"random user 12987" wrote in message
...
The romance with digital as a medium for portraiture, weddings and
landscapes is over (for me at any rate) After three years and perhaps
$25,000 (I never kept count) spent on the pursuit of digital
photography...
I now know it is of little value to me. Maybe the occasional product shot
or
advertising shot but definitely not for what I have made a living doing
for
43 years.


Wow - this is music to my ears. I'm fast reaching the same conclusion,
though only after a measly 25 years or so of shooting, many of those years
professionally. While I am predominantly shooting 35mm (Nikon) I only
possess one DX lens (12-24) and increasingly these days the digi is staying
in its bag and I'm recreating the love with Velvia and film in general. One
of my favourite things is to take the old FG out with an old Nikkor 24 f/2.8
and the 50 f/1.4, a few rolls of Velvia 100 and a tripod. The other day I
was doing this and some guy puffed out his chest and approached me, held his
new Sony Cybershot X-something so it was obvious and asked me... wait for
it... "How many megapixels mate??". Welcome to the new "photographic"
consumer driving the new world photography machine.

rant

I would love to see more like you stand and begin something of a wave of
awakenings to the *real* costs of digital - which IMHO go far beyond the
processing time, gear costs etc. To me the digital world is taking
photography away from photographers and into the fast-paced consumer world
of electronics where there exists a hungry cycle of 'improvement', one which
must be satisfied in order for manufacturers to remain alive. The focus in
digital is on hi-tech features and easily quantifiable parameters
(megapixels being the most obvious, data transfer rates, signal to noise
ratios etc.) and away from the 'art' and technique elements of photography.
These days I hardly hear talk of technique in tricky lighting conditions,
how to frame awkward subjects, approaches to exposure etc. for all the noise
of "how big can I print an 8Mp image", "which card is going to give me the
best data transfer", "how do I Photoshop (the crap out of) this image", "how
do I move the histogram to avoid blowing out the highlights" etc...

Traditionally camera companies have had to exist in a very different
consumer environment. True, digital has opened up photography to many more
people - most of us these days are far more familiar with computers and
emailing shots of the kiddies is a wonderful way to communicate with
far-flung rellies and friends. Sadly, it appears to me that the whole
photographic world is heading this way and forgetting that at the end of the
day, a good photographer with a box camera will take better shots than Joe
Wally with the latest D2X or 1Ds.

This is the greater cost I'm referring to - the whole shift away from
purposeful photography which requires photographic technique, practice and
application. Already these changes have cost us - Minolta, Agfa, Blad
(XPan), Nikon film gear etc. just as a start. I guess it all comes under
the heading of progress but no longer is photography in the hands of
photographers - it is the new breed of consumer who must have the latest
thing and really knows nothing of, or cares little about good photography.

Of course this is just my opinion and I feel the same way about elements of
the 'music' world and other areas of creative pursuit where the big digital
generator has to keep producing something new to keep the interest of its
market. And if you think I'm just an old luddite, I have owned several
small (and successful) software companies and have been working in the tech
world in some capacity since the early 80s. :-)

/rant

So thanks for your contribution. I think you struck a nerve here and I
really hope to see more of this. I implore amateur digital photographers to
try something - try covering the display on the back of your cameras and
really think about the shot and get away from the 'machine gun' approach (if
that's what you do). Wait until you get home (back to the office) and feel
the anticipation of seeing your shots (it is a good feeling, lost to the
film world). I bet you see huge improvements in your results and experience
an increase in your knowledge. It is composition and exposure that maketh a
good shot - not megapixels dear friends.

Cheers,
Dave E (Sydney)




I have come to the conclusion that whilst there are many who will always
expect you to use the very latest equipment, there are also those who
recognize the subtle difference between a hand crafted enlargement and a
digital print. Demonstrably, there are enough of these people around to
allow this old bugger to keep his passion alive for another few years yet.
Besides, being one of the last in town to be using film and MF at that,
might also give me and edge!

I always had a problem using 35mm as a medium for serious photography.
Although I used 35mm SLRs for many things, my serious and professional
work
was always with medium and large format cameras.

I am fed up with the processing of my images going on without my knowledge
by a computer I can't program. I am fed up with the cost of digital
photography. Sure it's cheap to shoot but sub machine guns never made an
accurate weapon either and they shot off hundreds of rounds in the hope of
hitting something too.

I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for
Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with
uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for. He
used
a $5000(AUD) 5D with a $2600(AUD) lens and $1000 (AUD) worth of CFCs to do
the deed. Not to mention the $850(AUD) speedlite to (try and) overcome the
****ty dynamic range of the camera.

I shot 40 frames with a Pentax 645 at the same event. I choose the
subject,
encouraged them to animate and took the pictures. I processed them last
night and all are in focus with just 3 throw away. The camera with 2
lenses
cost $850(AUD) on EBay and the film + chemicals cost maybe $30(AUD). I can
buy some fine lenses for this camera with the cash from selling my latest
digital.

I expect to enlarge the pictures to 20"x30" and have them in the gallery
and
ready to sell to print shops tomorrow. I couldn't do it any faster with
digital and certainly would have had problems with the suntan oil on skin,
blowing away the specula highlights.

It's all over red rover. The digitals are simply not good enough for my
work. This post is not about "is digital better or worse" it's about a
decision I've been contemplating for some time. Maybe Australian sunlight
and 40C daytime temperatures with Queensland's 27/7 humidity over 80%
might
affect the sensors and the results, maybe not. What I do know is my most
popular posters are all shot on film.

Take away the digital shots and I still have 80% sales from film cameras
as
opposed to ones from digital cameras. I don't make enough to be bothered
by
a 20% drop in sales for a saving in equipment cost of the magnitude of my
investment.

--
Having climaxed... She turned on her
mate and began to devour him.
Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman?