"I'm so done with digital."
Discussion
OK - so whose quote??????
Mystery Pundit said:
I was out shooting in Death Valley and the Eastern Sierra this past week.
For laughs, I brought a Leica system. I didn't bring any SLRs, film or digital. Like most serious shooters, I'm so done with digital. All I shot was film, and it was so much more fun, easy and inexpensive — and gives better results to skilled users.
The Leica system is a fraction of the size of a serious DSLR system. I had forgotten just how out of control digital cameras and lenses have gotten in regards to size and weight. Forget the big zooms and FX cameras for hiking.
You could hear my evil cackling ricochet off Manley Beacon on Sunday morning as I hiked in from Zabriskie Point to get some shots at dawn.
{See here when you're bored of trying to guess}For laughs, I brought a Leica system. I didn't bring any SLRs, film or digital. Like most serious shooters, I'm so done with digital. All I shot was film, and it was so much more fun, easy and inexpensive — and gives better results to skilled users.
The Leica system is a fraction of the size of a serious DSLR system. I had forgotten just how out of control digital cameras and lenses have gotten in regards to size and weight. Forget the big zooms and FX cameras for hiking.
You could hear my evil cackling ricochet off Manley Beacon on Sunday morning as I hiked in from Zabriskie Point to get some shots at dawn.
beano500 said:
OK - so whose quote??????
Quote like that, it could only be one man...Mystery Pundit said:
I was out shooting in Death Valley and the Eastern Sierra this past week.
For laughs, I brought a Leica system. I didn't bring any SLRs, film or digital. Like most serious shooters, I'm so done with digital. All I shot was film, and it was so much more fun, easy and inexpensive — and gives better results to skilled users.
The Leica system is a fraction of the size of a serious DSLR system. I had forgotten just how out of control digital cameras and lenses have gotten in regards to size and weight. Forget the big zooms and FX cameras for hiking.
You could hear my evil cackling ricochet off Manley Beacon on Sunday morning as I hiked in from Zabriskie Point to get some shots at dawn.
{See here when you're bored of trying to guess}For laughs, I brought a Leica system. I didn't bring any SLRs, film or digital. Like most serious shooters, I'm so done with digital. All I shot was film, and it was so much more fun, easy and inexpensive — and gives better results to skilled users.
The Leica system is a fraction of the size of a serious DSLR system. I had forgotten just how out of control digital cameras and lenses have gotten in regards to size and weight. Forget the big zooms and FX cameras for hiking.
You could hear my evil cackling ricochet off Manley Beacon on Sunday morning as I hiked in from Zabriskie Point to get some shots at dawn.
CivicMan said:
Errr, "inexpensive" to shoot film?
Let's say he had shot 500 images on digital on this trip, my feeling that buying and processing film would work out a tad more expensive. Am I wrong?
if you shoot film you make sure you get the shot 1st or 2nd shot. Ken gets them before he turns upLet's say he had shot 500 images on digital on this trip, my feeling that buying and processing film would work out a tad more expensive. Am I wrong?
Does that man have an undeveloped brain or something? He says "my complete Leica system bought used cost less than a D3x." And his point is?
Also "my 28mm Leica lens is smaller than a Nikon 77mm lens cap." Not lighter than a lens cap though is it?
When are people going to realise: this man is an IDIOT. He reckons his Nikon 18-200 offers almost indistinguishable quality (stopped down) to his 70-200 F2.8 VR. That doesn't exactly concur with my personal comparisons (severe understatement here).
He criticises the Nikon F6 for having a 100% viewfinder and would prefer it to have an "innacurate viefinder like my amateur cameras" so it has parity with his mounted transparencies that crop part of the image. WTF?
And what is the point of comments like "my Leica system weighs less than a D3x body alone."
Well personally I would love a Leica rangefinder if I had the money to spare on a hopelessly outdated rangefinder which exists only for rich people to have the odd "purist" moment. My take is that people occasionally take a Leica out to remind themselves about "how things used to be" but inevitably they always wake up and use sensible gear that is in tune with this century...
I'm well pleased, don't I sound like Ken there?!
Get this from him too "film gives better results from experienced users." How can anyone qualify such a senseless imbecilic comment?
And, despite the fact he spends time calibrating his monitor "I never bother calibrating printers, scanners or cameras since they are always close enough for my work," What, so one minute he wants to be exacting, the next it doesn't matter...?
