Why I shoot digital Locked

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
brianric
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,043Gear list
Why I shoot digital
6 months ago

Photography has been a hobby of mine since the mid 1960ies. First SLR was a Nikkormat, then the legendary Nikon FTN. Over the years I've shot with Canon and Minoltas SLRs, Koni-Omega and Omegaflex 6x7, Mamiya C330F, Minolta APS, and more digital cameras than I can remember. My first digital camera was a HP C20. I was a delta tester for HP, which meant I was given the camera for free to use, and submit reports to HP on the use of the camera. When the testing phase was over, the camera was mine to keep. I first started digitizing my pictures in 1989 for my newsletter of my charity bicycle rides by scanning in the pictures I took of the event by scanning the printed pictures. I switched completely over to digital in 2003, when the resolution on digital cameras was good enough for my use, and allowed me to skip the scanning part to digitized my pictures.

I shoot digital exclusively since 2003 because:

I can go out on an all day event and vary my ISO. I would have to change film to do that.

50% of the time I'm shooting at ISO 1600 or higher. Back in the day shooting film it was Tri-X film at ASA 400. Way to much grain for my taste.

Never having a dark room, digital freed me from having someone else deciding what to crop. I remember using Lustre Color in Canton Mass, and I was given two cropping masks to use on 35mm, and I thing up to seven to choose on 6x7. Digital allows me to specify exactly what I want.

First time I printed a 20x30 print was from a picture taken by a Canon 20D, an 8 MP camera. I was totally blown away at how sharp and lack of grain in the picture. I rarely printed larger than 8x10 using 35mm film because of the grain. If I knew I needed larger prints using film I would use my Koni-Omegas or my C330F.

It was a royal PIA if I need to shoot just two or three photos using film, and either wait until I finish the roll, or have the film developed wasting the unused portion to get the pictures that I needed. I now can show up to take team photos at the school I shoot sports for, and get the photos to the school within an hour after I get home.

With digital, I can send all the shots I took to the organization I shoot for, and allow them to decide which ones to use, and do whatever cropping they decide to use. If necessary I can send my digital “negative” out, as I shoot raw, if the organization wants further control.

No longer having to mail out film or negatives to be processed, being at the mercy of the USPS and worrying if my film/negatives got lost.

Easier to find a picture taken years ago. I file my digital files by year, organization, event, and date. So if the American Cancer Society is looking for a picture taken at the 2010 Pennsville NJ Relay for Life, I can quickly find the file. Would take forever to go through 300 negatives.

Easier to backup and store digital files versus negatives. I have every digital file shot and kept as keepers since 2003. I can't say the same of my negatives/slides taken since mid 1960ies.

Easier to share my pictures using digital. I'm a volunteer event photographer for several local charities and a volunteer sports photographer for a local Christian grammar school. I end up sending anywhere from 5 to 40 dvds out of an event for whatever the organization I shoot for wants. I can send out my files using Wetransfer.com to those organizations that are computer literate and need the files ASAP, as they are on a tight deadline to do a news article of the event.

Most of my clients don't want prints. A photo show dvd using ProShow Producer works for them, plus a photo book from My Producer is all they need.

For prints that the organizations do need, I can upload my file(s) to whoever I want to get printed, and either have the company I have to make the prints ship direct to the organization or to me for personal delivery.

IMHO, digital has surpassed film in 35mm and medium format.

I can shoot an event without having to change film. It was a royal pia shooting with 120 film when shooting events.

I don't have to add a motor drive to the camera when shooting digital.

I'm not a great photographer. I shoot events. Digital allows me to shoot many more pictures than I shoot with film, and keep the ones that I want the client to see, especially when shooting sports.

I can easily edit my picture using Photoshop by shooting digital. Spent countless time editing team photos on a charity event removing an unwanted beer can. Made me a better photographer now because I now look for those unwanted objects and remove before taking the shot. For those objects I can't remove, like a telephone pole, I can edit it out of the file.

No longer have to buy film for a specific color temperature, or use filters to offset if I'm using daylight color film indoors without flash. Love the ability to correct my white balance in Photoshop by shooting raw.

