On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Toralf Lund wrote:
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use 35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a bag full of prints.
Or take your digital P&S, review the pictures on the screen on the back, deleted the ones you don't like and then drop off the memory card and get back a bag full of prints that you have chosen out of the ones that you took.
Yep. That means that digital can be just as simple as film, but the standard argument that says it's simpler still doesn't hold.
That's exactly what I was saying - digital is not necessarily easier than film, but it can be just as easy. Arguing for film by saying that it is easier than digital is in my opinion nonsense. (however, you seem to agree on this...meh, i just like replying to emails :)
Most people I know who shoot digital with a P&S don't play around with their pictures in photoshop or anything - they treat the camera just like a film one, but with the ability to delete the ones they don't want and then also email/website-ify the pictures without having to scan.
You can also get your lab to scan the film; in fact, one I tried this week is doing it for free right now. I'm not sure how good the quality of the scan is, but it's definitely more than adequate for emails or webpages.
But the instant availability is of course an argument; like I said in my other recent post, probably the only one the way I see it.
The instant availability coupled with the 0 cost of taking a photo are my 2 main reasons why I still use my digicam.
I don't automatically agree with the arguments about storage and cost, either, for one simple reason - I've mentioned the magic word elsewhere: Backup.
On a bit of further thought I agree more with you now. There is still a bit of a "swings and roundabouts" situation when it comes to the archiving of slides/prints/negs and cds (mainly because i haven't had a cdr go bad on me...yet), but I see where you're coming from.
Now I even think I like *not* seeing the results immediately. I mean, waiting for the film to be developed does have a certain charm to it...
it has the charm, and it feels like i;m being more "artistic" when i;m using film. I;m not an artistic person by nature, and so my newfound love for photography as an artform is quite a new and still joyful thing (and it finally satisfies my arty mother :) This probably stems from my profession as a computer programmer and the fact that i've been playing with computers pretty much my whole life, and with computer imaging (but without much success until recently) since a computer that allowed me to do such things appeared in my house. I think film appeals to some deep down hidden luddite that nestles somewhere in my soul, and as soon as I can get the bits together i will be dipping my hands in chemicals again as much as i can.
as for waiting for development - having seen some of my recent film photography (another reason why i;m taking some more digi pictures recently - taking a step back for a bit) i;m happier taking the photos than actually seeing the finished results :)
billy
-- If you are trapped under falling debris, conserve oxygen by not farting. Billy Abbott billy at cowfish dot org dot uk
