Well I shelled out 1500 bucks for a digital ... hohumm

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Jim Waggener, Jan 21, 2004.

  1. Jim Waggener

    Jim Waggener Guest

    a Nikon D100. ran it thru with all my lenses, both AF and MF. Did every
    white balance setting you could do, downloaded custom curves, shot at every
    time of the day with every setting you could imagine, used NEF as well as
    jpeg, used my totally calibrated computer system and printed the pictures
    out on a Epson 7600.

    Guess what? I still like FILM.
    Jim Waggener, Jan 21, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jim Waggener

    Eric Miller Guest

    If you like film, why did you shell out $1,500 for a digital camera?

    Eric Miller
    Eric Miller, Jan 21, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jim Waggener

    D.Yacovone Guest

    You'll get used to it. I had the same feelings when I first switched over.
    Once you start producing a few nice pics, you'll realize that digital is the
    way to go. There definitely is a whole new learning curve with digital
    cameras. I think the key to digital is not to try to hard to take a
    picture. Just like film cameras, keep it simple. Don't worry about all the
    custom curves and other settings - YET. The white balance is the key. I
    found that with my Nikon D1 the best white balance setting is "shade". I
    shoot at this setting almost all of the time. The real satisfaction I got is
    when I actually had a few pictures printed at the photo shop rather than
    viewing them on my PC monitor. I realized that most of my disappointments
    that I had with my photographs was actually due to the poor quality of my
    computer monitor.
    D.Yacovone, Jan 21, 2004
  4. Jim Waggener

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Then continue to shoot film. The differences between film and digital
    are greatly exaggerated, and neither is generally superior or inferior
    to the other, any more than MF is superior or inferior to 35mm.
    Mxsmanic, Jan 21, 2004
  5. Jim Waggener

    Vin Guest


    So do I, but I still haven't finished the last 6 shots on my F65
    since I got the D100. Its the convenience of having digital and
    not having to spending any cash on Film and Processing.

    That said, I am not a professional and dont make a living out
    of photography, so Im not expecting professional quality,
    although the D100 would still give decent results at 8x12.

    Vin, Jan 21, 2004
  6. Jim Waggener

    MikeWhy Guest

    The problem, Mr. Waggenner, is not with digital compared to film. The
    problem is apparently the 'N' word emblazoned on your camera. The 'C' word
    is what you're looking for, although I take it that it's too late for you to
    switch horses, being emburdened with a valuable collection of fine lenses.
    Before you get the wrong impression, I like film, and shoot lots of it. I'm
    scanning several rolls of 120 Velvia in the background as I write this. It's
    the nuts to end up with 24 MP frames -- 3200 dpi scans downsampled to 2400
    dpi at the end -- that are every bit as good, pixel for pixel, as I'm
    shooting with the 300D. And that's the only problem with digital, if there
    really is a problem. The frames are too small; too few pixels. Your Epson
    7600 truly is wasted on the scrawny, puny crop of what you know could really
    be there. That, and the extra hour or two that it takes to pull a perfect
    frame from scanned film. Canon delivers it; I'm saddened to hear yet again
    that Nikon isn't yet delivering on technology's promise. All Canon has to do
    is expand its tiny sensor out to a full 35mm frame. Nikon's noisy imaging
    has some ways to go before gets there. Too bad; so sad. It doesn't have to
    be that way, you know.
    MikeWhy, Jan 21, 2004
  7. Jim Waggener

    jones Guest

    You must write comedy for a living, correct?

    Or do you really believe that horse crap you wrote?
    jones, Jan 21, 2004
  8. Jim Waggener

    MikeWhy Guest

    I write as a consequence of the other things I do. Why do you ask?
    MikeWhy, Jan 21, 2004
  9. So do one of two things.

    1. Use the digital to practice and test out scenes and new compostions...
    aka experimint prior to using your film camera (this is dependednt on the
    tyoe of photography you do).