There are many more reasons why I shoot digital. One thing I can definitely say I will never shoot film again, and haven't since 2003.

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D700 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
Canon EOS 20D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
unknown member
(unknown member)
Great post
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago

brianric wrote:

Photography has been a hobby of mine since the mid 1960ies. First SLR was a Nikkormat, then the legendary Nikon FTN. Over the years I've shot with Canon and Minoltas SLRs, Koni-Omega and Omegaflex 6x7, Mamiya C330F, Minolta APS, and more digital cameras than I can remember. My first digital camera was a HP C20. I was a delta tester for HP, which meant I was given the camera for free to use, and submit reports to HP on the use of the camera. When the testing phase was over, the camera was mine to keep. I first started digitizing my pictures in 1989 for my newsletter of my charity bicycle rides by scanning in the pictures I took of the event by scanning the printed pictures. I switched completely over to digital in 2003, when the resolution on digital cameras was good enough for my use, and allowed me to skip the scanning part to digitized my pictures.

I shoot digital exclusively since 2003 because:

I can go out on an all day event and vary my ISO. I would have to change film to do that.

50% of the time I'm shooting at ISO 1600 or higher. Back in the day shooting film it was Tri-X film at ASA 400. Way to much grain for my taste.

Never having a dark room, digital freed me from having someone else deciding what to crop. I remember using Lustre Color in Canton Mass, and I was given two cropping masks to use on 35mm, and I thing up to seven to choose on 6x7. Digital allows me to specify exactly what I want.

First time I printed a 20x30 print was from a picture taken by a Canon 20D, an 8 MP camera. I was totally blown away at how sharp and lack of grain in the picture. I rarely printed larger than 8x10 using 35mm film because of the grain. If I knew I needed larger prints using film I would use my Koni-Omegas or my C330F.

It was a royal PIA if I need to shoot just two or three photos using film, and either wait until I finish the roll, or have the film developed wasting the unused portion to get the pictures that I needed. I now can show up to take team photos at the school I shoot sports for, and get the photos to the school within an hour after I get home.

With digital, I can send all the shots I took to the organization I shoot for, and allow them to decide which ones to use, and do whatever cropping they decide to use. If necessary I can send my digital “negative” out, as I shoot raw, if the organization wants further control.

No longer having to mail out film or negatives to be processed, being at the mercy of the USPS and worrying if my film/negatives got lost.

Easier to find a picture taken years ago. I file my digital files by year, organization, event, and date. So if the American Cancer Society is looking for a picture taken at the 2010 Pennsville NJ Relay for Life, I can quickly find the file. Would take forever to go through 300 negatives.

Easier to backup and store digital files versus negatives. I have every digital file shot and kept as keepers since 2003. I can't say the same of my negatives/slides taken since mid 1960ies.

Easier to share my pictures using digital. I'm a volunteer event photographer for several local charities and a volunteer sports photographer for a local Christian grammar school. I end up sending anywhere from 5 to 40 dvds out of an event for whatever the organization I shoot for wants. I can send out my files using Wetransfer.com to those organizations that are computer literate and need the files ASAP, as they are on a tight deadline to do a news article of the event.

Most of my clients don't want prints. A photo show dvd using ProShow Producer works for them, plus a photo book from My Producer is all they need.

For prints that the organizations do need, I can upload my file(s) to whoever I want to get printed, and either have the company I have to make the prints ship direct to the organization or to me for personal delivery.

IMHO, digital has surpassed film in 35mm and medium format.

I can shoot an event without having to change film. It was a royal pia shooting with 120 film when shooting events.

I don't have to add a motor drive to the camera when shooting digital.

I'm not a great photographer. I shoot events. Digital allows me to shoot many more pictures than I shoot with film, and keep the ones that I want the client to see, especially when shooting sports.

I can easily edit my picture using Photoshop by shooting digital. Spent countless time editing team photos on a charity event removing an unwanted beer can. Made me a better photographer now because I now look for those unwanted objects and remove before taking the shot. For those objects I can't remove, like a telephone pole, I can edit it out of the file.

