[Raybo]

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.

Well said wheatfield!

Digital is a good learning tool for those of us that have never shot film, OTOH is it a good tool?
The "basics" should be the basics no matter what you are using, you just need to know!

[dylansalt]

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

Granted - still though ditching Plate Glass for 6x6, 6x7, 6 x4.5 for convenience (and accepting) and "lesser" quality of 35mm

Already we are hearing that Full Frame is the "new" convenient MF of the digital era e.g. 1dsmk111, Sony A900 being equated to MF film quality -true???

Over hear togs are selling their whole Hasseblad systems in order to "upgrade" to 1ds.

[brofkand]

You can still use your K-7 like you would a K1000.

Put black tape over the LCD, put it in Av or Tv, run through about 35 exposures, and take the card to wal-mart for 4x6's.

I am not being sarcastic.

[Wheatfield]

Granted - still though ditching Plate Glass for 6x6, 6x7, 6 x4.5 for convenience (and accepting) and "lesser" quality of 35mm

Already we are hearing that Full Frame is the "new" convenient MF of the digital era e.g. 1dsmk111, Sony A900 being equated to MF film quality -true???

Over hear togs are selling their whole Hasseblad systems in order to "upgrade" to 1ds.

If you look at the image quality available from a film based Hassleblad compared to any small format digital, you wouldn't be saying that, but you aren't.

[pingflood]

Well, I've only shoot Mamiya and Fuji medium format, but I can say that when looking at any reasonable size print, the output from a 1Ds II or III is on par with medium format performance -- now if you get a perfect shot and a damned fine scan of a 6x7 chrome it'll have an edge most likely but not enough to warrant the effort, expense and hassle.

You can look at this amongst others, and keep in mind this is the original 1Ds which is now QUITE old:
Shootout
PHOTOgraphical.NET - Canon 1Ds vs. film - Medium Format
PHOTOgraphical.NET - Canon 1Ds vs. film - Prints


We can look at Norman Koren, who is a fairly decent authority on the topic:
Digital cameras vs. film, part 1

The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II, announced in September 2004, challenges medium format film

You can read this which pits a D2X against a Hassy:
Adventure Sports Photographer Editorial Corporate Stock Advertising Photography

But feel free to post your own comparison of medium format vs a decent DSLR...

Me, I have my MF film cameras because they're fun, not because my digital doesn't provide the results I want. For REAL resolution though, I think my Sinar F1 loaded with some nice B&W film is the big gun for some time to come...

I have a feeling that people have a somewhat starry eyed nostalgia clouding their judgment when it comes to film. Many still insist digital can't outperform 35mm film when it's fairly clear that in real world applications that just ain't true.

edit: you can also read this...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field-5.shtml

he 1Ds also fares very well against medium format. Is it sharper than 645? No, not quite, but really very close. When you add in the extremely low noise of the images compared to scanned film, and add in all of the cost and workflow advantages of shooting digital over shooting and scanning film, in my opinion the 1Ds is to be preferred. I'll gladly take the huge reduction in noise (grain) over slightly lower overall resolution any day of the week. Thomas and Chris basically have concurred with this finding after reviewing many sample images that we shot together.

[monochrome]

My wife writes novels - for a living - with a Pilot pen on yellow legal pads. Double-spaced. She feels the slower speed of hand-writing allows her brain time to develop her characters as she writes. She pays a transcriptionist to key her writing into a word processor and edits from there. Only because her publisher no longer accepts hand-written manuscripts.

She sends emails on a computer to her friends and relatives as a hobby.

So there.

I photograph as a hobby. I shoot mostly digital because it is convenient. I shoot film when I want to because I want to and for no other reason. Professionals may feel differently.

So there again.

Neither my wife nor I feels any more nor less creatively constrained by technology.

[/sarc]

[Old Timer 56]

..... It is like someone attacking computers or word processors, because they kill the creativity that is brought by pencil and paper.

Pencil and paper? Quill pen is the only way to go, preferably made from a turkey feather.

Reminds me of writers who insist they use a typewriter rather than a computer because it makes them more "creative".

Richard

Reminds me of writers who insist they use a typewriter rather than a computer because it makes them more "creative".

Richard

Why shouldn't it make them more creative? Everyone is different, I can imagine the sounds that a typewriter makes being beneficial (or relaxing) to a writer.

[ptempel]

If you look at the image quality available from a film based Hassleblad compared to any small format digital, you wouldn't be saying that, but you aren't.

Mmm. I used to shoot with a few MF cameras (Rolleicord, Mamiya 7, Hasselblad 500/CM, Holga) and I also miss the image quality sometimes as well. I once did a rough calculation and found out that it would take about a 14 MP camera to get the resolution I could get with fine grain 6x6 negative film. We now have that resolution in the K7, but I think the CMOS and CCD sensors still can't "see into the shadows" like film can. But they are also getting better with each iteration.

