Why digital suits me fine.

Discussion in 'Photography' started by John Bates, Feb 14, 2005.

  1. John Bates

    John Bates Guest

    My situation = Not rich. Photography interests for the past 60 years.

    Some work earning money with cameras, i.e. - Leicas taking walky

    photos on fairground and seaside promenade. Shots from the air

    using home made balloon. Baby photo's in homes. But 99% in

    amateur mode. Large format always considered superior to 35 mil.

    The past 40years just for fun, much limited by cost since black and

    white days in darkroom - Now with colour - Film £2, Developing

    and printing approx £5 just for 24 6x4 inch photos and that's it.

    But what a change since my Sister bought me a digi camera for

    Christmas, under £200.

    Now I have recouped a better equivalent to the darkroom, in the

    camera. I can take as many shots as I wish, in sunlight with added

    or subtracted stops, in moonlight or room light, view all of them

    instantly, magnify choose the best and delete the rest, great.

    Using an old HP 930c and refilling the cartridges time and time

    again, with a 100 sheets of thin photo paper from Asda for £6 I

    have lots of very good photos for a cost well within my not so

    deep pocket. And even if the pictures fade(as have done 10 year

    old 35mil ones from the photo printers costing app £6 each) I

    can reprint any from the ones saved on CDs. For me film is now

    old hat.

    John Bates, Feb 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Bates

    Fitpix Guest

    I am glad you are still shooting after all these years John. As I have said
    before, it is the image that counts, not the tool. Digital or film. I did
    switch to digi 2 years ago and haven't looked back since. I figure my
    savings at my studio are easily close to $20k over regular film. Digi made
    my studio possible, I too don't have deep pockets going into my business

    Fitpix, Feb 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Bates

    John Bates Guest

    Thanks for the kind remarks. I agree entirely with what you say, be it
    B/W; film, integrated sensor, painting, or anything you have created by
    yourself that when you look back at it it gives you satisfaction a sense of
    pleasure, especially when another person praises it. Maybe a form of
    egotism but who cares it's good.
    Best wishes for success with your venture, a brave move these days with
    so much debt about. Be sure to keep the tax man happy.(From experience)
    John Bates, Feb 14, 2005
  4. John Bates

    John Bates Guest

    Thanks for the kind remarks. I agree entirely with what you say, be it
    B/W; film, integrated sensor, painting, or anything you have created by
    yourself that when you look back at it it gives you satisfaction a sense of
    pleasure, especially when another person praises it. Maybe a form of
    egotism but who cares it's good.
    Best wishes for success with your venture, a brave move these days with
    so much debt about. Be sure to keep the tax man happy.(From experience)
    John Bates, Feb 14, 2005
  5. John Bates

    PhotoBug Guest

    I agree John, I also was a lover of photography at a very young age. But
    at a young age, money was not available to print all my photos (if I could
    even get much film). Then I graduated from high school, joined the Air
    Force, and the picture taking was on again. Welcome to high expense again!
    I got married and the child was born, meaning new priorities. The baby, the
    house, the furniture, the broken appliances, etc. etc. So photography took
    a back seat again. And then, the digital craze was upon us. Two years ago,
    I started with a Canon G2, then the 10d. I have shot over 25000 photos. I
    can shoot like crazy, never worrying about the cost to get the pictures
    developed. Review, delete, store, print the ones I love, even sell, paying
    for the new 20d I just got. Put the rest on screen savers, etc. Now, after
    the initial cost of buying digital equipment, anyone can really learn and
    love photography. I try to stay away from the film vs digital wars. It's
    silly. The other day I was at a family function, and an older family member
    slammed my equipment, saying film was much better than digital! I replied,
    that I didn't even know he was a photography lover (his pictures were never
    on display). This was great, I asked him if he wanted to go on some photo
    expeditions with me on the weekends. He balked and wanted to continue the
    argument and extort the values about film. I then said, look, if you love
    film so much, I suggest you stick with it, but I love my camera and the
    opportunities it has opened up for me, that taking pictures is the important
    thing. No luck, stubborn as a mule. Look in this newsgroup and you can see
    the battle raging on. All the while less and less film cameras will be
    made, I wonder why? I guess those that are new to photography will jump
    right into digital with no bias. And those of us a little older whom have
    open minds and willing to try a new road less traveled (in the beginning),
    can just smile, as we realize the fun and cost savings we get. Oh and not
    to mention the WoW response from friends and family on our picures. If you
    take 1000 pics, the likelyhood of getting a winner improves immensly.
    PhotoBug, Feb 15, 2005

  6. Not exactly the entire picture. When looking at the greats of this
    industry, such as Adsel Adams, David Hamilton, and others, clearly more then
    just the image counts.

