It probably boils down to money. If I had plenty, and could get my tri-X developed and scanned by the time I return home, I might still be using my Leica.
I also liked having time between shooting and editing. I still do, but editing on the fly at least keeps me shooting more. I think that's the reason I started my photoblog, to have an end to all that thruput. Still, it is very interesting to go back to sets of pictures shot a while back. Sometimes I find good ones that I hadn't noticed, and in the same way, wonder why I selected certain others. So I agree with you, distance is good. j On 7/27/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think that it's digital per se that's helpful here. I think it's a > matter of your preferred or self imposed style of working. If you could > shoot TX and get the processed film back to you as conveniently, would one > way or the other matter? I'm the opposite, even when I've shot digital. I > like some distance from the photographs, look at them more than once, > sometimes over months or longer. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Juan Buhler > > > A good photographer is one who gets the results she wants, regardless > > of ratios or tilted horizons. Digital has allowed me to get closer to > > the pictures I want, but mostly because I shoot somewhat more with it > > and because of the fast turnaround. I used to sit on a roll of tri-X > > for one or two months before developing it. Nowadays I edit my > > pictures the day I shoot them. > > > -- Juan Buhler - SIGGRAPH 2005 Sketches and Posters Chair http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
