Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I like digi as well. The immediacy for family snaps, quick > turnaround, and ease of processing are all benefits. I wish > that, like the woman in the article said, I could just toss > my film canister in the air, grab some lunch, and come back > to a nicely done contact sheet.
Of course we see the issue from different ends of photographic use. In many ways I feel I have been pushed towards the digital age and it doesn't suit me. I thought it would, but if you saw the level in technology I own (myself) you would undoubtedly agree with me - my mobile 'phone is huge, but as it still does the job.... Most of my friends, fellow school parents and family know I have liked photography from an early age. Some of them have exchanged photos via digital cameras for a good while (mostly point & shoot) and have expected me to be at the front of the line doing this. Having been a life long Pentax user, I hung out for their DSLR. I like B&W prints and slides. Colour print has never been a favourite of mine (not entirely true, when I found out how good B&W was, I lost most of my interest in colour prints). Every time I pick up a camera, it's a moment of relaxation. I enjoy it, no more, no less. Do I love what the *ist D can do? Yes. I think digital more than has it's uses, but do I like using it as much as an MX, 67 or LX, no. There is this thing about making things smaller and lighter I don't like. If I want small, I can use a film Pentax (MX or ME Super is good) with a 40mm lens, which is 'hold able' and fits in a pocket with ease. As I am 6' 2" and 18 stone, I really don't want things made smaller (not even me (!) before someone says something!). I can use my film cameras without any problems. If Pentax made a 67 in digital form the same size and shape as it's film format equivalent, I would be delighted. Frankly, this desire to reduce the size of camera results in too many operational buttons in a limited amount of space. Now I know there are much bigger people than me here, but I find this constricting and off-putting. > I suppose the immediacy depends a bit on one's work flow. If > there's a good one-hour lab nearby, then dropping off the > film and scanning it when you return from your errands is not > much of a lag time. If you're a person who uses the digi and > then goes down to a lab to have the results printed, it's > really no different wrt time as in the example above. I have never found a good 1-hour lab, but I can't say I've tried that hard. That's not to say they don't exist near me. But now, I don't even need to try. Both the developers I use are 100s of miles away, which both give excellent results for either slide or B&W, so I use the post. I don't have the time constraints (anymore) and I don't mind the wait. > Since most of us have appropriate editing programs, for us - > the connected, on line people - there's a big savings in > time. Of course, not everyone has the equipment and software > to make a purely digital workflow possible. Noted. > From the pov of quality - my pov, what's important to me - I > believe that film wins hands down, yet I'm very happy that > the digital option exists. Me too, but for entirely different reasons, even though I'm pleased we have a digital Pentax camera. I love to read different opinions. Malcolm
