[Daygloworange]

Yeah, I'm one of those that's in love with digital. I shoot lots of pics of completed jobs, and sometimes you would take a roll or two and hope that they turn out nice.

With digital, you can shoot tons of pics, from many different angles, and futz with different settings on the camera, and achieve more usable pics. And of course, crop and edit yourself.

I still haven't quite got the hang of indoor picture quality just yet, but outdoor ones turn out real nice, with minimal effort.

A couple of years ago, I did a bunch of travelling, and was limited to a regular camera. Had I had a digital one, I would have been able to shoot a lot more cool things. I regret not having one then.

Cheers

[boead]

They even get to monkey around with the retired Nikon, and take great delight in snapping off pics - OK, at their age (both are under 4) it is more about making the flash go off, but hey, it is cheap and fun!

So, for me, it is way more convenient, since I am able to see the pics immediately after shooting, and HD space is cheap.

We got my Son (8 ) and my daughter (10) Samsung Digimax A503’s. 5MP, (2) AA's. I put 1GB memory cards in them and they can take as many photos as they like. They LOVE it! They take literally hundreds of photos and videos.
Kids cameras are usually a waste. The cost of film and developing for a young kid can be ridiculous and short lived. How cool is it going to be when they can look at all those photos they took as kids when they are older.

Someone said they doubt they will find a CD or whatever in their attic full of photos in the future? Trust me, someone will wish they had. BTW: In the near future, global storage and mass redundancy will replace your computers local hard drive. All our stuff will be out there in cyber world forever.

What a cool world its going to be. Remember there is no such thing as ‘good old time’ old times were not better then now. People suffered from famine, disease and body odor.

[JoshK]

I consider myself a photo-dummie, but I much enjoy the convenience of digital, even with the minor inconvenience of not-so-easy-pro printing.  Although we have emailed photos to our local pharmacy/photo/convenience store and they processed and printed them for us.

The biggest pain is calibrating your camera >> monitor >> printer, so that pictures you are editing in a program print the same way you edited/shot them.  One of these days, I'll have enough time/patience to sit down and get them all dialed in. 

[budyog]

I too love digital photography! The coolest thing for me now is this new Samsung HL-S4676S DLP TV I just got has a WISELINK slot in back, I just copy and paste the photos from my computer to the Sandisk memory stick, which takes a couple minutes only, stick the memory stick in the back of the TV and WOW, The clearest, sharpest, biggest pictures for all to see. No more burning to a disc and trying to get them to play on the cd/dvd player. This is so cool! You can play a slideshow, fast or slow or click next, next ,next at your pace. I love digital photography and my new Samsung 46"DLP TV! 

[JohnR]

This actually reminds me of a time 14 years ago when I was an intern at Apple Computer.  They used a program called "Meeting Maker" which allowed you to set up meetings with other people (long before MS Outlook), integrating with peoples' desktop calendars etc.  I thought it was so cool...until my boss said "ever since we got this thing, we've been setting up a lot more unnecessary meeting..."

Hah I worked for a company that used Meeting Maker. (Around 1999-2000, but barely more than a stone's throw from Cupertino). The guy I worked for used it to manage his day. Instead of thinking about some issue, he would just call a meeting and waste everybody else's time while he thought it through.

(I didn't work for him for very long... )

[JohnR]

Back to digital photography... I see I'm in the minority Don't get me wrong, I'm not a luddite, but I'm just having trouble with reconciling what's necessary now with my memory of the "old days" (i.e. ten years ago ). Just for the record, I was completely away from photography from about 1997 until late 2005, so I missed a lot...

But some questions/thoughts:

"Archival CDs" -- Are these marked as such? Any recommendations on brand?
"11x14 printers under $300" -- Which printer is that? Do the prints fade (like my Canon)?
"Lightroom or Aperture" -- C'mon, I already shelled out for CS2... where does it end?
"negatives curled and dry" -- yikes... hm I will go find those boxes and have a look.
"trash all but your best images" -- maybe that's it. Keep the ones worth printing backed up, and if you lose the rest, oh well.

[boead]

"Archival CDs" -- Are these marked as such? Any recommendations on brand?
"11x14 printers under $300" -- Which printer is that? Do the prints fade (like my Canon)?
"Lightroom or Aperture" -- C'mon, I already shelled out for CS2... where does it end?
"negatives curled and dry" -- yikes... hm I will go find those boxes and have a look.
"trash all but your best images" -- maybe that's it. Keep the ones worth printing backed up, and if you lose the rest, oh well.