    I'd certainly love to see the accounting used to arrive at that figure. In
    my own case, when adding ink costs, paper costs, labor costs (the time spent
    at the computer editing and printing digital images - my time is worth
    something, especially since I'm not making money taking pictures while
    sitting at a computer), additional purchases (software and upgrades),
    additional costs (the difference between digital and film camera prices),
    and so on, I found no significant difference between film and digital.
    Indeed, since few customers are willing to pay the labor costs associated
    with editing and printing digital images while I can easily pass on film
    processing costs to those very same customers (standard industry practice),
    film actually works out to be cheaper.

    Dwight Stewart, Feb 15, 2005
  7. John Bates

    Fitpix Guest

    heh, ball park figure when considering I have taken close to 45000 images
    (no not all in studio but many for my other photo pursuits such as gallery
    hangings, stock etc). Film and processing would come out to right around
    20k. I did all my own filmscanning and editting before, still do my own
    editting now. Is this type of figure flawed? Yeah maybe, especially since I
    do shoot more now because of digital. Much more. But my shooting has
    improved a great deal thanks to this freedom, so there is also a value
    associated there.
    Fitpix, Feb 15, 2005
  8. John Bates

    Scott W Guest

    Switching from film to digital for me has been a bit like going off the
    company's mainframe computer and getting a PC, which I did in the
    early 80s.

    For a time my fellow engineers would give me a hard time for using a
    "toy" computer instead of a real one, they said that the
    micro-processor could never do any real work.

    Time passes and the PC get faster and faster and yet I am still getting
    grief from some people that my PC is just not up to doing real

    In time my new PC is beating the mainframe and yet even with this there
    are those who would not take it seriously.

    Digital cameras are going through these same stages.
    Those of us that got digital cameras early on and were delighted at
    the freedom it gave us, but heard a lot from the film people about how
    bad our photos were. ( and a 640 x 480 photo is not all that great).

    But then time moves on, I now have a 20D, which take better photo then
    I have ever gotten off my 30mm film camera and I have yet to see a
    print from a 35mm camera do better or even as good.

    But like the computer there will be people who are always a bit behind
    the times.

    So why does digital suit me fine?
    20,000 photos a year (that would have been over $4,000 in film and
    developing cost).
    8 x 10 prints that look as sharp and clean as anyone could want.
    Photos that are organized automatically by when I took them.
    Shooting at ISO 800 noise free.
    Shooting hundreds of shots without changing film
    No worries about X-ray machines at airports.
    No waiting for the film to be used up before being able to see the
    No scratches on the negatives thanks to miss handling from the

    Scott W, Feb 15, 2005
  9. John Bates

    Rob Novak Guest

    I've heard this from every commercial photog I've talked to in the
    past year. If anything, their costs have increased because of the
    labor that they can no longer outsource to the lab. They're stuck
    doing all the processing themselves at their hourly rate. In
    addition, the depreciation on digital gear is worse than a cheap
    Korean compact car.
    Rob Novak, Feb 15, 2005
  10. John Bates

    Marvin Guest

    You can have still more fun. With a good image editing program (I use Paint Shop Pro), your computer becomes your darkroom,
    and you will be even more creative.
    Marvin, Feb 15, 2005
  11. John Bates

    John Bates Guest

    And it looks like you've got many more years to keep on enjoying it. not
    so many for me. Mind you I did get two go's, with B/W, it was good
    shaping them up in the enlarger then watching it form in the developer.
    But then the cost of colour and the added difficulties stopped me doing
    much for years. Now with Digi, off again, smashing. Lovely sunset
    outside right now, must get out.
    John Bates, Feb 15, 2005
  12. John Bates

    Guest Guest

    I used a 20D on Saturday, not impressed, the LCD is very optimistic and
    bears no relation to the histogram, much like the 1ds. I had to use the
    histogram all of the time which I actually prefer but I think the metering
    is iffy on the digital Canons.
    Guest, Feb 15, 2005
  13. John Bates

