TaoMaas
Forum Enthusiast
I'll second that. There are computer related costs that usually don't get figured into the equation.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Please share your experiences in moving from film SLR to digital SLR ...
- Thread starter jpmalohesr
- Start date
MusicDoctorDJ
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,789
- Reaction score
- 11
Yes, but chances are he'd be upgrading computers, too.
And, even in the quote above he says he would still be using a Windows 3.1 computer today had it not been for digital photography.
I doubt it . . .
Just being on the internet today would have made him upgrade a long time ago.
And old software becoming obsolete would have made him upgrade, unless all he did was play solitaire on his computer!
So really, the computer can only be partially added to the expenses of photography.
And, all of the money he quotes as spending on digital in the last 10 years?
Well, a real good darkroom setup (notice I said "real good", not a cheap darkroom kit) 20 years ago would have cost just as much . . .
And, to face the real facts, my newest Canon F1n with AE finder and motordrive (not motor winder) cost roughly $2500 when I bought it brand new in 1989.
In todays dollars, that is closer to $6500!
So really, digital photography is only expensive for those who choose to upgrade every time a new camera comes out . . .
Or for those who have to fiddle around with their pictures in the computer and want to have the ability to print themselves using injet printers, which is three times more expensive than having a good lab print them out.
So, digital really hasn't gotten more expensive than film . . .
Just like in the film days, some spent more on camera gear . . . some spent less.
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado
Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!
In a sense, my experience with slide film and SLR's has been a hindrance, because the shooting process and end result are so different. The biggest differences for me, and what I still haven't gotten used to, are the small viewfinders (even the ones on full-frame DSLR's look puny compared with my Contax 139Q bodies, and my Exakta's is bigger yet), the lack of useful depth of field and distance scales on the lenses, and projection quality that still doesn't measure up to slides. Part of the problem is that I still shoot a lot of film, and every time I pick up a DSLR after using one of my Contax bodies, it's a disappointment. Plus, I never had to post-process with slides, so finding that a necessary chore to maximize quality with digital imaging is also a pain.
I've decided to try to get over that by putting my film bodies in storage and use a digital SLR exclusively for a year or two. I've ordered a Sigma SD14 with 30mm F/1.4 lens, will shoot RAW exclusively, learn to post-process efficiently to maximize "slide show" quality for the computer monitor, and maybe, though I shudder at the thought, learn to make prints. I've been familiar with Merklinger's alternative method of determining aperture and focus point to get the desired depth of field (though I ended up preferring traditional hyperfocal and depth of field scale use for my film cameras), and will be using that exclusively as well since there will be no depth of field scale on my new lens. In some ways, it will be like starting this hobby all over again, and that's pretty exciting.
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Hi,
But would I need the internet without digital pushing me towards upgrades of software and then Windows? And think of all those driver updates needed for going from Windows 95 to 98 to 98SE to Millennium to Xp to Vista.
Right now I am still trying to get an 18 month old Laserjet to work with Vista and I don't need the http://www to tell me, f'instance, how to work the OM2N or the M2 or the IIIa; although the bargain film etc on ebay is an advantage. Ditto the FP4 Plus processing and scanning services.
Ho, hum: I'm still using a spreadsheet, patience game (you'd call it "Solitairre" in the USA) and a word processor I had with Windows 3. They came on a floppy through the letterbox.
And the old Atari was a lot faster to load the WP than XP and the spreadsheet etc.
Who needs a darkroom? There's experts out there who can and do deserve all the trade they get. You might as well add the cost of a workshop and tools etc and then boost the costs of film by ignoring the cost of an overhaul.
I got an unexpected bonus in the 70's that paid for the Leica - that's using the well known principle "easy come: easy go". So I see it as a free camera... OK that's cheating but let's settle for creative accountancy.
And the Canon I bought for £2 this year would cost £300 in today's money and the Minolta someone gave me because I like film would have cost £935 (ditto) and I make that a saving of £1235 or about US $1850
That's not so: I'd not want to still be using my 1024 x 768 pixels and 4 MB Smart Media cards these days but I didn't upgrade every time a new model came out. And have you tried getting say a 5 megapixel camera repaired? We've really little choice...
Have you seen what a good lab will do after the print has been through the post? We've little choice again, unless we stick to lots of 4"x6".
My figures and hindsight make that difficult to believe and I don't think for one moment that the money I've spent on digital is high.
Rgards, David
Henry Falkner
Forum Pro
I moved from the all-in-one 35mm SLR Olympus IS-2000 to the the Olympus C-1400L (D-600L).
There were two disappointments. The battery consumption was VERY high when compared to the motorised IS-2000, and there was no AF light.
In this shot I had to choose a light at about the same distance as the intended subject for focussing:
from here: http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner/henry01
At that time, the printers available for domestic use had a limited resolution, so for another year or two, the annual school photographs were done on 35mm film.
Since even in 35mm I had plumped for all-in-one cameras, in digital photography my aim still is to do the same job better - and this aim has kept me with compacts and super-zooms.
The C-990ZOOM is still in use. this shot is from the Melbourne Aquarium a couple of months after it opened:
from here: http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner/henry03&page=5
For me, the SP-570UZ is the ultimate progression from the 35mm IS-2000 (It does movies as well):
from here: http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner/henry52&page=4
Henry
--
Henry Falkner - Stylus 800, SP-550UZ, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Don't they still have a few of those from specialty makers, like whoever makes the stuff Berger brands?
Thanks. Would it spoil things for you if I mentioned that I frequently doubt my own sanity?
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Leonard Migliore
Forum Pro
I would welcome some exposition on this topic. You has the possible and the impossible, and they're usually not the same thing.
Oh, that kind of impossible. I understand that stuff.
The camera is simple. In an ideal world, the photographer is not.
Bellows factor is handled easily enough with a tape measure. And there used to be Polaroids.
Scheimpflug is hard to derive or spell, but not that hard to implement. I mean, just get 3 planes to meet somewhere.
I give you the beef about the zone system (I guess it's not cool to give vegetarians beef). I submit that folks can take reasonably good pictures without it.
What's wrong with film holders, aside from their bulk?
But I was comparing an FE2 with a D300. And my FE2 is mercifully free of controls. Set the aperture on the lens, focus (and it is possible to focus quite well with either the split-image or matte screen), look at your shutter speed needle and shoot. Works every time. Now with the D300, I have to check where the autofocus lever is; that thing gets pushed around a lot. Then I have to see where I left it last. ISO 1600? Continuous fire? JPEG small? Custom white balance? Whoopee cushion (wait; that's on my Canon)?
Actually, I have less trouble when I use the D300 as a view camera (live view on a tripod). One has more time to look at things and get it right. Now, if there was only a way to invert the live view, it would be perfect.
Well, I don't doubt that it's possible to get magnificent results from an inkjet printer. I've seen them. It's just that it's not trivial, and my wet darkroom skills don't translate directly to electronic printing. Give me 10 years, and I'm sure I can produce an adequate inkjet print but it won't have anything to do with my 30 years washing my hands in Dektol. And I'll be old.
--
Leonard Migliore
MusicDoctorDJ
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,789
- Reaction score
- 11
So . . .
You are telling us that if digital photography had never come along that you would still be using your old computer from the 1980's?
I don't buy it . . . and I doubt anyone else here does, either.
I still have my old original IBM PC1 out in the garage (circa 1981) . . . complete with it's original monochrome green monitor.
I haven't had it hooked up in years and I doubt I'll ever hook it up again!
The only reason I keep it around is because it has all of my old business records from the 1980's and 1990's on it.
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado
Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!
You are telling us that if digital photography had never come along that you would still be using your old computer from the 1980's?
I don't buy it . . . and I doubt anyone else here does, either.
I still have my old original IBM PC1 out in the garage (circa 1981) . . . complete with it's original monochrome green monitor.
I haven't had it hooked up in years and I doubt I'll ever hook it up again!
The only reason I keep it around is because it has all of my old business records from the 1980's and 1990's on it.
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado
Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!
verve
Leading Member
Creating images with film, has been boot camp for digital. Film is FAR more challenging, and has helped develop my abilities and perception. Printing in color (and BW) gave me a very critical sensibility to tone and color. Applying this perception to post work (digital darkroom) in PS was a great benefit and natural progression.
Having to get lighting right on location with multiple strobes/mixed lighting, using Polaroid to proof (@90sec lags), then processing with snip tests, is much more demanding than chimping, live view or tethered. It is swim or drown with film.
Many of the filters plugins, and PP effects in the computer are based on techniques and styles developed in analog. Many photographers (including myself) learned this stuff through trial and error, with no vast internet to search for information. The knowledge developed in this process provides a wisdom and perception (know how) in being creative. It also allows confidence in making quick work arounds and adaptations on location when problems or situations arise, and time, production is critical.
fwiw - Most of my film experiences are with MF and LF - less with SLRs.
Good Luck!
V
Having to get lighting right on location with multiple strobes/mixed lighting, using Polaroid to proof (@90sec lags), then processing with snip tests, is much more demanding than chimping, live view or tethered. It is swim or drown with film.
