 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 2007A good illustration of a danger of digital
While a classic F-4 Phantom jet fighter makes a surprise, low fly-by, the digital photographers are too busy admiring their previous shots to see it: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1243247/L/ > While a classic F-4 Phantom jet fighter makes a surprise, low fly-by, the > digital photographers are too busy admiring their previous shots to see it: > > http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1243247/L/ In the photo you link to, the engine is hot (afterburners not quite at full power) and the flaps are down, suggesting he just took off. Possibly the three photogs couldn't care less or had enough shots of aircraft taking off. Could even be they had other aspect shots of the same aircraft (from a more head on view) and considered those more interesting. The proportions of the helmets in the cockpit to the heads of the photogs suggest that the airplane was about 3x further away than the three photogs. Two of these guys are in camo, and the middle guy is possibly in a dress blouse so they probably get a lot of chances to photograph all kinds of airshows. At an airshow quite few years ago (long before DLR's) I was caught by the Blue Angels... One (or three? DR) of the aircraft broke away from the action and circled out of sight and sound behind the crowd. As two aircraft did a head on pass (illusory, the runways at YMX are 200' wide and they each fly on opposite sides...) the other aircraft came roaring over the back... I almost anticipated it and I was turning to look, but it was way too late. Airshows are not an easy place to get sharp, full frame shots of aircraft in flight. Digital cameras certainly make it easier.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > While a classic F-4 Phantom jet fighter makes a surprise, low fly-by, the > digital photographers are too busy admiring their previous shots to see it: > > http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1243247/L/ Woah! That's a nice example of tele-compression there. A damn fine shot. I think I'll set that one as the wall paper for a while ... if you don't mind. > While a classic F-4 Phantom jet fighter makes a surprise, low fly-by, the > digital photographers are too busy admiring their previous shots to see > it: > > http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1243247/L/ Yeah, but I have to say that I've missed a few good ones while changing film, and adjusting other things on my F5, too...... How have you been, Mxmanic? - I haven't heard from you in a while......Are you still wandering around Paris taking those great photos? Bill Graham > Yeah, but I have to say that I've missed a few good ones while changing > film, and adjusting other things on my F5, too...... True, but you _have_ to do that. When you shoot digital, you do not _have_ to look at every photo after you take it ... but many photographers are compelled by ego to do exactly that, anyway. And sometimes they miss shots. I've seen it many, many times. > How have you been, Mxmanic? - I haven't heard from you in a > while......Are you still wandering around Paris taking those great photos? I don't have any money for film or development these days, and very little time to actually take pictures or sort through the results (or scan). It has been quite a while since I've had the pleasure of taking photos. The chain photo store that used to develop my film (relatively) cheaply has now converted to selling cell phones instead. There are fewer and fewer places to get film and development. >> Yeah, but I have to say that I've missed a few good ones while changing >> film, and adjusting other things on my F5, too...... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > places to > get film and development. >>> "I don't have any money for film or development these days" <<< A good illustration of the danger of Film! ;-) > >>> "I don't have any money for film or development these days" <<< > > A good illustration of the danger of Film! ;-) Just about everyone I know who has gone digital has spent several times more on equipment since doing so then they would have spent on film in a decade. And, unlike film equipment, it seems that digital equipment must be "upgraded" in the same way that PCs must be "upgraded," every year or so. Some of them have admitted to me that they are spending ridiculous sums today on equipment--and very little of it goes to lenses, which are traditionally the most important pieces of equipment. So the reality is that those who go digital aren't really saving money at all. No surprise to me. > So the reality is that those who go digital aren't really saving money at all. > No surprise to me. I used to spend $2000 or so per year in film/dev. Now I spend less than $300/year in film/dev. So, I buy more lenses. I bought a D-SLR in early 2005. I'll buy another sometime in 2008. So what? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I used to spend $2000 or so per year in film/dev. > > Now I spend less than $300/year in film/dev. How much did you spend on camera bodies a year for film? And how much do you spend now on camera bodies for digital? What about PC equipment, and software, and printers, and printing services, and memory cards? > > I used to spend $2000 or so per year in film/dev. > > > Now I spend less than $300/year in film/dev. > > How much did you spend on camera bodies a year for film? And how much do you > spend now on camera bodies for digital? I'm guessing he is spending a lot less than the $1700/year he is saving on developing costs. FWIW, my film body (the Fabulous EOS-1V) costs more than any of my digital bodies. Dude, you were singin this same tune 5 years ago and you had a whole chorus of other Luddites singin it with you. Most of them have advanced to digital since then, so now you're singin solo. Give it up. Film is dead. Get over it. > Give it up. Film is dead. Get over it. It ain't dead. It's reserved for special purposes. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> > I used to spend $2000 or so per year in film/dev. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > advanced to digital since then, so now you're singin solo. > Give it up. Film is dead. Get over it. 35 mm film isn't quite dead yet, but it is sick, and spending a lot of time in the hospital....But medium and large format film is still very much alive and kicking....... >35 mm film isn't quite dead yet, but it is sick, and spending a lot of time >in the hospital....But medium and large format film is still very much alive >and kicking....... Absolutely, and the proof of that is the prices of medium format cameras, especially the rangefinders like the Mamiya 7 or the Fuji 690, on the second-hand market. > Give it up. Film is dead. Get over it. I hope it stays dead too. Having too much fun with it now, don't want it to come back "live"... >> I used to spend $2000 or so per year in film/dev. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spend now on camera bodies for digital? What about PC equipment, and > software, and printers, and printing services, and memory cards? I had one camera body from 1993 to 2000. The 7xi required a lot of menu diving, so the Maxxum 9 was bought in 2000. That camera (the Maxxum 9) was as perfect a product as could be made and surpassed the F5 and the EOS-1v in many areas. Each camera had its "best" points). I would have been happy to live with that camera alone for many, many years. I use it less, but every time I do, it is much better than my Maxxum 7D as a camera. PC equipment I would have in any case, and I rarely print photos at home (a few a year). I send the files off to the photo store and get the prints for a unit cost much less than my own and much less than film+processing. (I dropped 7 rolls off yesterday, nonetheless, and I have most of a 36 to finish in the Max9 right now). I recently splurged on CS3 (a little under US$500 for an upgrade from Elements), but, ironically that was driven in large part by my purchase of a Hasselblad, lenses and Nikon 9000 ED scanner. That's where my current few hundred a year in film/dev (mainly E-6) goes. CS3 also allows me much better control of skin tones than Elements whether for digital or film. It also goes without saying that having the digital camera allows much more experimentation than with film (at least for an amateur) as the feedback is immediate and the price penalty for a lot of experimentation is quite low... time really. The following shot, for example http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6046401&size=lg Was difficult to meter for the red light and even then required an offset from what I metered. The white was bang on. With Polaroid proofs it would have been the same process. Start somewhere, shoot a test, adjust from the Polaroids, then commit to film. On digital it took a mere 3 in camera iterations to get it right. Digital is so much better for the immediate feedback that it gives allowing rapid progress for even the least experienced beginners. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Just about everyone I know who has gone digital has spent several times more > on equipment since doing so then they would have spent on film in a decade. They must not take many pics then. I still occasionally take a roll of slide film and I don't like the fact that it costs me about $13-$15 per roll for the film + processing. Not to mention the cost of the gas driving back and forth to the place. While it is true that I might want to upgrade my digital body every 3-4 years that cost is nothing compared to what I would've spent in film and processing costs. Even if I just shot a roll a week I'd save enough in 2-3 years to be able to afford the next body, and that doesn't even include what I might get if I sold the old body. Plus, I'd be getting better photos. >>>>> "I don't have any money for film or development these days" <<< >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So the reality is that those who go digital aren't really saving > money at all. No surprise to me. A surprise to me: It's been three years since I bought a new computer or serious software or peripheral; my "upgrades" (more and bigger external hard drives) are less and less expensive as time passes. It's been a year since I bought a new digital camera , nearly that since I believed I needed a new lens or CF card; my experience in the intervening time convinced me my careful selection back then means I may /never/ need more upgrades in equipment. I can't imagine a circumstance in which /need/ will drive any changes; "want" is another matter entirely. SignatureFrank S Recommending: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117702894815776259.html For your enjoyment and edification >>>>> "I don't have any money for film or development these days" <<< >> A good illustration of the danger of Film! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So the reality is that those who go digital aren't really saving money at all. > No surprise to me. The real big cost of using film for my me and my wife was not the cost of the film or the processing but the time it was taking us to scan it. It is hard to get enthusiastic about going out and taking more shots when you have a large stack of negatives that still need to be scanned. As for missed shots with using digital, I still miss some, like when I am changing memory cards. But I only need to change cards every 250 shots or so and it takes a fraction of the time to change a card as it does film. The larger areasof photos that we missed when shooting film were the ones that did not seem important enough at the time to be worth "wasting" film on, the shots of everyday kind of stuff. Over the years these shots turn out to hold more value then the shots that seem impressive at the time. It is true that we are spending more on photography now then we did when we were shooting film, but then we are both having a lot more fun with photograph now then we were shooting film and we are getting far better photos then when we were shooting film. A lot of the increase in cost of photography has been in the lenses we have bought since going digital, when we were constrained in how many photos we could take paying $1000 for a lens was hard to justify, to get you moneys worth out of the lens you would need to spend way more on film then what the lens cost. With digit we get far more use from the lenses we buy. Scott >> >>> "I don't have any money for film or development these days" <<< >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > all. > No surprise to me. Basically the same thing is true of computers....Before computers, it took me quite a while to resolve my checkbook, but that's about all I had to do....Today, this marvelous machine does many things, but now, I spend 1/2 of every day sitting at it doing all those things I didn't have the ability to do in those simpler days of yore.....And yet, I don't seem to be getting any smarter or really accomplishing any more.....I think they are make work machines....They make artificial work, and then say, "See how good I am at doing all this work?" - "Why don't you buy a bigger, faster machine, and then I will show you new tasks that you can't even dream about now." >> >>> "I don't have any money for film or development these days" <<< >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > all. > No surprise to me. When I used to shoot film, it actually stopped me photographing as a hobby for aprox 5 years because of the expense, I just couldn't afford to do it anymore. Now I have gone digital I can click away to my hearts content, yes the outlay was expensive, but then so was the outlay for my non digital SLR etc. I have not done any cost comparisons between the two, but believe me, I am finding it much cheaper. There will always be those who want the latest thing, more pixels etc, and I would guess that they are the ones that will be finding it expensive. But personally I have stuck with the EOS 20D as 8.2 megapixels will produce prints far bigger than I will need. I have got all the accessories I need, so lens's are the only things I buy now, except for a small amount of ink & paper as I don't print much, most of it is stored on disc. All the best. Mick >> Yeah, but I have to say that I've missed a few good ones while changing >> film, and adjusting other things on my F5, too...... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > places to > get film and development. Much the same is true here....I just take slides (which I always had to wait for, anyway) and scan them into my computer after I get them back....Boy, I sure can identify with that cell phone stuff....It seems like half the stores in town sell cell phones and/or the service that comes with them....They practically give away the phones for free, because you have to sign up for two or three years at like $100 a month in order to activate and use them.....I hear that they are thinking of implanting them in the right ears of infants at the hospital shortly after birth.....Sort of a modern update of circumcision.... [---] >Boy, I >sure can identify with that cell phone stuff....It seems like half the >stores in town sell cell phones and/or the service that comes with >them....They practically give away the phones for free, because you have to >sign up for two or three years at like $100 a month in order to activate and >use them.... Yep, same racket as ink-jet printers and electric toothbrushes ... > [---] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yep, same racket as ink-jet printers and electric toothbrushes . .......and blood glucosometers and (earlier) Polaroid cameras...... Stirrer! :-) Murray > While a classic F-4 Phantom jet fighter makes a surprise, low fly-by, the > digital photographers are too busy admiring their previous shots to see it: > > http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1243247/L/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.