Mitsui gold CD-R’s
“…24 karat gold reflective layer and patented Phthalocyanine dye formula which offers storage life well in excess of 300 years….”
http://www.conservationresources.com/Main/section_6/section6_11.htm

Memorex Pro Gold Archival CD-R Media
Memorex combines a 24-karat gold reflective layer high performance dye and its innovative DuraLayer™ scratch-resistant technology, to deliver archival grade discs. Memorex Pro Gold Archival Media is proven to last up to six times longer than traditional media with a CD archival life of up to 300 years and a DVD archival life of up to 100 years - ensuring the security of photos, music, home movies and important data for generations.
http://www.amazon.com/Memorex-min-700MB-Gold-Archival/dp/B000FITK4O


11X14 printers? Forget it. Its MUCH cheaper to order prints from Kodak.com. The quality of Kodak Dyesub prints is a hundred times better then a ink-jet printer.
This is the number one place people make the Digital Photo mistake. That is trying to print their own photos. You can’t without spending $5000 or more on a printer. Its MUCH cheaper to buy high quality prints then make them yourself.
ALL jet prints will fade.

I haven’t used Lightroom yet but if you got Photoshop CS2 already then your fine. I have CS2 at work but I still use Photoshop 7 at home. I have no desire to upgrade at home, PS7 is fine.


Film negs are going to become a problem. Color film processing is soon to be ceased. Sure, there will be some specialty shops here and there but for the most part the processing of film will come to an end in less then 10 years. Those color negs will be useless unless you have a color film scanner. My dad has one, a good Canon and the quality is the images aren’t even close to that of my tiny Canon 7MP Elph.



“…"trash all but your best images" -- maybe that's it. Keep the ones worth printing backed up, and if you lose the rest, oh well…”
Would you do the same to your music? I mean. Not just trash the CD’s you don’t listen to but how about going through your songs (once they have been stored on your computer) and delete the tracks that aren’t the best. Talk about saving space!

[BobM]

There's no doubt that, if you have and can take the time, digital is a better medium for ensuring your shots look good. The time I'm talking about is adjustments made with Photoshop. But there's still something special about film (just like tubes). Digital can be cold, but it doesn't have to be and is certainly far better than it was even 2 years ago.

We have about 3 drawers of film prints that we never look at. Just opening the drawers is daunting. Well, perhaps when I retire ...

Then again, we have many gigs of digital photo's that we never look at either. However, with a little effort I can easily sort them and categorize them, then see them in 21" color glory in a presentation style. Hell, I can even hook up the PC to my plasma and see them in 42" glory.

Perhaps I'll do that this weekend and treat the family to a picture night. It's far more enjoyable than another brain dead action movie, and might even stimulate conversation and stories with the kids.

Enjoy,
Bob

[Daygloworange]

Is digital photography REALLY more convenient?

Just think of what it's done for the gallery at AC.

Nuff said. 

Cheers

[goldlizsts]

Is digital photography REALLY more convenient?

Just think of what it's done for the gallery at AC.

Nuff said. 

Cheers

Of course it's more convenient.  If one's negative about it, he/she would complain anyway - you tend top take more shots, and then organizing it becomes another royal pain.  Well, organizing non-digital prints is not exactly a breeze either.

Now, you can bring a 1-lb. digital camera on a long trip, not having to lug an SLR body, at least 3 lenses, on a long trip, not to mention dozens of film rolls.  Much lighter on your shoulder.....

The professional photographer now has "instant" proofs, not having to bury him-/her-self in the darkroom to just come up with proofs.  How about saving the environment?  Not having to use more chemicals just for those proof, which a client may not want too much.

Negative print films will likely go the way of the dinosaurs.  Of course, there'll always be die-hards, until all is extinct.  The turntable is on life support, so are my M6's, Contax's, Nikon F's.......   

[nathanm]

“…"trash all but your best images" -- maybe that's it. Keep the ones worth printing backed up, and if you lose the rest, oh well…”
Would you do the same to your music? I mean. Not just trash the CD’s you don’t listen to but how about going through your songs (once they have been stored on your computer) and delete the tracks that aren’t the best. Talk about saving space!

The difference is that the photos are YOUR art whereas songs are part of a complete work by someone else.  Still, deleting crap songs isn't really THAT far fetched either.

I saved myself a lot of storage dough by by buckling down and sorting through all the crap on my drive and tossing stuff that wasn't that great.  Usually with digital photos you'll have multiple shots of the same general thing.  Pick the most representative shot of the bunch and toss the rest.  Just the same kind of editorial process you might use back in the days of photo albums\scrapbooks.

Anyway, this is what I was referring to that lit a lightbulb with me personally:

5.) EDITING

Only show your very strongest images.

Throw away most of what you shoot. I do. Most of my photos are awful!

Go through the few photos you save out of a roll, and then throw away all but the one strongest image.

Next time, go through the few you've saved from a few rolls, and throw more away.

This isn't painting. In photography it is a requirement to throw away most of what you do.

You'll see that if you only save or show your strongest images that your body of work will seem to improve. Guess what: as you show only the better images, your body of work as seen by others has improved!

Do you think I shoot a roll of film and get a roll loaded with the images you see in my galleries? Of course not. Most of what I shoot is crap. I'm just good enough to throw most of it away and only show the good stuff.

Ansel Adams said that if you can produce one strong image in a year that you are doing very well. Don't expect to turn out miracles every roll, or even every month. Ansel didn't, I don't, and I don't think anyone does.

[mcgsxr]

An interesting audio parallel - I will admit to having more FLAC on my backup HD, than on my onboard one, so I think I have answered a portion of that question!

I do tend to review the latest downloaded pics, when I dump them off the camera, and strive to archive only those that my wife and I are interested in.

[jqp]

“…"trash all but your best images"

I saved myself a lot of storage dough by by buckling down and sorting through all the crap on my drive and tossing stuff that wasn't that great. 

I think this is a key to life, and I need to apply it to my packrat ways - I am running out of space in my house. No sense in creating new storage solutions if you never decide what is worth keeping. I have often marveled at the fact that folks collect so many CDs, DVDs, images, digital video clips, that there are not enough days in the year to ever listen to or watch even a fraction of them...

[jqp]

With digital, you can shoot tons of pics, from many different angles, and futz with different settings on the camera, and achieve more usable pics. And of course, crop and edit yourself.

Yeah and maybe actually learn to USE all the settings on the camera without taking 20 years and $20k in film and processing.

[goldlizsts]

..............But there's still something special about film (just like tubes). Digital can be cold, but it doesn't have to be and is certainly far better than it was even 2 years ago.

Enjoy,
Bob

Sure, I agree with Bob.  Nothing is absolute.  There's something special about anything.  Tubes have a certain magic in the mids; print picture still has a bit of an edge on digitals in color renditions.  I have yet to see digital pictures as good as Contax print pictures in color renditions.

[TONEPUB]

I agree with Nathan, just keep the good stuff!!

[AphileEarlyAdopter]

In 1991, I bought a Canon EOS Rebel SLR in the hopes of pursuing the hobby seriously. I learnt all the fundamentals and did manage to take some good pictures. But getting a 8x10 print or slides or push-pull processing was either inconvenient or too costly. I also felt a little shy to  deal with the 'experts' at the processing place (I was 23yrs then).
Still I liked my SLR and did not go into digital photography thinking that the pictures would be 'grainy'. When I had my first son a few years, I realized the convenience of digital photography. About a little more than a year ago I got my Canon 620 7MP camera. Now I am convinced that digital photography is as good as film photography atleast from a amateur or serious amateur point of view. Maybe the professionals need the full frame or the $30K digital backs for their medium/large formats. So to me, it was the quality that mattered. Convenience was a given in my books.

[nathanm]

I'm half-considering getting a 4x5 view camera.  Anyone ever shot large format Polaroid sheet film on one of these?  I figured this might give the near-instant feedback of digital while still offering the heretofore unknown to me capabilities of the view camera.  (should've taken that class in college, dammit)  The whole processing\final output question is a conundrum, though.  The best images I've ever scanned\seen have unquestionably come from 4x5 or larger transparencies.  The most impressive was from a magazine called "Collector Teapot" (and you thought audiophiles were nuts) this guy brought in 11x14" chromes which were just stunning. 

[Daygloworange]

Yeah and maybe actually learn to USE all the settings on the camera without taking 20 years and $20k in film and processing.
 

The beauty about digital photography, is that when you are editing your pics, you have all the shooting info available for the particular picture your are looking at. The shooting mode, aperture, ISO, flash settings and all that info is tagged along with the photograph. It helps you gain experience for future shots. Kinda like taking notes.

Cheers

[djklmnop]

I'm half-considering getting a 4x5 view camera.  Anyone ever shot large format Polaroid sheet film on one of these?  I figured this might give the near-instant feedback of digital while still offering the heretofore unknown to me capabilities of the view camera.  (should've taken that class in college, dammit)  The whole processing\final output question is a conundrum, though.  The best images I've ever scanned\seen have unquestionably come from 4x5 or larger transparencies.  The most impressive was from a magazine called "Collector Teapot" (and you thought audiophiles were nuts) this guy brought in 11x14" chromes which were just stunning. 

A view camera would be beneficial if the emphasis was for creating art.  This demands that you do your own developing and enlarging.  If you are merely looking to photograph for fun, then digital is great.  Both medium can be quite a big investment as they all require post-processing whether it is in the darkroom or in photoshop.  Just that many fear that film won't be around long enough for them to make that investment.  Serious film photographers know very well that it will be far long before film is dead, so this is nearly a non-issue.

What people don't get is that good photos arrive through the understanding of the concepts and being able to harness the variable that exists in creating a photograph.  My mentor has always told me that you can hand a crappy photographer a $5,000 camera vs a knowledgeable photographer a $50 camera; the crappy camera will outshoot the crappy photographer.

The concern shouldn't be about convenience, but what you are looking for as the end result.  When I am photographing portraits for clients, digital is good enough as it is merely a means to an end.  If I am shooting film in the studio I use digital to proof my studio lighting before shooting the final image on film.  If I am shooting a still life B&W that I want to last a lifetime, I do it on B&W film.  I do my own developing, my own printing, my own mounting, my own matting and framing.

I have many film and digital photos on my site: http://andy.burntlands.org
Can you tell which are digital?  Which are film?





Andy