Many of the filters plugins, and PP effects in the computer are based on techniques and styles developed in analog. Many photographers (including myself) learned this stuff through trial and error, with no vast internet to search for information. The knowledge developed in this process provides a wisdom and perception (know how) in being creative. It also allows confidence in making quick work arounds and adaptations on location when problems or situations arise, and time, production is critical.
fwiw - Most of my film experiences are with MF and LF - less with SLRs.
Good Luck!
This amounts to quite a bit, including buying a computer,keyboard, printer, software and monitor. THEN you might want a digital photo editor!
The results are not always thousands of dollars better.
However, you do pass the time well and truly, as well as pass away a lot of money.
Film to my mind is more exacting...requiring better technique to start with.
There are no "second serves" in film photography...
Otto
--
noise to one is music to another
The results are not always thousands of dollars better.
However, you do pass the time well and truly, as well as pass away a lot of money.
Film to my mind is more exacting...requiring better technique to start with.
There are no "second serves" in film photography...
Otto
--
noise to one is music to another
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
- Snip! Snip! Snip! - - -
Hi,
That's it!
I do miss the simplicity of film cameras. So why isn't there a digital SLR that's a sort of lightweight "pro" model?
Regards, David
PS And you left out having to switch them on and off and how they switch off when you least expect it and all the messing about with the batteries. The old PX675 lasted forever. And the pop-up flash that will pop-up regardless of what you want and fire off. And all the controls for all the flash modes.
And heaven help you if you touch one of the buttons without realising it.
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Did I say that?
I wish it was as simple as that but the fact is that I've been forced to retire printers that were working perfectly well because something else was needed and that mean an OS up grade (or else the stupidity of the programmers meant an OS up-grade) and then the printer stopped working and no new drivers were available. And I wonder how long I'll be able to get ink and so on for the Laser printer. And no one will tell me before it happens.
Currently, I've a perfectly good photo printer that works with this but not with that and so on. And it's only 18 months old but the drivers just don't work with Vista - even the so called new Vista ones. And sometimes a crash can take a week to sort out. (Bitter experience based on a crash after a memory up-grade; luckily I was given the old memory back and after formatting the HD and putting the old memory back all is well. Apart from my sanity and bank balance... )
And Vista had to be bought as the anti-virus stuff etc etc wouldn't work with the previous OS. And then there's the external HD and the little flash drives needing a non-existent driver. And the software that doesn't quite work as it did. And so on and so on.
As for the old Atari with a reasonably modern monitor it would be perfectly OK for WP and Spreadsheets. Neither of them need super fast computers because my typing and composing speed is what they have to match. And I loved the output but not the noise from the B&W daisy wheel printer.
Regards, David
Yes. Shooting digital was much like shooting transparency film. In short, expose for the highlights.
During my years as shooting film I tried all types of films. From black and white negative film to polaroid instant slide film. Switching to digital was much easier because I had instant feedback.
Scott Eaton
Senior Member
The process is more costly and time consuming if you scan film, which also requires a computer and software.
Virtually every piece of color film that's shot is scanned digitally. That is, unless you're a member of the group of liars that still claim to wet print color film in their basement, or grannies that shoot color film and have a lab print it for you.
I NEVER scan, I am not a grannie and I am not a liar.
There are labs for film, still available at reasonable cost ($10 and often 8.99/roll).
Occasionally when I need to print from transparencies,
(rarely...once every 2 years)
I take it to someone who can make a poster-size for me.
Digital is handy no doubt...but when travelling, film can be processed
just as easily when you find a supermarket lab.
There is no going back completely to film, of course,
but I think there might be a bit of a "comeback"
in the next decade or so.
I am certainly never going to sell my pristine Nikon FA from the 80's...
(even though I am about to buy the D700 in the New Year)
as some of my best from that camera will match just about anything
taken today by any camera.
Otto
--
noise to one is music to another
There are labs for film, still available at reasonable cost ($10 and often 8.99/roll).
Occasionally when I need to print from transparencies,
(rarely...once every 2 years)
I take it to someone who can make a poster-size for me.
Digital is handy no doubt...but when travelling, film can be processed
just as easily when you find a supermarket lab.
There is no going back completely to film, of course,
but I think there might be a bit of a "comeback"
in the next decade or so.
I am certainly never going to sell my pristine Nikon FA from the 80's...
(even though I am about to buy the D700 in the New Year)
as some of my best from that camera will match just about anything
taken today by any camera.
Otto
--
noise to one is music to another
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
HI,
Interesting, isn't it? They attack the people using the film and seem unaware that people using film are photographers - probably with far more experience than them.
