[Agnostic]

I'm sorry but I don't understand the complaint. Nobody is forcing anyone to use digital. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a new camera every year.

Both digital and analog have their advantages and disadvantages, charms and annoyances.
I shoot both digital as well as a lot of analog. I enjoy both for different reasons.

Digital offers huge advantages in effectively learning about photography because you have immediate feedback which I think is great. On the other hand, plugging a memory card into my computer does not give me half as much satisfaction as hanging one of my home developed films to dry.

In many ways we currently have the best of both worlds: a choice between two quite different ways of taking photos AND cheap access to insane professional analog photo gear that only professionals could afford as little as 5 years ago. Don't like digital? Get a Rolleiflex, or a Fuji medium format Rangefinder, or a Mamiya/Bronica medium format SLR or, or, or. You can get most of those pro cameras that originally sold for thousands of dollars for little more than the price of a new consumer level lens for a digital SLR.

[dadipentak]

Digital offers huge advantages in effectively learning about photography because you have immediate feedback which I think is great.

Amen to that!

[Rondec]

i would agree with the OP on some points, before you would buy a camera let's say every 5-10 years. today the marketing divisions of the camera companies encourages a cycle of frequent and most likely unsustainable cycle of upgrades in the increasing consumer spending culture.

.

But, you can still choose to update your camera every 5 to 10 years. No one makes you buy the latest and greatest and there are still plenty of people on the forum who shoot with the *ist D and get great results.

The big difference I see is that in the past you could buy new, better film for your camera, whereas, you can't update your "film," without changing cameras. At the same time, your camera now comes with customizable "film" with much better high iso performance than was even dreamed of ten or twenty years ago.

[PentaxPoke]

Muse:

Digital photography seems to have taken the fun out of the process. When before it was ok dealing with the limitations of the film loaded, or on occasion changing rolls mid-use, we could still easily concentrate on taking good pictures. We used to know deep in our hearts, generally, what the finished picture would look like. Photography used to be simpler and more satisfying. But today it is different. More time is spent on the camera than the subject.

Film cameras do not intrude on the creative process. I have owned several cameras and in the many years of taking pictures never did I ever have a camera caused disaster. When once I could pick up any camera, even one never before used, load it and use it successfully, it is impossible to do today. When using a film camera, there were no double thoughts on whether we had correctly compensated for an individual camera’s shortcomings. Today, each individual digital camera needs to be tamed before use. Today, cameras are mere appliances to be thrown away as new and greater devices are manufactured. No longer will a camera last a lifetime. In fact, perusing this forum’s many posts, it is clear that one is lucky to have his DSLR last a few years before it becomes a worthless piece of plastic. The loss in dollars is ridiculous. On this forum alone, there seems to be more written concerning camera operation than producing accomplished photography. Today, a picture is not worth a thousand words. A picture is no longer the accurate record of a split-second in the life. Photography has been marginalized by complication. For the sake of taking 500 pictures a day, without cost, we have sold our souls to the digital false gods. We are no longer masters of our domain.

Ummm, no one is stopping you from using film cameras. Since you say film cameras last a lifetime, there are plenty of them out there for you to shoot. Plenty of places for you to get them developed.

I think I could take your muse, and substitute car for digital camera, and horse for film camera, and the argument is the same. No one is stopping me from riding a horse, and I don't long for the days when everyone had to.

[redrockcoulee]

I am predominating a film shooter, and I usually shoot a fully mechanical MF or a wooden large format camera. Those who either do not or did not like doing so may not understand but we are all different. Digital can be as creative a tool as film just is different, not better and not worse. Digital can make photographers lazy but it also can greatly assist in them becoming adventurous as well.

Unless you are a professional photographer only two things matter when selecting equipment types or systems 1) does the process work, in other words can you achieve what you want and 2) do you enjoy the process. If you answer no to either question than try something else but if you answer yes to both than stick with what you have. I wished that digital was around and as fully developed years ago when I did a lot of wildlife and sports photography as for those subjects digital would have been better FOR ME. But with what I am doing now black and white film is the best FOR ME.

You must also separate digital photography from the photographers themselves (or some of them). Right from the 6 megapixel cameras they quickly claimed that digital was better than film (and if you shoot higher speed colour negative film that was quickly true) and yet with the several generations of improvements still complain about needing more speed and higher ISO. Not all digital photographers obvisoulsy I am just suggesting that you ignore these comments and disassociate the comments with digital photography per se. Every one else will recognize what I mean : those who complain that their camera capable of 50 fps, 100000 ISO and constantly in focus autofocus still needs to be better so they can catch images of their kid's socceer game.

Film cameras did not need to be replaced every 5 years but during the period that autoexposure became common it was not usual for people to replace their camera and system often trying for the perfect system. My film cameras range from the newest one is only about 8 years old (a 4X5) to almost 100 years old and my Pentaxs bought new are a SF1n and MZ5n. Digital camera is a K10D and a borrowed D200 and the only reason will buy a newer digital camera right now is if the owner wants the D200 back. There are real advantages to film as there are to digital. Filter out the whins about needing a new camera as those have no bearing on the usefulness and enjoyment you may get out of digital but if you perfer film please keep shooting it. Film has never been better than it is today and great cameras are very affordable.

