Digital is Dumb - Part 3

The other to threads are going in the same direction so let's go another way
here.
The obvious troll line is unfortunate.
There are a great many of us who use both film and digital methods. There
are a great many poor film photogs and probably more poor digital photogs.
but for those of us who have pursued quality digital work, after so many
years we are starting to have serious quality output. i think my own digital
work challanges film for quality.
To say digital is dumb, is to say my efforts are dumb, and as such is quite
offensive. rather my work is serious and of high quality. i am personally
offended by the tagline.
if anyone expects serious dialog in an offensive thread such as this, they
should consider the nature of the tag statement.
i rather think an apology is due
Carl

Carl

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

Yet you start yet another thread on the subject. Maybe it's time to let
it rest.
Shoot what you want & let everyone else do the same.
Ignore the naysayers


No_name

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

Is this because following your advice is a mistake?


William Graham

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

Of course no one's in charge. I commented earlier on the ill advised
nature of the Subject line, and pointed out: This is usenet.
Employing a cute title, however tongue in cheek, *on usenet* is bound to
attract more irrelevant commentary, as you have recently lamented. It's
also bound to attract trolls, and those who just like to argue or rant,
and veer more sharply and quickly onto those tangents which you say you
wish to eschew.
--
john mcwilliams


John McWilliams

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

The true cost of digital may not make it as much of a bargain as one might
initially think.
The true digital enthusiast, and most professionals, are in positions of
having to remain on a perpetual upgrade path--not only for cameras, but all
of the other things that make up the digital infrastructure: computers,
monitors, editing software, printers, inks, memory cards, batteries, etc.
The greater degree of control that digital offers is something that comes
at a price. When you couple that price with the high degree of
depreciation, and the rapid introduction of upgraded hardware and software,
the cost of replacing film with digital may be high.
It is even higher in relative terms for those of us that have a significant
investment in film bodies and lenses. I have 9 bodies and 18 prime
lenses--all film gear. It really is not that much, because I acquired it
over a period of 35 years, so it really turns out that my system cost
relatively little if amortized over that time span. I am not about to dump
all that familiar gear and start over. For me, a film scanner is cheaper.
Granted, my circumstances are not typical of most peoples'.
Six years ago I bought what was then close to the state-of-the-art in
digicams--a Ricoh RDC-5300 (38-114 zoom range). Nice feature set. Bears an
uncanny resemblance to the Contax G2. Only 2.3 MP, and a 3:2 aspect ratio,
just like film. It makes 4x6 prints at 300 PPI. Great for snapshots and
situations where I want to email the image our post it on a web site. The
only drawback was that it had a bit of digital noise, but PSP X has a nifty
little feature to minimize noise, and I am quite pleased with the
results--GIVEN THE CAMERA'S LIMITATIONS. But, for me, that's all the
digital I require. I'm sticking with my legacy gear, and I can scan what I
need to digitize.
There actually are ways to intelligently add digital to one's kit, without
having to completely abandon film, if one has a lot of otherwise-excellent
film gear. The discussion drifts off-course when it becomes one of
selecting one system at the expense of the other. There is plenty of room
for both.


Jeremy

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

I never allow my internal validation to become dependent on external
opinions which are beyond my control. So someone does not like my choice of
camera technology?
OK...
Ken


