In a message dated 3/11/05 11:42:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Remain the same? > Be halved? > Become occasional? > Become specific (i.e. B&W only or high ISO or slide only)? > Cease all together?
I purchased the ist D around Christmas with the expectation that my film usage would be halved in most cases and cease altogether for some usages (primarily shooting my daughter's synchro skating team). I have not shot any film since getting the digital but that will change in the spring when I will be actively shooting nature both in film and digital. Almost all of my shooting has been synchro on digital (fast action in low light arenas). I have not purchased any lenses because I felt I already had the wide angle covered in a 15mm and 16mm. One thing I am noticing is that, although I LOVE digital, the workload and digital workflow can be overwhelming compared to film, where you pick your three best scan them and go with it. The one thing I did buy as a result of going digital is a new computer. It's a hidden cost that can be quite expensive if you have let technology pass you by in the past five or six years.... In the end I will say that I do love digital but I'm the first to say that it's not for everyone. There is something to say about the simplicity and the comfort level of film. I consider myself quite tech savvy but I have to say that becoming extremely competent in the world of digital photography requires a lot of work and a certain learning curve that cannot be denied. I'm not just talking about getting the image from the camera into the computer and out to a printer. That's simple. I'm talking about more complex situations that involve image manipulation, tweaking, building web sites etc. For photographers who are not ready to deal with this type of technology, I'm not sure investing in digital is the way to go. If you just want to take pictures, think long and hard about investing in digital.
