameras can make a lot of people take photos like pros. (a good result).

Still there are a difference between a pro and a 10year old kid.

The pro make a pro result all the time, while a amatur can do it once.

I have full respect for your carrier and style. Sorry if you was effected negative by my post. It was not my wish

Best Regards Emil

[Blue]

Ruminating a big on Mike's cost comparisons and the nostalgic tone of several posts, I was struck again by the simmering desire for a minimalist digital product. I would love to have a finely crafted compact SLR body with a digital detector, modal exposure options using the non-crippled A mount, no AF, no built-in flash, and (please don't flame me) FF sensor for maximum compatibility with legacy glass.

The kind of camera Zeiss should make to complement their fine Cosina-made manual focus lenses. Or perhaps Cosina could be persuaded to make a digital version of the Bessaflex.

Steve

Steve, I have 2 simple systems: Spot F and K1000 plus Epson V500!

If you want to really get into your craft, take up drawing or painting and then draw or paint everything vs. being lazy and taking a picture of it!

[Blue]

If you want to really get into your craft, take up drawing or painting and then draw or paint everything vs. being lazy and taking a picture of it!

Drawing stick people gets old!

[stevebrot]

Steve, I have 2 simple systems: Spot F and K1000 plus Epson V500!

Truthfully, I may be headed sort of in that direction! I have acquired a small stable of film cameras and have been enjoying using them. My early 80s Ricoh XR7 is infinitely more agile than the K10D. What I miss on the Ricoh is the ability to chimp the shot and the "almost endless" roll of digital "film".

I was thinking this morning about why the 35mm film cameras (and 35mm SLRs by extension) rose to such prominence in the first place. The answers that came to mind:

• Relatively compact and light (portable)
• Robust bodies (no bellows)
• Convenient film cassettes with long lengths an option (much nicer than sheets or rolls)
• Relatively compact lenses
• Hit the sweet spot for miniaturization vs. optical quality vs. media size

When I consider my K10D:

• Not particularly light or compact
• Robust body
• Tons of features
• Very convenient media
• Lenses basically the same as for 35mm film
• A little off the sweet spot for miniaturization
• A little off the sweet spot for optical quality on the wide end of things
• Sensor resolution is adequate, but the small media size results in other issues.

Both are nice tools, but does the K10D satisfy the same needs as my compact film SLR?

Steve