And "Nikon DSLR LCDs are usually very good." whereas everyone else in the world (including me) thinks Nikon LCDs give wildly different colours to the true colours.
And he reckons all the digital SLR shooters at a particular location were shooting the same stuff and getting the same pictures. Why is that, because they were using digital cameras?
This bloke really is from another planet.
I've done the same thing myself: every so often I buy something like a Nikon F and a couple of lenses and kid myself I'll go out and take some "real pictures" and then in reality I think "let's leave that old boat anchor at home because film costs so much" then take whatever disposable digital SLR I happen to have at the time. I always then end up selling the film gear because I'd rather spend the money on something useful.
BTW hats off to anyone who genuinely uses a Leica or similar regularly and gets stunning results from it. But "people" like Ken just own one to show off they can afford it as well as all the other cameras they own.
Someone PLEASE tell me that brain-donor doesn't make any real money from his website or mindless musings about cameras he's never even used and pictures he's never taken....
Also "my 28mm Leica lens is smaller than a Nikon 77mm lens cap." Not lighter than a lens cap though is it?
When are people going to realise: this man is an IDIOT. He reckons his Nikon 18-200 offers almost indistinguishable quality (stopped down) to his 70-200 F2.8 VR. That doesn't exactly concur with my personal comparisons (severe understatement here).
He criticises the Nikon F6 for having a 100% viewfinder and would prefer it to have an "innacurate viefinder like my amateur cameras" so it has parity with his mounted transparencies that crop part of the image. WTF?
And what is the point of comments like "my Leica system weighs less than a D3x body alone."
Well personally I would love a Leica rangefinder if I had the money to spare on a hopelessly outdated rangefinder which exists only for rich people to have the odd "purist" moment. My take is that people occasionally take a Leica out to remind themselves about "how things used to be" but inevitably they always wake up and use sensible gear that is in tune with this century...
I'm well pleased, don't I sound like Ken there?!
Get this from him too "film gives better results from experienced users." How can anyone qualify such a senseless imbecilic comment?
And, despite the fact he spends time calibrating his monitor "I never bother calibrating printers, scanners or cameras since they are always close enough for my work," What, so one minute he wants to be exacting, the next it doesn't matter...?
And "Nikon DSLR LCDs are usually very good." whereas everyone else in the world (including me) thinks Nikon LCDs give wildly different colours to the true colours.
And he reckons all the digital SLR shooters at a particular location were shooting the same stuff and getting the same pictures. Why is that, because they were using digital cameras?
This bloke really is from another planet.
I've done the same thing myself: every so often I buy something like a Nikon F and a couple of lenses and kid myself I'll go out and take some "real pictures" and then in reality I think "let's leave that old boat anchor at home because film costs so much" then take whatever disposable digital SLR I happen to have at the time. I always then end up selling the film gear because I'd rather spend the money on something useful.
BTW hats off to anyone who genuinely uses a Leica or similar regularly and gets stunning results from it. But "people" like Ken just own one to show off they can afford it as well as all the other cameras they own.
Someone PLEASE tell me that brain-donor doesn't make any real money from his website or mindless musings about cameras he's never even used and pictures he's never taken....
Edited by malc350 on Monday 26th January 23:18
At the risk of getting my head bitten off, there is many a true word spoken in jest.
The stuff I carry when I go out (not that I have for a year or two) weighs a fraction of what I would take if I took a digital set up. Plus I don't have to carry all the batteries etc.
It's actually quite liberating just taking a body with a lens, shutter release, tripod and light-meter (oh and a few rolls of film). You could of course argue that you could do the same with digital, but I think the temptation to take loads of stuff is too great.
Aside from that, I'd definitely say shooting film is more fun to me. Looking at transparencies on a light box is way more satisfying than pixels on a screen but that's personal taste. It's also much more rewarding to know that you got the image through good execution rather than shooting off a load then picking the best one. For beginners and people for whom it's just a bit of fun obviously digital makes more sense as the cost of experimentation is so low, but I don't know many people who haven't been tempted by trying some film at some point as they have progressed.