    2. Return said Nikon to the store and trade it in for a Minolta. Get a
    Minolta Scan Elite 5400. Then take the $700 you saved and buy one or two
    hundred rolls of film. And enjoy them:)

    [Note: I did something similar to option 2].

    Robert Meyers
    Robert Meyers, Jan 21, 2004
  10. Jim Waggener

    The Yowie Guest

    I use a digital SLR and I do that because to achieve the turn-around from
    shooting to print, I cannot do it any other way. Besides, my Editor insists
    on digital files, not photographs.

    I also use a film camera (not an SLR but MF) and I really enjoy the
    anticipation of waiting to see the picture I shot. I am ecstatic when one of
    those pictures is actually just as I imagined it when I pressed the shutter

    I also get pretty pissed off when the film comes back with dust and
    scratches on it. It takes me 10 minutes to scan a MF negative before ever I
    do anything to it in Photoshop. Basically what I'm saying is that I like
    film too but I love the convenience of digital so much, I accept it's

    Maybe you can live with the suspense of waiting for film to be processed.
    Me? I shoot the pic and if I see the trail of smoke from a bystander's cigar
    I missed in the viewfinder, I shoot it again, on the spot. Can't do that
    with film!

    The Yowie
    The Yowie, Jan 21, 2004
  11. Jim Waggener

    Lionel Guest

    Why on earth didn't you hire one for a week, instead of buying one
    Lionel, Jan 21, 2004
  12. It really depends on what you are shooting in the end. The type of
    photography. All things have pros and cons. In general, I can wait.
    Robert Meyers, Jan 21, 2004
  13. Jim Waggener

    Nick C Guest

    You are not alone.

    Nick C, Jan 21, 2004
  14. Jim Waggener

    Nick C Guest

    I much rather use my film cameras than use my digital cameras and I have
    many reasons to remain with film rather than switch to digital cameras. I
    bought a D100 for me and an Olympus 5050 for my wife, which she gave back to
    me. The Olympus 5050 was indeed an irresponsible excessive expenditure, but
    it's here and someday I may use it as a high end digital P&S camera;

    I rented a D100 before buying it and became convinced that I could, under
    certain scenic circumstances, use both types of equipment in pursuance of my
    photographic interests. I do not regret having the D100, its just that I
    much prefer using my film cameras and when necessary, avail myself of the
    capability of the D100. To become an exclusive digital user is totally out
    of the question. I would be causing more equipment harm to myself than I
    would like, so I'm content to relegate the D100 to subsystem status.

    I read reasons why others have chosen digicams over film cameras. In some
    cases, I totally agree with some of the reasons as they represent the
    photographer having a need for a digital camera. Other reasons cause me to
    smile as they represent nothing more (IMO) than an excuse to justify the
    expenditure of having a digital camera. Examples of such posts will not be
    forthcoming. If I were to believe otherwise, then I would have to think the
    poster is not as proficient a photographer as he thinks himself to be; I
    would rather not nurture that thought.

    However, whether it be a need or an excusable interest that caused one to
    want a digital camera, the reason is irrelevant and doesn't justify an
    in-depth discussion. The only thing that really matters is that the user of
    either type equipment be content to use whichever system he prefers to use
    or needs to use.

    In closing, I would like to paraphrase and add a thought to the famous words
    of that great American, Patrick Henry, in saying "Give me film, or else."

    Nick C, Jan 21, 2004
  15. Jim Waggener

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Probably pure stupidity.
    Tony Spadaro, Jan 21, 2004
  16. Jim Waggener

    Dallas Guest

    Vin said:
    When you first get a digital SLR a whole new way of photography opens up
    to you. It's very novel and it has splendid advantages over film. But
    something else also happens (well it happened to me at least).

    You end up with less photos in albums, the medium that has traditionally
    been used to show one's photos. It's a weird thing, but since I got a DSLR
    about two years ago, I've only printed about 20 images I took! That's bad!

    It's just such a drag making prints from digital (unless you're happy with
    exactly what comes out of the memory card).
    Dallas, Jan 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.