So could we have a lot less of this rudeness? Calling us grannies, die hards etc merely suggest to me that you have a weak case and/or don't understand things. So you attack the people to draw attention away from the fact that both film and digital produce images,usually printed and that in some areas film is superior and in other areas digital is.
I can list a lot of things that I miss with digital; black & white prints for example (unless I invest/lose a fortune buying a dedicated printer and inks); easier loading without breaking finger nails or bending expensive fragile pins; minimal expense on batteries; seeing at a glance if the film is unused (ever changed one full card for another full card?) and so on.
Even my 30 or 40 year old cameras have advantages over digital (view-finders, focussing etc) and I can get my money back on some of them - unlike digital that can drop dramatically in price over a couple of years in the shops and are worthless secondhand (3 megapixels anyone?).
And there's that wondefull plus with film - simplicity. And for very little someone else has the work of D&P'ing. Unlike digital where you have to buy the equipment and do it yourself or use a weird set-up in a shop without anyone to help you...
Regards, David
Interesting, isn't it? They attack the people using the film and seem unaware that people using film are photographers - probably with far more experience than them.
So could we have a lot less of this rudeness? Calling us grannies, die hards etc merely suggest to me that you have a weak case and/or don't understand things. So you attack the people to draw attention away from the fact that both film and digital produce images,usually printed and that in some areas film is superior and in other areas digital is.
I can list a lot of things that I miss with digital; black & white prints for example (unless I invest/lose a fortune buying a dedicated printer and inks); easier loading without breaking finger nails or bending expensive fragile pins; minimal expense on batteries; seeing at a glance if the film is unused (ever changed one full card for another full card?) and so on.
Even my 30 or 40 year old cameras have advantages over digital (view-finders, focussing etc) and I can get my money back on some of them - unlike digital that can drop dramatically in price over a couple of years in the shops and are worthless secondhand (3 megapixels anyone?).
And there's that wondefull plus with film - simplicity. And for very little someone else has the work of D&P'ing. Unlike digital where you have to buy the equipment and do it yourself or use a weird set-up in a shop without anyone to help you...
Regards, David
MusicDoctorDJ
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,789
- Reaction score
- 11
What cracks me up are those who profess film over digital . . .
How much better it is and blows away digital . . .
Then tell us they use Walgreens, Walmart, Target and Costco for getting their high end film processing done!
That is the biggest joke around here . . .
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado
Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!
How much better it is and blows away digital . . .
Then tell us they use Walgreens, Walmart, Target and Costco for getting their high end film processing done!
That is the biggest joke around here . . .
--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado
Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!
William Carson
Veteran Member
My experience is more of most folks who got into photography because of its ease of use through the computer digital extension. But I have gotten to know people who value the slower art of film and darkroom development. Each image becomes a work of art and has more value. Which is as it should be. A fellow I know alway shoots manual with the S2 Fuji I sold him rather than shutter or aperture priority. Amazes me how spot on his exposures are. One thing that is missing from the digital cameras sold is dedicated B&W sensor digital which would give greater resolution. Not profitable enough to justify making them I guess.
Will
Will
tex
Veteran Member
i have not tried those, but i'm curious---not that i have any real access to a darkroom anymore [or more accurately, one i would want to use...]. the stuff i used to get was French, then there was some eastern euro stuff, but finally environmental controls killed off manufacture, as i understand it. i know a guy who's coating his own papers, and he does beautiful stuff. mostly he doesn't enlarge---very old school. but i've crossed my rubicon[which in fact is more of what we'd call a creek than a river...], and now have a workable digital darkroom. room for improvements, to be sure, but very workable already, and at a fraction of the cost. i know you know this.
i just finished the latest Niel Stephenson book, maybe you hate him, but i like the work, and in this one he suggests that the key element that separates the fundamentalist devout and those "others" is the embracing of doubt as a principal of reason and knowledge. so doubt away. doubt is my friend now.
tex
Veteran Member
tsk! we're not ALL that way! ;-)
that's totally true. zoning is just one way of visualizing things that works for some of us. the ideologues are...well, like ideologues everywhere, including suicide bombers.
how about loading the #$%& @ things?
foghorn on my olympus, warning you of low light ;-). but, just for the record, i always HATED focussing in 35mm, even when my eyes were razor sharp. hate to admit it, but AF works pretty good these days, used intelligently.
why you need an oly e-3! ;-)
you can make this transition in a matter of months---truly. less if you go all out. it almost is trivial. and it will still have a lot to do with the most important parts of what you did in a wet darkroom, which is consistency of workflow and the ability to read a print. you understand these things well, now, and your transition will be relatively graceful.
it's a bit like metric and "standard" measures. thinking too much about converting is not the way to go. just think: using.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum