Can't be bothered

[james6]

to make the change to digital slr. I keep looking and being tempted. As a halfway there thing I bought a s/hand bridge camera. Fuji 6900. Well. Browsed the instructions. My god! It,s another world. Press this for that. Do this then do that! Don't get me wrong it's a good camera but so complicated. I check out reviews on d slrs. Shoot raw not jpeg. Photoshop. Post process. Arghhh!!! I just to take a picture. I have been asked to shoot a wedding in Zurich [I was a pro for 15 years]. Tempted to go down the digi route but have now decided that it is not worth the hassle. I'm digging out my MF Hasselblad & Rollie that I can operate without thinking about it. Pack the films off to to lab and go for a pint. I do not want to spend hours in front of a computer twiddling images. Rather be out taking pictures.This new tech is not in my opinion making this art easier. Are we being sold a pup? Is it just me?

James

[taxor]

Good for you James! I can't honestly say I'm anti-digital; each to their own. Maybe some day I'll get a little point and shoot thingy but, as long as I'm able to get film, paper, chemicals and enlarger bulbs, I'll remain strictly trad 'coz I like it.

[james6]

Nice to know I am not alone. I'm not anti-dig as I think it is great and quite happily enjoy using my point n shoot compact. But it is an older one with a viewfinder. If I could have a reasonably priced basic digi slr that gave me a couple of large rings/knobs with shutter and aperture settings with a meter reading I would be tempted. I just do not want to learn another skill that I don't see the need for. I haven given up on the darkroom as I do not particularly enjoy it though I am quite capable. Just enjoy taking pics more. I know I could jpeg my shots and send them off to be developed but is that not the point of film? I will be sorry to see the demise of film. Either it will disappear or be the province of the few that can afford to indulge. I realise that others have different agendas but it's just the way I see it.

James.

[Roy5051]

It really is refreshing to hear your point of view. I have my feet in both camps, i.e. I have a DSLR and a digital compact, but I also have a film SLR and a film compact. I just cannot make up my mind which I enjoy using the most.

I like the immediacy of digital imaging, especially if I am going out for a day's shoot and can come home, download my pictures and edit the best ones. But I still feel the need to take pictures with film when I am looking for quality. I am afraid that all pictures from DSLRs need editing before printing, especially if shooting in Raw, and I really don't have the inclination to do too much of this. Which is another reason for shooting film - someone else can do the processing.

I also use film if going to a party, because digital cameras are pretty useless in poor light.

[james6]

Thanks for the replies. I think of myself first and foremost as a photographer. I do not want to be anything else. I find computers boring, but respect them as a tool to do a job. Using one now of course. To me a photographer is someone who frames focuses and presses a shutter button. Someone who has an eye for a photograph. I do not have or want the requisite skills to do justice to quality darkroom or computer p/p work. I value my time/freedom too much to waste it doing something of no interest to me. Traditional film photography sets me free. I enjoy the romance of photography. The mechanics of it. The feel of the camera. [I also love good engineering]. I know digital is capable of superb quality results and commercially it is a valuable tool for modern day life. But..............

J

[Larry Shone]

Yea it can be a lot of work. I can take more pics with the digi but then spend hours tweaking them all,keeping one full size for printing later,resizing twice,one to 600 for on here,another to 800 or higher do elsewhere,can take half the night! Worth it tho and you don't need to shoot in RAW or use photoshop if all you want is pics.

[dangie]

Black & White Televisions - Video Recorders - Audio Cassettes - Vinyl Records etc etc.
They've all been replaced with something better. I feel the same with film. The Digital media compared to film has more pros than cons.
However I do agree that digital cameras are far too complex. As a Pentax user, how I wish for a purely manual digital version of my old trusty Spotmatic. It'll never come of course, but I can dream....

[beejaybee]

They've all been replaced with something better.

Not because they're better, but because the new products make more money for the manufacturers & retailers.

I'd very much dispute that vinyl records or audio cassettes are worse than MP3 - heavier and need more care, perhaps, but in terms of sound quality the LP record (introduced 1950) is way ahead, and (with state of the art transcription equipment) still gives the (uncompressed) CD a good run for its money.

[apochromatic]

I shoot and print film but sometimes use digital in place of Polaroid for testing shots....all very well but I was doing some model/movement stuff recently, the digi proofs looked great so I grabbed my film camera, took the shots but... forgot to focus!! Doh! Just goes to show how quickly pixels usurp brain power. I will try to keep my brain engaged next time!

[andy_m]

I use film and digital SLR's and there's definitely a place for both. I tend to use film when I can't be bothered with post processing and I just want a set of prints and maybe some scans for putting on the web. I also like the 'look' of some films, although I understand the effect can be replicated with filters in Photoshop.

Having a very nice film SLR also makes me want to stick with film a while longer as well.....

[GeoffR]

The reason digital is replacing film, CDs replaced Vinyl and MP3 is replacing CDs is nothing to do with quality and everything to do with convenience.

