I agree!
Thank you – I was beginning to get a complex! I know that everyone has their own pov and that each medium has it’s merits. The simple fact is that for whatever you put in the camera body (film or digital sensor) the only factors that affect the image are shutter speed/aperture, and quality of glass. Assuming that the camera is accurate in the shutter and the lens has an accurate aperture setting, then the glass is where the money should go. Unless convenience is all important.
And just in case anyone was wondering – I’m at home ill – the reason I’ve been online most of the day !!
Beautiful aircraft. Very nice.
Saying that you took loads of digital pics but only framed three is another way of the workman blaming the tools… 😉
Not really – I was just using it as an example of two points;
1. Many (not all, but I think I was guilty) people, once they’ve gone digital, stop thinking before shooting and rely more on post-processing.
2. More is not necessarily the answer. It’s just as easy to take 1000 poor shots on a cf card as it is 36 on a film.
I only ever blame my tools when they stop working. Crap shots are my fault !! 🙁
It’s an argument that comes around every so often.
I know, I used to argue from the other side of the fence!
The interesting thing is not what the ‘old’ technology does that the ‘new’ can’t; it’s what the ‘new’ does that you couldn’t do before. There’s been a fair amount of original and imaginative photography posted here that wouldn’t have been taken except by digital photographers – night shots, or just the results of the oportunity of taking lots more shots than you can with a 36exp or 24exp film.
Last year I had 2 weeks in Bermuda (lucky me, having a brother who lives there!) and took 2 digital cameras. I took 2500 shots (much to my wife’s and brothers amusement) which were all saved to CD each night. Three of those shots have since been enlarged and hang on the wall. Three. For the most part, the 2500 shots were not really thought through, just taken; I guess the most I did was to select a shutter speed or aperture and perhaps a flash mode.
Going back to film has been a breath of fresh air to me. I’ve even spent some cash on a multi format MF pinhole camera – this is more for the experience than the quality of the image, but a 6×9″ pinhole shot is brilliant when enlarged.
I’m about to start a nostalgic series of shots of historic aircraft taken with a recently acquired Box Brownie/127 film and the 6×9 Pinhole/120 film. Maybe I’ll post the results (prob next year) and incur the waves of criticism I deserve!
I disagree completely with any sentiment that film is better “quality” than digital.
I didn’t say that – at least I didn’t mean to!
I said that I get better results with film, primarily because I now spend my money on the glass rather than a new digital sensor with more mp. Most contributors here seem to be amateurs and therefore their shots won’t pay for each camera body upgrade – which is why I think it’s more important to use that money on better (preferably) prime lenses.
All fair enough.
As (these days) a serious amateur, I suppose that I prefer to spend my money on the lenses for optimum image quality than on convenient shots. I’ll also admit to having given up taking flying shots (both A-A and S-A) as they all start to look the same after a while – probably my only criticism of some of the shots posted on this forum. I’d rather see original views than just ‘another Spitfire flypast’ (gasp !!!).
I’m not looking to start an argument on that last point, it’s just a pov from someone with 1000s of A-A slides that are all very similar – I took each shot thinking that it was unique, only to look back now to see that they’re all basically the same! Originality does exist on the forum, but not nearly as much as it should – most of these beautiful aircraft warrant a better approach than just ‘zooming in’ for a different pic … or taking the same airbourne shot we all saw published last week at another airshow/event …
“The only professions that actually really need digital these days are press and sports photography.”
I’m not being argumentative :diablo: , but the operative word in my statement above was ‘need’. I know plenty of photographers who use digital for any of the professions listed below but only the two above are truly reliant on an immediate image. Most other professions ‘desire’ the immediacy of digital (and why not), but my point is that too many amateurs spend money on the next digital body and throw it away after 2 yrs for more Mp … better to buy good lenses.
I’m sorry, are you in the profession?
Not presently, but have dabbled in the past (and been published), but surely that doesn’t preclude me from having an (informed) opinion?
I am, and haven’t touched film – in 35mm or medium format – in the 3 years since I bought a digital SLR. Social photography, function photography, event photography, wedding photography, portrait photography in addition to press and sport photography all say that you are wrong.
I’m no luddite, most people who know me are utterly surprised by my choice of camera and film, but when they see some of my b/w photos they comment on depth, clarity, contrast and sharpness.
Every digital I have owned (7, to date, of all types) has had some kind of software failure at an inopportune time. Today, I use an all manual camera and think about all my shots before I press the shutter. I found that I was merely capturing an image with digital, but with my current camera I strive to capture the moment. Returning to manual has honed my photographic skills further and increased my understanding of exposure (I am no longer reliant on the camera’s meter as I know the characteristics of my choices of film) – each to their own I guess.
I’ll readily admit that I’m impressed by many of the photos on the forum; some are extremely good, but I’m not sure that many have benefitted from being ‘digital’.
Tip for the moderators …
Copy this post and reissue it every 2 mths ! You’ll just need to change the camera number (EOS X) and add 25% to the Mp count. Every second month issue it and replace “Canon”, with “Nikon”. You might want to add a new forum, “50 ways to blow 3k”.
Such is the world of digital SLRs. I still get better results with film – spending money on quality lenses is a much better investment than another 4 Mp.
Time to upgrade …?
here are some of me pics for u
They’re ok; have you ever thought of upgrading your (now out-of-date) camera gear? Also, by spending >£100 on your lenses you’d get a bit more depth and contrast in your shots.
Perhaps before that you should switch away from “Auto” though …
:diablo:
2 – 0.
would like to see some pics taken at different sensitivity…if it delivers on that then it would be a revolution in compact land
Can’t remember where but I did read somewhere (possibly in the Leica forum on http://www.photo.net) that the sensor built into the F10 (one of Fuji’s latest digi compacts) was very good all the way up to ‘ISO’ 1600 – and better than most DSLRs!
One can only assume it’s a similar performing sensor in the new S5600 …
Aah, the sweet beauty of a negative/transparency, as opposed to an out-of date computer file type that can’t be read 50 yrs later …
Nice pics.
Easy …
1. Spitfire (MkII)
2. Hunter
3. The first aeroplane you ever flew (generally not a modern airliner).
4. The first aeroplane you went solo in.
If I was pressed re a modern fighter, there’s nothing to touch the looks of the Gripen.
Also, have a look at this site (EBuyer, £175) …
Yak,
Sorry, but on checking with my mate, it seems that someone else has it on trial …
G-ORDY,
I’ve just managed to dig out an ‘old’ jpeg taken with my S5000 at 3mp. It’s my (then) 4 yr old son throwing a ball at me on holiday in Bermuda. I post it totally unaltered – bear in mind that the screen does not quite do it justice.
__
Dave
How about the Vodka Red Bull Air Race !!!
Typhoon? BBMF? The utterly mad Chinook display?