    John Bates Guest

    can reprint any from the ones saved on CDs. For me film is now
    old hat.
    Hi Marvin,
    I did try one of the paint programmes long before I got the camera, just to
    improve some old photos, but I found it very complicated (for me that is). I do use
    a small programme which I find very good. I forget what it's called Photo pix or
    something like. It has two pictures side by side about 3 inch each, it enables one to
    crop, brighten, and sharpen etc. It's good. as you can work on one side and see the
    results on the other as you do things.
    But you're right, I should try something better, now you've mentioned it I think I will.
    Many thanks.
    John Bates, Feb 15, 2005
  14. John Bates

    grol Guest

    Excellent, who wants to sell their old Nikon dSLR real cheap to me? ;-)
    grol, Feb 15, 2005
  15. John Bates

    Scott W Guest

    Clearly the cost saving depends on how you shoot and how much you
    shoot. When you are dealing with a lot of photos digital is the only
    way to do, sorting and organizing on the computer is far easier then
    trying to keep track of slides. And if you are going to try and get
    every photo you take into digital format you really don't want to
    scan them all in.

    Sports Illustrated has gone digital, partly because of cost and partly
    because it makes their workflow easier and faster.

    I shot a little over 16,000 photos last year, I can't even imagine
    trying to do this with film. The thing with digital photos is the
    only ones I have to spend any time on are the ones that I am going to
    print or use in some other way. For the bulk of the photos I take they
    remain one my disk just as they came off the camera. When I shoot raw
    I always get a jpg at the same time, if the photo is one that I really
    care about then I will use the jpg, but if I am just browsing through
    the photos jpg is good enough.

    Scott W, Feb 15, 2005
  16. John Bates

    piemanlarger Guest

    Perhaps if they got it right in camera they could just download and print,
    works for me so far!

    piemanlarger, Feb 15, 2005
  17. John Bates

    Mike Kohary Guest

    The LCD is meant to use as a guide only. It's not definitive, and you still
    have to be a good photographer to get a good exposure. No camera will do it
    all for you. Using the histogram will always be the only sure way to know.
    Like any other sophisticated camera, you have to get used to each individual
    body's idiosyncrocies and traits. After about a month with my Digital
    Rebel, I had it down flat. Now I just got my 20D, and it's "different" than
    my Rebel, but I know there will be a bit of a learning period during which I
    get used to it, and then I'll have it down flat too.
    Mike Kohary, Feb 16, 2005
  18. John Bates

    piemanlarger Guest

    My Minolta 7D is pretty accurate with its LCD image. So far, if you just
    print stright from the card (home or pro lab) the print you get is matching
    the LCD almost 100%.

    piemanlarger, Feb 16, 2005
  19. John Bates

    Guest Guest

    As I suspected, the metering is dodgy on the Canon Digital's that I have
    used, here's the evidence.

    Guest, Feb 16, 2005
  20. John Bates

    grol Guest

    Mr Unspam, .....uh....not exactly....

    A). The test was done on a proto-type camera. Production models and firmwares
    may indeed be different.

    B). His conclusion is NOT the same as yours. In fact, he very highly recommends
    the camera. In fact he says that the camera is "clearly one of the best cameras
    on the market at this time"!!!! Read the last paragraph again. I have posted the
    entire conclusion for your convenience:

    "Conclusion -

    The EOS-1Ds represents breakthroughs in two separate areas
    for Canon shooters. On the one hand, it has by far the highest
    resolution sensor available for the Canon lens mount. This will
    likely open new doors for Canon SLRs, as there's plenty of
    resolution here for even the most demanding two-page catalog
    spreads, or large-format commercial portraits.With the advent
    of portable SLRs like the 1Ds, these cameras are now encroaching
    on terrain that was previously the exclusive province of "studio"

    This is also the first Canon-format SLR with a full-frame 35mm
    sensor. It is thus now possible to shoot true wide angle digital
    photos with Canon-mount lenses. (There's no focal-length
    multiplier to contend with.) This opens up a whole new range of
    applications and shooting scenarios, and will make it all the easier
    for photographers converting from film.

    I was very impressed with the prototype 1Ds when I first played
    with it, but my admiration for the camera has grown dramatically
    now that I've tested a production model in depth. The more I
    looked at its images, the more I was impressed by the combination
    of resolution, dynamic range, and low image noise. Clearly one of
    the best cameras on the market at this time - If you're looking for
    a full-frame, high-resolution D-SLR for your Canon lenses, your
    wait is over. Very highly recommended! "

    Mr Unspam, have you taken your camera back yet to get checked for faults? If
    not, why bother bleating on about it?
    grol, Feb 16, 2005
    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.