You can't play a 12" LP in your car, or tuck your hundred favourite CDs in your pocket. Nor can you carry 30 rolls of film in your top pocket. You can however play CDs in your car, get 100 albums on an iPod and get 30 rolls worth of images on a 16GB memory card. MP3 quality is dire compared to a 12" LP, CD quality still falls short and digital imaging has some catching up to do.

What they have in common is that they get used because the quality is acceptable and they are really convenient. It can be argued that quality you don't use is a waste of money and mediocrity that you do use is a bargain. So film will continue to decline, as have vinyl and CDs. There is a place for quality and those who value it will pay for the privilege. Everyone else will descend into a uniform mediocrity where "good enough" will be the watchword.

Strive for excellence, and be prepared to pay for it, whether with money or effort and you will be rewarded.

[TimF]

CD quality still falls short

How much of that is simply down to people not connecting the kit up properly is a moot point. CD players apparently have a very high output level which overloads amps causing them to sound harsh (this is manifest in that it becomes uncomfortable to turn the volume past approximately nine o'clock). You need to use a cable which reduces the voltage. You can then turn it up to between eleven and twelve o'clock as with any analogue source.

The other reason is of course the daft parameters set down in the "Red Book" when CD was developed.

[beejaybee]

The other reason is of course the daft parameters set down in the "Red Book" when CD was developed.

Yes, well, 24 bit encoding at 96 kHz would of course have been better - especially at avoiding the audible (to the young) high frequency artifacts caused by aliasing - but in the early 1970s when the standard was being written even 14 bit encoders were gold dust, and fast computers were scarcely able to keep up with 44.1 kHz. I saw an early demonstration of a "player" where the laser read head were first generation components, the same as those which eventually surfaced in the first Philips commercial players, but the electronics consisted of a large cabinet containing two PDP-11 minicomputers.

There's also the issue that consumers, used to the 30 minutes+ per side playing time of the 12" LP, would simply not have accepted a CD with 12 minutes maximum playing time.

[dangie]

Yes, well, 24 bit encoding at 96 kHz would of course have been better - especially at avoiding the audible (to the young) high frequency artifacts caused by aliasing - but in the early 1970s when the standard was being written even 14 bit encoders were gold dust, and fast computers were scarcely able to keep up with 44.1 kHz. I saw an early demonstration of a "player" where the laser read head were first generation components, the same as those which eventually surfaced in the first Philips commercial players, but the electronics consisted of a large cabinet containing two PDP-11 minicomputers.

There's also the issue that consumers, used to the 30 minutes+ per side playing time of the 12" LP, would simply not have accepted a CD with 12 minutes maximum playing time.

You may be correct Beejaybee, but to 99.99% of the music buying public, none of this makes sense, and most of all neither do they care. To them, CD offers better sound and convenience than Vinyl. Hence to them it is better.
And as for personal MP3 players, I wouldn't fancy walking around with a Garrard 401 Turntable stuck in my ear...

[TimF]

And as for personal MP3 players, I wouldn't fancy walking around with a Garrard 401 Turntable stuck in my ear...

It'd be a head turner, and that's for sure!!

[beejaybee]

I wouldn't fancy walking around with a Garrard 401 Turntable stuck in my ear...

Neither would I. But sitting listening to a Linn LP12 is a different matter.

[GeoffR]

CD quality still falls short

How much of that is simply down to people not connecting the kit up properly is a moot point. CD players apparently have a very high output level which overloads amps causing them to sound harsh (this is manifest in that it becomes uncomfortable to turn the volume past approximately nine o'clock). You need to use a cable which reduces the voltage. You can then turn it up to between eleven and twelve o'clock as with any analogue source.

The other reason is of course the daft parameters set down in the "Red Book" when CD was developed.

Attenuators are a great way to degrade audio quality unless you use a really good one. The output of a CD player is around 2 Volts which is high even by the standards of pro spec audio kit. I feed CD players into input amps designed for +4Dbu signals and it is still impossible to fade them out! However, my home CD players are fed into correct sensitivity inputs without that problem and it is these players, especially the Quad 99 player, that lead me to suggest that CD quality is still behind good analogue.

[GeoffR]

I wouldn't fancy walking around with a Garrard 401 Turntable stuck in my ear...

I wouldn't want anybody to know if I had a Garrard 401!

[dangie]

I wouldn't want anybody to know if I had a Garrard 401!

If they were good enough for the BBC, then they're good enough for me...

[Mulsanne]

Well done James,

Film is more satisfying to use than digital.
Cannot understand people paying the silly prices for digital SLRs.
The ultimate film SLR is the Nikon F6 @ £1600approx, shop around for less.
How is it top digital SLRs cost so much more than this.
Yes R&D costs have to be recouped, there are less mechanical parts in a digi the a film camera.
I sincerely believe we as photographers are being ripped off in Britain. Mulsanne