[SpecialK]

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.

For you, maybe.

[pingflood]

For you, maybe.

No kidding. "Film cameras don't intrude on the creative process" -- right. If you want a certain shot that requires ISO 1600 and you have 100 loaded, then you either have to fuss with swapping film mid roll or settling for what you can get out of what you have. That introduces creativity no more than a Holga does, by forcing you to deal with the limitations imposed upon you. But if you have a clear vision of the final product, then it's just a hindrance and nothing else.

[Nomad]

Well now,

I feel like we have gone over to the dark side a bit but.....so what. My wife (SHHPHOTO) is a fine art photographer and we had to leave behind a 15' x 15' dark room with a 6' x6' square sink for alt pro work on panels .
Due to the high cost of film and processing, she hasn't been able to shoot much at all for a couple of years!! Whenever she had others process her work, she was never really satisfied with the results so it was either drag down to a university to beg DR time or spend much $$ for results that were not always 100%.
Digital has not only allowed her to start enjoying her passion again, it has allowed me to join her and learn photography by buying a used k10d setup and shooting along side her. I am completely hooked. I was actually hooked 8 years ago when she taught me the basics on her 1st camera... a k1000.
We simply could not afford to have 2 people shooting film in the same house.

Does our k-x and k10d kits produce the same IQ as the medium format Hassy?? MUCH BETTER BECAUSE THE HASSY HASN'T BEEN PRODUCING ANY AT ALL!!!!
Now if we just had a spare $40,000 kicking around we could buy a digi Hassy

[Raptorman]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks digital photography isn't all its cracked up to be..seeing as how the damn thing cost me an arm and leg and my 30 dollar P30 makes better photographs all day long



Then again, I'm willing to learn how to make the digital work for me....despite the long, heavy, and maddening learning curve involved. One minute I want to smash my K10 with a hammer and the next I love it.

[johnmflores]

Well, I'm admittedly new to the K7, so I might not have figured out all the shortcuts yet, but here's two examples. I'm often after ultimate image quality on a tripod, so take mirror lock-up for example - three button pushes in the Drive Mode menu, instead of a simple mechanical lever to flip. And then another couple of button pushes to turn it off. Or how about the self timer. Three button pushes to turn it on, and another three to turn it off before the next shot (if you remember). And can you even use both mirror lock-up and self timer together if you don't have your fancy electronic "cable release' with you? I don't think so, because they're on the same line of the same menu, but I could be wrong.

Obviously neither of those things are "big deals" on their own, but there's no question both of those actions are more complex than the old way of doing the exact same thing. And most importantly, all those little things add up. To accomplish the same photo taking senario with a modern DSLR takes many more actions (knob turning and button pushes) than it did on a mechanical SLR in the "old days". That's progress? Not in my humble opinion.

At least on the K7 there's a "user" setting so I can set up everything for one picture taking scenario; but only one unfortunately. It'd help if there were 2 or 3 "user' settings. But that really doesn't get at the root of the problem - to get a camera with a high image quality sensor, you're saddled with a computerized menu based way of operating whether you want it or not.

I hope I don't sound like I'm whining about all this - I've been using DSLR's for 7 or 8 years now and generaly enjoy the experience. But they do slow me down compared to an "old fashioned" camera, and that's not good for the creative flow. I just wish the two worlds could be combined, a simpler more intuitive camera with highest quality imaging, and the M9 proves that it's doable. If another company comes out with something similar (preferably in SLR form) at a real world price, I bet they'd sell a ton of them to us "Neanderthals"...

This is an excellent point - designing efficient and elegant user interfaces between man and machines is an art and science unto itself, and poor and complicated interfaces often have us battling machines to get what we want from them.

The best interfaces make the machine feel like an extension of the self, that whole cliche about 'zen'. The best interfaces more or less disappear and man and machine become one.

I have a racing motorcycle in the basement that provides that oneness. On the track I think about turning and the bike seems to read my mind and arcs towards the apex. A good racing bicycle can provide that same feeling.

I've got a camera that comes close to that oneness, one that, when the conditions are right, disappears in my hands. It's not digital though, and maybe that part of what the OP was articulating...

[WerTicus]

As someone who started in a darkroom in high school (spend 4 yrs doing photography at that level with pentax k1000's), and then moved fully into digital as it hit 5mp + level.

I can say the only great thing missing from digital photography is the high school girls in the dark room.

Otherwise digital is perfectly capable of doing anything film can and much more.

Id say most people here with issues are old dogs who cant learn new tricks.

I do try to stop past the post processing part of the forum to help as much as I can.

I'm really glad i got to experience the dark room which was gone from the school a few yrs after I left. (replaced with a photoshop / photography class). But i would not bother going to the effort of setting up a dark room today, far more likely to invest in the newest version of photoshop, or a new printer or a new monitor, or a new colour calibration tool instead.