Ken Nadvornick

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

This argument keeps coming up and the answer is if you don't count the
cost of replacing your film camera system with a comparable digital
SLR, lenses, flashes, etc. Spending several thousands ($) can cover a
lot of film and processing. This argument assumes you simply replace
the camera body with the equivalent digital SLR body and with some
camera systems, that's not possible, especially if you didn't get into
AF systems, eg. Minolta, Canon, etc.
Also, these arguments don't include the cost of the technology to
support the digitial camera, the batteries, flash cards, computer
software/hardware, and the age old thing, time. You have to consider
all the costs associated with any product, and not just one aspect
(film). You can shoot film and never have or use a computer to get
prints.
This isn't an argument for or against either, it's just a statement to
look all the facets of film and digital cameras.
Why are some medium format companies getting out of the business (eg,
Mamiya) if it's still a viable format? If you're really serious why not
just go to large format, it's eclipses all of them in film or digital?
And keep in mind the viability of your digital camera is up to the
company, and if they decide not to support older models, partly because
of changes in technology, parts, and/or they want to sell new cameras,
not keep old ones working. Where film cameras have lasted decades (ok,
not anymore), it's likely the life of a digital camera won't match
that.
An example is Minolta, er. Konica-Minolta, now Sony. What makes anyone
think Sony will decide to support older Minolta (or K-M) models for
very long? And what if Sony decides the Minolta A lens mount isn't the
best choice, and decide to go to a Nikon or Canon lens mount to make
their camera more marketable?
If you're serious about photography, why not just get a low-end full
frame digital
SLR and forget film altogether? Why start with a system you plan to
trade-in and
then have to learn a new method of doing photography?
The photographer is always the most important part of the work, the
rest are tools to
achieve the person's goal.
Interesting discussion. Thanks.


Wsrphoto

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

In article <pqrlg.149314$F_3.12427@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
cwvalle@hotmail.com says...
Well since I'm the one who started the other two threads I'd
like to respond.
1. This is Usenet - there are no posting police. I gave my articles
a tongue-in-cheek title, if one fails to realize that, that's not
my fault. Nobody put you in charge of what can be posted or how
it can be expressed.
2. Many of the complaints about the postings (like this one) were
about the title. Didn't they teach you not to judge a book by its
cover? If you thought the title was provocative then why did you
read the article?
3. Those who commented on the title or went off in their own direction
also didn't read the article, so for their benefit:
The point of the first one was that for some people (like my wife) using
digital was not the best choice. I didn't say, or imply, that this
had any bearing on anyone else's choice, so those who came to the
defense of either film or digital were on their own hobby horses,
not mine.
The point of the second posting was that when new technologies
emerge some people resist the change. I gave an example from my
own experience.
The point of this (third) set of remarks is that those who wish
to comment on the content of an article should read it if they
want to be seen as making relevant remarks. If they want to be
seen as making irrelevant remarks then they are free to do that
as well. As I said this is Usenet.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com


Robert Feinman

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

its funny but it seems in this case SLR stands for snivelling little
rodent.


Blackeyesue@gmail.com

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

I agree. Digital vs film is a pointless debate. Each has its advantages
and disadvantages.
As far as I am concerned ...
(a) If you shoot more than 52 rolls of film a year (this is one film
roll a week) digital is cheaper.
(b) If you care so much for resolution and you have the money, go to
medium format (digital or film)
(c) If you have old film equipment that is still useable, continue
shooting film but keep in mind
that the supply of film is not within your control. If Fuji and Kodak
decide not to sell film in the
US anymore there is nothing you can do about it. If you insist on
importing film from China, make sure
that you are a businessman and will make money off it. In other words,
use film only
because you have film equipment not because you are a film uber-zealot.
Prepare to
jump to digital because you may have to.
(d) If you are just starting photography, buy a good used film SLR and
one or two lenses.
Only after you have shot your 50th roll should you decide if you are
really serious
about photography.
(e) The most important equipment in photography is not the camera, nor
the lenses, nor the film,
nor the sensor. The most important equipment is the heart.
Remember: A laborer works with his hands; a craftsman works with his
hands and his head; but
an artist works with his hands, his head, and his heart.
Photography is art.
(f) If you are so narrow-mindedly set on digital or on film to the
detriment
of the other side, I suggest you take a
short course in Art Composition at a community college near you. That
ought to cure you
of your disease.
Now, don't mind my rant. I'm just a snapshooter pretending to be an
artist. (Which is why I
love photography!)
PS. If you learn a lot from your mistakes, you will surely learn a lot
by following
my advice.


Robert_pascual

Content - Digital is Dumb - Part 3
Found 19 post(s). Page 2 of 2
| 1 | 2 |










 
Handball - Sata Pinout - Best Android Tablet - Bmgclassics.com
Photoshop questions