Digital is not film and film is not digital but both can be used to your advantage if you so wish and either can be ignored if you so please

[Marc Sabatella]

Digital photography seems to have taken the fun out of the process.

The fun of mixing toxic chemicals yourself, or of sending your negatives elsehwere and paying someone else to develop them and having to wait for the results?

When before it was ok dealing with the limitations of the film loaded, or on occasion changing rolls mid-use, we could still easily concentrate on taking good pictures. We used to know deep in our hearts, generally, what the finished picture would look like. Photography used to be simpler and more satisfying. But today it is different. More time is spent on the camera than the subject.

Why would you say that? Does it take longer to change shutter speed, aperture, or ISO on your digital camera than it did on your film camera? Have you suddenly forgot what those settings do, and that's why you can't concentrate on taking pictures any more, or are starting to doubt what the finished picture would look like? I fail to see how digital has changed a thing in this respect.

In fact, perusing this forum’s many posts, it is clear that one is lucky to have his DSLR last a few years before it becomes a worthless piece of plastic.

A gross exaggeration, although it *is* true a digital camera probably won't last as long. Still:

The loss in dollars is ridiculous

Yes, it almost comes close to being a measurable fraction of the amount of money wasted lost on film and developing.

We are no longer masters of our domain.

Speak for yourself here.

[Sakura]

Well, i have to agree with the TS for a certain degree. Digital photography created a huge number of lazy photgraphers who really don't know what they are doing.

That is no complain, but just something i notice. Take a look at most photgraphers (even pro's), directly after taking a picture looking at there LCD to see if the photo is ok.
Of course everyone have to check every now and than at there LCD if there photo's are what they want them to be, but a lot of people are looking at it after every single shot the make.
Not to mention the people who make pictures without using there viewfinder at all (if any on there cam)

Again, it is no complain but only an observation.

My first cam was a purly mechanical 35mm film camera, (no SLR), with a seperate analog light meter. I got it for my birthday from my dad as a child.




That really is the only way to learn how to make pictures and really know what you are doing.

After that i bought a Pentax MX just after it appeard on the market.

And after buying a Fuji Finepix 602d, a Pentax K100d, i now own a K7.

But i still am very greatfull that my father gave me a total mechanical cam as a child.

/edit
found a picture of my first camera on the net

---

Last edited by Sakura; 01-13-2010 at 01:39 PM.

I wonder how many forums this thread has been posted on.

[Gooshin]

Digital photography created a huge number of lazy photgraphers who really don't know what they are doing.

you should read the instruction manual for a Pentax ME or something before you say such silly things.

[Sakura]

you should read the instruction manual for a Pentax ME or something before you say such silly things.

It isn't that silly at all, analog costs money, every shot again, digital won't.

[Lloydy]

It was snowing today and in the morning I took about 60 pictures around a local pool that was frozen solid and looking very picturesque.
Every picture was crap, out of focus crap!

I didn't know that until I got home, got my boots and cold weather gear off and cranked up the PC.

And then I got all dressed up again and went and took some more pictures in the snow, having remembered a lesson I learned with my old EOS 600, and promptly forgot, that an autofocus camera is confused by falling snow.

At least I didn't waste 3 rolls of film, and the fact that my mistake is the same for film or digital is the reason I have a rejuvenated interest in photograpy.

When I went out in the snow for a second time I took a manual focus Soligor 135 2.8, and got some decent shots.
I learned a lot today, and digital photography made that possible.

[Gooshin]

It isn't that silly at all, analog costs money, every shot again, digital won't.

So you had less photos, doesnt mean they were any better, in fact they were often worse. And people didnt "learn" anything, they just kept on going snapping away since they didnt have anything to compare to.. and, according to the Pentax instructions, they were doing everythign right!

You're full of beans on your return Serge. How refreshing.

[Alfisti]

That is no complain, but just something i notice. Take a look at most photgraphers (even pro's), directly after taking a picture looking at there LCD to see if the photo is ok.

Well why the hell not? You may be 99% sure you nailed itbu tbe damned if you'll get a second chance at home to shoot that scene again, a quick glance at the histogram and off you go. God knows the Pentax metering is schitzo enough not to be trusted 100%, that goes for other manufacturers I assume.

[bogiesbad]

Ugh no like camera... only hand painting

That is funny.

I still have the very first 8 x 10 enlargement I had made from a capture using an Asahi SLR some 40 odd years ago. It is horribly underexposed but the image was excellent to my eyes at the time. I was very interested in photography then but being a teenager I had other urges and never developed a passion. I kept that camera into my mid twenties but only had a handful of rolls developed due to the obvious reasons of costs and time waiting for the prints to return. I had a couple of 110 and 35mm cheapo cameras over the ensuing years but took few pictures because of the reasons above.
When the Sony Mavica first appeared I spent the $750 they were going for back then and jumped into digital with both mega-pixels. Since then I have been hooked and after some years with P&S's I bought my K10d.
I have always enjoyed photography and digital allows me the instant gratification my personalities demand. I would not say I am passionate and will never be a pro but I do know my images are now better because I can practice and see immediate results. I love technology and am happier because of it.