With regard to the cost, I've found it to be far more expensive. As an example, I recently got a photo of mine printed and framed. The roll of film was 3/4 quid or so, development about a tenner, the scan would have cost £100+ (I get them for free at work), and the print was £150, so that's about £160 quid end to end. If you just looked at the cost of film and development for me it's about £3 a frame (4 shots on a roll) but I tend to get it right within 3 frames or I totally guff it because of some idiot mistake (wrong ISO, forgetting to compensate for filters etc.) You would never shoot 500 frames off on film because it's just not how you work with that medium. Everyone I know who uses film shoots far less, but the average result tends to be better. That said, it's just a personal preference. I've also found the cost of lenses etc to be more than comparable, but that would depend on the system and manufacturer.
Basically, although he is evidently a clown, I'm not sure I entirely disagree with him.
Matt
The stuff I carry when I go out (not that I have for a year or two) weighs a fraction of what I would take if I took a digital set up. Plus I don't have to carry all the batteries etc.
It's actually quite liberating just taking a body with a lens, shutter release, tripod and light-meter (oh and a few rolls of film). You could of course argue that you could do the same with digital, but I think the temptation to take loads of stuff is too great.
Aside from that, I'd definitely say shooting film is more fun to me. Looking at transparencies on a light box is way more satisfying than pixels on a screen but that's personal taste. It's also much more rewarding to know that you got the image through good execution rather than shooting off a load then picking the best one. For beginners and people for whom it's just a bit of fun obviously digital makes more sense as the cost of experimentation is so low, but I don't know many people who haven't been tempted by trying some film at some point as they have progressed.
With regard to the cost, I've found it to be far more expensive. As an example, I recently got a photo of mine printed and framed. The roll of film was 3/4 quid or so, development about a tenner, the scan would have cost £100+ (I get them for free at work), and the print was £150, so that's about £160 quid end to end. If you just looked at the cost of film and development for me it's about £3 a frame (4 shots on a roll) but I tend to get it right within 3 frames or I totally guff it because of some idiot mistake (wrong ISO, forgetting to compensate for filters etc.) You would never shoot 500 frames off on film because it's just not how you work with that medium. Everyone I know who uses film shoots far less, but the average result tends to be better. That said, it's just a personal preference. I've also found the cost of lenses etc to be more than comparable, but that would depend on the system and manufacturer.
Basically, although he is evidently a clown, I'm not sure I entirely disagree with him.
Matt
Indeed Ken is an attention seeking fool. I do agree though that shooting film is a far more rewarding experience, you savour your shots, query every detail and then shoot. With time you learn the intricacies of your chosen film and its relationship with light. Its expensive and slow, but its worth it.
Digital has largely taken over but both methods will always have their place, sensors don't capture light in the same way as film, digital isn't able to reproduce the quality of film, or the films specific look
I believe one method informs the other and people should gain experience of using both.
Digital has largely taken over but both methods will always have their place, sensors don't capture light in the same way as film, digital isn't able to reproduce the quality of film, or the films specific look
I believe one method informs the other and people should gain experience of using both.
le gravy noire said:
I don't know many people who haven't been tempted by trying some film at some point as they have progressed.
Matt
How old are you and your acquaintances, Matt?Matt
I would imagine that most people who have been taking photographs for more than 10 years at most probably started on film and then progressed to digital?
My daughter is 6, and just starting to learn about photography with my old Olympus C750. I could imagine her wanting to see what olde worlde film was all about at some point in the future as she will never have experienced it, but having started out with it and then gone through the massive liberation of getting to digital, I really can't ever imagine even contemplating trying film again for myself.
Kermit power said:
le gravy noire said:
I don't know many people who haven't been tempted by trying some film at some point as they have progressed.
Matt
How old are you and your acquaintances, Matt?Matt
I would imagine that most people who have been taking photographs for more than 10 years at most probably started on film and then progressed to digital?
My daughter is 6, and just starting to learn about photography with my old Olympus C750. I could imagine her wanting to see what olde worlde film was all about at some point in the future as she will never have experienced it, but having started out with it and then gone through the massive liberation of getting to digital, I really can't ever imagine even contemplating trying film again for myself.
steve is right, I started with a digital camera, but what I meant really was that a lot of people have got into photography because digital is so accessible and easy to experiment with which is great, there has been a huge surge in interest because of it I think, but when they do get more into it quite often they want to mess about with film. I think that is regardless of the background. I guess it's just down to the person. I'm sure digital is very liberating if you've had to shoot film all the time, but conversely I can't really imagine going back to digital, until I can afford a decent full frame back for my hasselblad which will be never at this rate. Film just suits how I like to shoot, which is quite thorough and technical rather than spontaneous and capturing the moment stuff.
Matt
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff