Tired of Digital Mayhem

LightBug · 01-14-2010, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by nuts43

Muse:
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.

I raised the same concern to one of my friend a while ago, that I seem to be more anxious to take lots of pictures with digital than with film. His answer was "Why? I take the same (few) number of pictures with either film or digital."

So I think it lies in one's own discipline. Just because one can, one doesn't have to employ machine-gun style photography when shooting digial.

Joe

pingflood · 01-14-2010, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Yes, the self-timer automatically does a mirror lock up.

Which is god damned brilliant and I don't know why not every other manufacturer has figured this out. One thing I REALLY loved about the K20D was how cleverly designed it was; small things like this, as well as automagically disabling SR if you used the self timer. Great stuff.

And Wheatfield: the guy appears to have posted his rant/whine in the *DSLR* forum, so I take no pity on him when he's being referred to as a Homo Erectus. I'm quite the Luddite in many ways, but I don't go posting on the cell phone forums about how gosh darn, life was better without these confusing newfangled devices.

KungPOW · 01-14-2010, 07:56 PM

I think many new DSLR users have missed the fact that the majority of the camera functions we have today on our DSLR's originated on the autofocus film cameras from the late 1990's.

Cameras such as the EOS-1, PZ-1p, F100, F5 etc. Take the PZ-1p for example and compair it to the K10/20D. They are very similar. The F100 and the D100/D200/D300 functionally are the same camera. The controls are almost identical, as is the viewfinder information. The big improvment the cameras we have today, when compaired to these film cameras, is how easy it is to set the custom options. But on the otherhand, we the consumer, have demanded more and more custom options, the modern DSLR is getting bloated with custom options. Fat with choice, our cameras have become.

The fact is, if you gave a photographer an F100 and without letting them see the back of the camera, asked them to take a picture, and then did the same with a D200, they would not know if they were using a film or digital camera. The only way they could tell, is that ISO is not displayed in the viewfinder of the F100. The viewfinder display is 90% the same, they both have controlable focus points, and they both sound the same when the shutter trips.

So, I my opinion, this argument people make about DSLR's being a complicated mass of buttons and dials, really should have been made 10-15 years ago. Kind of ironic that their argument is as old as their last SLR.

As for a simple DSLR "like my MX but digital", we will never see that. People live in fear that their purchase will not measure up, or that they missed the must have feature of the week.

As for the OP, I think he is a troll, and I have no issue with people mocking him and calling him a troglodyte. His only purpose with his post is to be inflamitory and confrontational. I don't see any reason not to flame his ass. Assuming he knows what fire is.

KungPOW · 01-14-2010, 07:59 PM

And another thing...

Nice shot Mike!

pingflood · 01-14-2010, 08:01 PM

From simplicity
How our humble cameras became
Fat with choice

nuts43 · 01-15-2010, 01:30 AM

Hello Forum Posters,

Since I am the op let me say that my muse was a way of getting things off my chest. I didn’t mean to be confrontational or inflammatory and I have enjoyed this experience. I don’t mind the thoughts of those who don’t agree with me and I am happy that some understand how I feel. I wasn’t born to the digital age and I am sure that fact plays a role in my thinking process. Still, the feel of a mechanical camera, finely made like a Swiss watch and made to last a long time, does fuel my passion for photography. I had not given thought to how the actual DSLR camera life span and monetary depreciation equated to the cost of film and processing and that in the long run a DSLR is really more economical than using a film camera. Maybe I am old fashioned or just old however, everything digital does not necessarily improve life. Please take up a collection and gift me with a Leica M9, I will be more than happy to change my ways.

pingflood · 01-15-2010, 06:49 AM

A Leica M9 isn't a DSLR.

dylansalt · 01-15-2010, 08:16 AM

The consumer these days the digital age has generally been duped that every later model etc etc is "better"

Let's take tv's - LCD better than CRT for IQ - not a chance - yet everyone is ditching the CRT tv for cheap & Nasty LCD tv.

I think this has happened with Digital Photography.

With any Photographer I believe tonality, dynamic range & color sensitivity was always the top of the list .

With 35mm we could choose from a range of emulsions to get a desired look - the slr remained a constant.

All we have done now is fully accepted the "microwave age" i.e. I must have/see results now - I cannot wait syndrome for Images that definitely don't have the range film emulsion had

Now for example the wedding photog shoots 1000 raws - spends hours & hours processing - sitting in front of a glaring lcd - using layers/masks trying to recover highlights blown in the wedding gown, veil etc & trying to reconcile it to the grooms Jacket etc

The old days was shoot 180 negs - go to a pro lab (where as a pro one has built up a relationship) and print out contact sheets - quickly go over with a 10x8 loupe to check enlargement sharpness - sit with client - choose prints for standard Jumbo & enlargements,crops - take back to pro lab and instruct - well basically that easy flow anyway.

For sure we can wax lyrical about about high Iso capability but with IQ taking a hit.

I have moved on for sure and digital is my realm but let us not forget that in terms of the final print we have gone backwards in IQ compared to film in 35mm terms

The new generation don't have this reference of "film" so digital IQ is the "norm" but I really don't think that we togs from the film era can easily agree

Wheatfield · 01-15-2010, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by LightBug

I raised the same concern to one of my friend a while ago, that I seem to be more anxious to take lots of pictures with digital than with film. His answer was "Why? I take the same (few) number of pictures with either film or digital."

So I think it lies in one's own discipline. Just because one can, one doesn't have to employ machine-gun style photography when shooting digial.

Joe

Digital allows people to fall into the (incorrect) "more is better" way of thinking.
There's a lot of people out there now who will shoot a few hundred pictures that are essentially visual sewage in the hopes of being able to snatch one tasty gobbet out of the festering waste stream that they call a days shooting.
They call it experimentation to justify it, but proper experimentation requires some forethought with regard to what the end result should be.
This is generally missing from the equation, so it really isn't experimentation, it's just mindless button mashing.

You don't learn more about photography by taking more pictures, you learn by taking fewer pictures and thinking about what you are doing before you push the button.

Wheatfield · 01-15-2010, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by dylansalt

The new generation don't have this reference of "film" so digital IQ is the "norm" but I really don't think that we togs from the film era can easily agree

Digital (well the affordable stuff anyway) is approaching 35mm film in some regards, but 35mm was never a quality benchmark for film photography.

Parallax · 01-15-2010, 09:43 AM

Well, I think I agree with the OP. The old ways are always better, but alas, I too may have to give in to technology and
get some of those new-fangled electric lightbulb thingies.
As I get older, its getting harder to see my keyboard by candle light.

ully · 01-15-2010, 09:52 AM

Thats why I still have a darkroom.

Wheatfield · 01-15-2010, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

Well, I think I agree with the OP. The old ways are always better, but alas, I too may have to give in to technology and
get some of those new-fangled electric lightbulb thingies.
As I get older, its getting harder to see my keyboard by candle light.

That just might let you "see the light" on a few other topics as well

Parallax · 01-15-2010, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

That just might let you "see the light" on a few other topics as well

I wouldn't bet any big money one that one, Bill.

Steve Beswick · 01-15-2010, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

No one is stopping me from riding a horse...

Why don't you try to ride that horse down the 15 freeway in Southern California, and then let me know how long it takes till you are in handcuffs.

01-15-2010, 09:52 AM	#72
ully Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle, Wash. USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 63	Love the process. Thats why I still have a darkroom.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
So so tired..............	Just12hvFun	Post Your Photos!	0	08-11-2009 05:54 AM
A day in the studio! Fashion Mayhem!	codiac2600	Post Your Photos!	13	12-22-2007 06:42 AM
Macro Mayhem!! [5 imgs - about 1MB]	Marc Langille	Post Your Photos!	36	06-29-2007 03:12 PM
Tired	TrailSeeker	Post Your Photos!	2	01-07-2007 07:58 AM
Tired...	TrailSeeker	Post Your Photos!	7	11-29-2006 01:05 PM

01-14-2010, 07:38 PM	#61
LightBug Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: OC, CA, USA Posts: 506	Originally posted by nuts43 Muse: 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. I raised the same concern to one of my friend a while ago, that I seem to be more anxious to take lots of pictures with digital than with film. His answer was "Why? I take the same (few) number of pictures with either film or digital." So I think it lies in one's own discipline. Just because one can, one doesn't have to employ machine-gun style photography when shooting digial. Joe

01-14-2010, 07:48 PM	#62
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Yes, the self-timer automatically does a mirror lock up. Which is god damned brilliant and I don't know why not every other manufacturer has figured this out. One thing I REALLY loved about the K20D was how cleverly designed it was; small things like this, as well as automagically disabling SR if you used the self timer. Great stuff. And Wheatfield: the guy appears to have posted his rant/whine in the DSLR forum, so I take no pity on him when he's being referred to as a Homo Erectus. I'm quite the Luddite in many ways, but I don't go posting on the cell phone forums about how gosh darn, life was better without these confusing newfangled devices.

01-14-2010, 07:56 PM	#63
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	I think many new DSLR users have missed the fact that the majority of the camera functions we have today on our DSLR's originated on the autofocus film cameras from the late 1990's. Cameras such as the EOS-1, PZ-1p, F100, F5 etc. Take the PZ-1p for example and compair it to the K10/20D. They are very similar. The F100 and the D100/D200/D300 functionally are the same camera. The controls are almost identical, as is the viewfinder information. The big improvment the cameras we have today, when compaired to these film cameras, is how easy it is to set the custom options. But on the otherhand, we the consumer, have demanded more and more custom options, the modern DSLR is getting bloated with custom options. Fat with choice, our cameras have become. The fact is, if you gave a photographer an F100 and without letting them see the back of the camera, asked them to take a picture, and then did the same with a D200, they would not know if they were using a film or digital camera. The only way they could tell, is that ISO is not displayed in the viewfinder of the F100. The viewfinder display is 90% the same, they both have controlable focus points, and they both sound the same when the shutter trips. So, I my opinion, this argument people make about DSLR's being a complicated mass of buttons and dials, really should have been made 10-15 years ago. Kind of ironic that their argument is as old as their last SLR. As for a simple DSLR "like my MX but digital", we will never see that. People live in fear that their purchase will not measure up, or that they missed the must have feature of the week. As for the OP, I think he is a troll, and I have no issue with people mocking him and calling him a troglodyte. His only purpose with his post is to be inflamitory and confrontational. I don't see any reason not to flame his ass. Assuming he knows what fire is.

01-14-2010, 07:59 PM	#64
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	And another thing... Nice shot Mike!

01-14-2010, 08:01 PM	#65
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	From simplicity How our humble cameras became Fat with choice

01-15-2010, 01:30 AM	#66
nuts43 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Oregon Posts: 2 Original Poster	Hello Forum Posters, Since I am the op let me say that my muse was a way of getting things off my chest. I didn’t mean to be confrontational or inflammatory and I have enjoyed this experience. I don’t mind the thoughts of those who don’t agree with me and I am happy that some understand how I feel. I wasn’t born to the digital age and I am sure that fact plays a role in my thinking process. Still, the feel of a mechanical camera, finely made like a Swiss watch and made to last a long time, does fuel my passion for photography. I had not given thought to how the actual DSLR camera life span and monetary depreciation equated to the cost of film and processing and that in the long run a DSLR is really more economical than using a film camera. Maybe I am old fashioned or just old however, everything digital does not necessarily improve life. Please take up a collection and gift me with a Leica M9, I will be more than happy to change my ways.

01-15-2010, 06:49 AM	#67
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	A Leica M9 isn't a DSLR.

01-15-2010, 08:16 AM	#68
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	The consumer these days the digital age has generally been duped that every later model etc etc is "better" Let's take tv's - LCD better than CRT for IQ - not a chance - yet everyone is ditching the CRT tv for cheap & Nasty LCD tv. I think this has happened with Digital Photography. With any Photographer I believe tonality, dynamic range & color sensitivity was always the top of the list . With 35mm we could choose from a range of emulsions to get a desired look - the slr remained a constant. All we have done now is fully accepted the "microwave age" i.e. I must have/see results now - I cannot wait syndrome for Images that definitely don't have the range film emulsion had Now for example the wedding photog shoots 1000 raws - spends hours & hours processing - sitting in front of a glaring lcd - using layers/masks trying to recover highlights blown in the wedding gown, veil etc & trying to reconcile it to the grooms Jacket etc The old days was shoot 180 negs - go to a pro lab (where as a pro one has built up a relationship) and print out contact sheets - quickly go over with a 10x8 loupe to check enlargement sharpness - sit with client - choose prints for standard Jumbo & enlargements,crops - take back to pro lab and instruct - well basically that easy flow anyway. For sure we can wax lyrical about about high Iso capability but with IQ taking a hit. I have moved on for sure and digital is my realm but let us not forget that in terms of the final print we have gone backwards in IQ compared to film in 35mm terms The new generation don't have this reference of "film" so digital IQ is the "norm" but I really don't think that we togs from the film era can easily agree

01-15-2010, 08:17 AM	#69
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,976	Originally posted by LightBug I raised the same concern to one of my friend a while ago, that I seem to be more anxious to take lots of pictures with digital than with film. His answer was "Why? I take the same (few) number of pictures with either film or digital." So I think it lies in one's own discipline. Just because one can, one doesn't have to employ machine-gun style photography when shooting digial. Joe Digital allows people to fall into the (incorrect) "more is better" way of thinking. There's a lot of people out there now who will shoot a few hundred pictures that are essentially visual sewage in the hopes of being able to snatch one tasty gobbet out of the festering waste stream that they call a days shooting. They call it experimentation to justify it, but proper experimentation requires some forethought with regard to what the end result should be. This is generally missing from the equation, so it really isn't experimentation, it's just mindless button mashing. You don't learn more about photography by taking more pictures, you learn by taking fewer pictures and thinking about what you are doing before you push the button.

01-15-2010, 08:22 AM	#70
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,976	Originally posted by dylansalt The new generation don't have this reference of "film" so digital IQ is the "norm" but I really don't think that we togs from the film era can easily agree Digital (well the affordable stuff anyway) is approaching 35mm film in some regards, but 35mm was never a quality benchmark for film photography.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2010, 09:43 AM	#71
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Well, I think I agree with the OP. The old ways are always better, but alas, I too may have to give in to technology and get some of those new-fangled electric lightbulb thingies. As I get older, its getting harder to see my keyboard by candle light.

01-15-2010, 09:52 AM	#73
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,976	Originally posted by Parallax Well, I think I agree with the OP. The old ways are always better, but alas, I too may have to give in to technology and get some of those new-fangled electric lightbulb thingies. As I get older, its getting harder to see my keyboard by candle light. That just might let you "see the light" on a few other topics as well

01-15-2010, 09:57 AM	#74
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Wheatfield That just might let you "see the light" on a few other topics as well I wouldn't bet any big money one that one, Bill.

01-15-2010, 10:10 AM	#75
Steve Beswick Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ontario, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,736	Originally posted by PentaxPoke No one is stopping me from riding a horse... Why don't you try to ride that horse down the 15 freeway in Southern California, and then let me know how long it takes till you are in handcuffs.