No longer have to buy film for a specific color temperature, or use filters to offset if I'm using daylight color film indoors without flash. Love the ability to correct my white balance in Photoshop by shooting raw.

There are many more reasons why I shoot digital. One thing I can definitely say I will never shoot film again, and haven't since 2003.

All those things are definitely benefits. Personally, I find film still has its place. I would rather take a film camera to Pyongyang than my digital FF. Doesn't attract as much attention. Also good for street photography sometimes if it's in a quieter place and you just don't want to attract any attention. B&w portraits can also benefit from film. Other than that, digital is superior for everything.

ShawnHoke
Regular MemberPosts: 483
Re: Great post
In reply to canonagain123, 6 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

brianric wrote:

Photography has been a hobby of mine since the mid 1960ies. First SLR was a Nikkormat, then the legendary Nikon FTN. Over the years I've shot with Canon and Minoltas SLRs, Koni-Omega and Omegaflex 6x7, Mamiya C330F, Minolta APS, and more digital cameras than I can remember. My first digital camera was a HP C20. I was a delta tester for HP, which meant I was given the camera for free to use, and submit reports to HP on the use of the camera. When the testing phase was over, the camera was mine to keep. I first started digitizing my pictures in 1989 for my newsletter of my charity bicycle rides by scanning in the pictures I took of the event by scanning the printed pictures. I switched completely over to digital in 2003, when the resolution on digital cameras was good enough for my use, and allowed me to skip the scanning part to digitized my pictures.

I shoot digital exclusively since 2003 because:

I can go out on an all day event and vary my ISO. I would have to change film to do that.

50% of the time I'm shooting at ISO 1600 or higher. Back in the day shooting film it was Tri-X film at ASA 400. Way to much grain for my taste.

Never having a dark room, digital freed me from having someone else deciding what to crop. I remember using Lustre Color in Canton Mass, and I was given two cropping masks to use on 35mm, and I thing up to seven to choose on 6x7. Digital allows me to specify exactly what I want.

First time I printed a 20x30 print was from a picture taken by a Canon 20D, an 8 MP camera. I was totally blown away at how sharp and lack of grain in the picture. I rarely printed larger than 8x10 using 35mm film because of the grain. If I knew I needed larger prints using film I would use my Koni-Omegas or my C330F.

It was a royal PIA if I need to shoot just two or three photos using film, and either wait until I finish the roll, or have the film developed wasting the unused portion to get the pictures that I needed. I now can show up to take team photos at the school I shoot sports for, and get the photos to the school within an hour after I get home.

With digital, I can send all the shots I took to the organization I shoot for, and allow them to decide which ones to use, and do whatever cropping they decide to use. If necessary I can send my digital “negative” out, as I shoot raw, if the organization wants further control.

No longer having to mail out film or negatives to be processed, being at the mercy of the USPS and worrying if my film/negatives got lost.

Easier to find a picture taken years ago. I file my digital files by year, organization, event, and date. So if the American Cancer Society is looking for a picture taken at the 2010 Pennsville NJ Relay for Life, I can quickly find the file. Would take forever to go through 300 negatives.

Easier to backup and store digital files versus negatives. I have every digital file shot and kept as keepers since 2003. I can't say the same of my negatives/slides taken since mid 1960ies.

Easier to share my pictures using digital. I'm a volunteer event photographer for several local charities and a volunteer sports photographer for a local Christian grammar school. I end up sending anywhere from 5 to 40 dvds out of an event for whatever the organization I shoot for wants. I can send out my files using Wetransfer.com to those organizations that are computer literate and need the files ASAP, as they are on a tight deadline to do a news article of the event.

Most of my clients don't want prints. A photo show dvd using ProShow Producer works for them, plus a photo book from My Producer is all they need.

For prints that the organizations do need, I can upload my file(s) to whoever I want to get printed, and either have the company I have to make the prints ship direct to the organization or to me for personal delivery.

IMHO, digital has surpassed film in 35mm and medium format.

I can shoot an event without having to change film. It was a royal pia shooting with 120 film when shooting events.

I don't have to add a motor drive to the camera when shooting digital.

I'm not a great photographer. I shoot events. Digital allows me to shoot many more pictures than I shoot with film, and keep the ones that I want the client to see, especially when shooting sports.

I can easily edit my picture using Photoshop by shooting digital. Spent countless time editing team photos on a charity event removing an unwanted beer can. Made me a better photographer now because I now look for those unwanted objects and remove before taking the shot. For those objects I can't remove, like a telephone pole, I can edit it out of the file.

No longer have to buy film for a specific color temperature, or use filters to offset if I'm using daylight color film indoors without flash. Love the ability to correct my white balance in Photoshop by shooting raw.

There are many more reasons why I shoot digital. One thing I can definitely say I will never shoot film again, and haven't since 2003.

All those things are definitely benefits. Personally, I find film still has its place. I would rather take a film camera to Pyongyang than my digital FF. Doesn't attract as much attention. Also good for street photography sometimes if it's in a quieter place and you just don't want to attract any attention. B&w portraits can also benefit from film. Other than that, digital is superior for everything.

I see what you did there.

I too am VERY glad I don't have to shoot film for events and work. I do shoot some portraits for work on film though as I get requests. I can't even imagine dealing with the crazy high ISOs that I am forced to use on film though. Sure I could push Tri-X and deliver pretty decent B&W, but I can shoot digital and deliver clean color images quicker and easier.

BUT, I also shoot a lot of film. I will probably always shoot both digital and film. Ease and clean process of digital with the fun, get my hands wet feeling, of film.

It's all good.

-- hide signature --
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,425
Re: Why I shoot digital
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago

I shoot digital because it's fun.

unknown member
(unknown member)
agreed
In reply to ShawnHoke, 6 months ago

ShawnHoke wrote:


BUT, I also shoot a lot of film. I will probably always shoot both digital and film. Ease and clean process of digital with the fun, get my hands wet feeling, of film.

It's all good.

-- hide signature --

It's all good Shooting both (mostly digital, some film) is the best approach I think! It's not an either or thing.

carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,798Gear list
Re: Why I shoot digital
In reply to Martin.au, 6 months ago

Agree with OP apart from the ISO, you could vary ISO with film, just meant a bit more work in Dark room.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
JP Scherrer
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,037
+1
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago

.....although I used to like the smell of the darkroom, I stopped shooting film since 1999, and Iwon't go back !

OTOH, I started "playing" with computers well before that, as I got my first Sinclair ZX Spectrum in 1982, and never stoped upgrading since ! I beleive that helped me a lot, as I allready was at ease with PC when digital photography, hence digital post-processing came out !

I guess that, for someone who never used a computer, shooting digital and post-processing images must be a tough job to learn !

...but once one gets "into it", it's real fun to play with digital images ! This highly facilitates and enhance the creativity !

J-P.

Photo Galeries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas (360x180 degrees) at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps
Equipment list in profile

gfspencer
Contributing MemberPosts: 517Gear list
Re: Why I shoot digital
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago

I started taking pictures in the early 80s.  I even had my own black & white darkroom for a while.  I gave film up because digital is just so much easier.  I don't have to carry around rolls of film.  I don't have to wait to see what I've shot.  I can store everything on computers.  I can "process" digital quickly and easily.

 gfspencer's gear list:gfspencer's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM +5 more
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,447
To me the whole film arguement seems backwards...
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago

Going back to a lot of comments made in the other thread for me a lot of peoples attitude towards film seems backwards. I see so many people looking to push film as a "learning tool" but to me it just seems so much more limiting in that regard than digital. The ability to learn quickly from my mistakes with digital has helped me advance faster over the last 3-4 years then I could have done over many more with film.

I can see that film does still have some advantages over digital, cheaper MF, access to LF and panoramic and the very cheap 35mm cameras you don't need to worry about but for me its something I think the vast majority when benefit from in addition to digital NOT as a learning tool.

Film today to me seems to link into GAS worse than anything else, not only does the relative cheapness of the camera's allow people to buy many of them but they are often obscure and "sexy". I can see why this appeals to people more than say plugging away with a digital rebel but ultimately I think they'd be better focusing on their output.

Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,347Gear list
Re: agreed
In reply to canonagain123, 6 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

BUT, I also shoot a lot of film. I will probably always shoot both digital and film. Ease and clean process of digital with the fun, get my hands wet feeling, of film.

It's all good.

-- hide signature --

It's all good Shooting both (mostly digital, some film) is the best approach I think! It's not an either or thing.

Ditto.  I love using both.

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X +15 more
Lightpath48
Senior MemberPosts: 1,971Gear list
+1, Many parallels for me too
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago

My experience corresponds with yours in a number of ways.  I gave away my darkroom and film processing equipment to an art major, in 2003.  The tedium of maintaining chemistry and the rising costs of silver-based papers and films were taking a toll.  When local C-41 B&W chromogenic processing disappeared, I had to switch to mail order services.  Dwayne's in Kansas seemed the best at the time.  But their negative scans were only 3,000 X 2,000 pixels from 35mm.  I found the output of a modest 8 MP digital camera looking quite good in comparison. Then all of the other advantages you've mentioned dawned on me. 2003 was the final year of any film shooting. Through eBay sales and purchases, I made a complete changeover.

Once in a while I miss some aspect of film and wet process developing/printing. But the folks in my local camera club have all made the same switch as have you and I.  Most of them are over sixty, and have few or no regrets over the changes. A look at PSA (Photographic Society of America) galleries is real testimony to how good the transition from film to digital has been for some of the country's best amateur photographers.  I would be proud to have my images among theirs someday.

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Fujifilm X-S1 Nikon D80 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF
jay bbe
Forum MemberPosts: 70Gear list
Re: agreed
In reply to canonagain123, 6 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

BUT, I also shoot a lot of film. I will probably always shoot both digital and film. Ease and clean process of digital with the fun, get my hands wet feeling, of film.

It's all good.

-- hide signature --

It's all good Shooting both (mostly digital, some film) is the best approach I think! It's not an either or thing.

Though I shoot mostly digital I still enjoy using 35mm and 120 films; I'm pleased that I still have the choice.  I agree it doesn't have to an either or thing.

Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Very difficult to argue any of the points.
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago

brianric wrote:


I can go out on an all day event and vary my ISO. I would have to change film to do that.

This was a true pain, you are in the middle of a roll of film


First time I printed a 20x30 print was from a picture taken by a Canon 20D, an 8 MP camera. I was totally blown away at how sharp and lack of grain in the picture.

Very true, now we have 36mp I am totally blown away.


No longer having to mail out film or negatives to be processed, being at the mercy of the USPS and worrying if my film/negatives got lost.

Never thought about this. One thing when I was doing my own black and white, I would always miss a spec of dust or the film would get a scratch.

Easier to backup and store digital files versus negatives. I have every digital file shot and kept as keepers since 2003. I can't say the same of my negatives/slides taken since mid 1960ies.

And they never degrade, they are the same as the day you took them.


I'm not a great photographer. I shoot events. Digital allows me to shoot many more pictures than I shoot with film, and keep the ones that I want the client to see, especially when shooting sports.

The opposite is also true. I can take one image, view it on the back of the camera, know it is a keeper, walk into the house and print it. No roll of film, no processing, no nothing. Or I could send the image in locally and have it turned into a single print using chemical process for pictures exactly how I wanted it for super low price.One thing I can definitely say I will never shoot film again, and haven't since 2003.

Don't think I will ever shoot film again either.

carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,798Gear list
Re: Very difficult to argue any of the points.
In reply to Richard, 6 months ago

Richard wrote:

brianric wrote:

I can go out on an all day event and vary my ISO. I would have to change film to do that.

This was a true pain, you are in the middle of a roll of film

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

First time I printed a 20x30 print was from a picture taken by a Canon 20D, an 8 MP camera. I was totally blown away at how sharp and lack of grain in the picture.

Very true, now we have 36mp I am totally blown away.

No longer having to mail out film or negatives to be processed, being at the mercy of the USPS and worrying if my film/negatives got lost.

Never thought about this. One thing when I was doing my own black and white, I would always miss a spec of dust or the film would get a scratch.

Easier to backup and store digital files versus negatives. I have every digital file shot and kept as keepers since 2003. I can't say the same of my negatives/slides taken since mid 1960ies.

And they never degrade, they are the same as the day you took them.

I'm not a great photographer. I shoot events. Digital allows me to shoot many more pictures than I shoot with film, and keep the ones that I want the client to see, especially when shooting sports.

The opposite is also true. I can take one image, view it on the back of the camera, know it is a keeper, walk into the house and print it. No roll of film, no processing, no nothing. Or I could send the image in locally and have it turned into a single print using chemical process for pictures exactly how I wanted it for super low price.One thing I can definitely say I will never shoot film again, and haven't since 2003.

Don't think I will ever shoot film again either.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
unknown member
(unknown member)
Re: good luck!
In reply to carl english, 6 months ago

carl english wrote:

did mention this on previous post, you could change ISO with film.

only if you process the film yourself. Good luck shooting ASA 400 film and changing to 3200 in the middle of the film and to 800 for the last 4 images and going to a lab (especially today) and telling them to cut the film in the middle and before the 4 last images and develop the second part 6 minutes longer and the last part for 2 minutes longer.

brianric
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,043Gear list
Re: Why I shoot digital
In reply to carl english, 6 months ago

carl english wrote:

Agree with OP apart from the ISO, you could vary ISO with film, just meant a bit more work in Dark room.

Could you work with different ISO on the same roll of film?

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D700 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
Les Berkley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,108
Re: Why I shoot digital
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago

No problem with this, even if I do like and use film. Only quibble is that it is possible to create a computer database of film images, and that with my Bronica, I could switch backs and thus change ISO without complicated development procedures.

Not sure why so many people are violently passionate about what OTHER people shoot.

unknown member
(unknown member)
sure you can
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago

brianric wrote:

carl english wrote:

Agree with OP apart from the ISO, you could vary ISO with film, just meant a bit more work in Dark room.

Could you work with different ISO on the same roll of film?

but only if you process the film yourself. see my other post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52975629

of course you'll process the film yourself if you want the most out of it, but since this isn't obvious to soem people it seems fair to mention it.

panamforeman
Contributing MemberPosts: 843Gear list
Re: Why I shoot digital
In reply to Les Berkley, 6 months ago

Les Berkley wrote:

No problem with this, even if I do like and use film. Only quibble is that it is possible to create a computer database of film images, and that with my Bronica, I could switch backs and thus change ISO without complicated development procedures.

Not sure why so many people are violently passionate about what OTHER people shoot.

Not sure what the answer is to your question, however some folks live in the past and think if it's "older" it's better. That may not be Graham Hill's reason. But Digital destroyed many photo developing businesses. If they couldn't adapt to the digital age they perished.

A friend of mine owned a Camera/Photo business here. He sold cameras, lens, film and developing, and accessories. On any one day he had over 2500 rolls of film in stock.  His store was very profitable, mostly from film developing. His biggest customers were Real Estate Agents and vacationers dropping off 30 & 40 rolls at a time.

Then one day in 1997 a Sony Rep dropped by and demonstrated the digital Sony Mavica camera. It stored the shots on a 1.44mb computer disk. He took a dozen on consignment. The next day all were sold to Real Estate Agents. He ordered 12 more........and within the week put his store up for sale.

Walk into any camera store today? You have to ask for the film because there is so little on display. If some folks want to shoot only film? God bless 'em, have at it! But it's going to get harder and harder to do. Eventually you won't be able to, but not in my lifetime. Because believe it or not there are still two Buggy Whip makers in the USA.  Where? Southern California.  Gee, I wonder why?

 panamforeman's gear list:panamforeman's gear list
Canon PowerShot S120
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 13,239
Next up ... why I drive a horseless carriage ... <nt>
In reply to brianric, 6 months ago
-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads