List: You have all been comparing the quality versus cost of film and digital, but nobody has mentioned the advantage to a non-professional like myself. I have recently purchased a D-100 and find that the learning process is all aspects of photography has increased tremendously. I can now see exactly what I have just done at the touch of a button, rather that bracketing my way through many rolls of film, taking notes, waiting for processing and then reviewing my notes. As far as expense is concerned, the jury is still out, but for convenience, no comparison. Just my opinion. Now I can take a fine piece of jewelry from inventory, digitally photograph it, download it and email it to a potential customer in a matter of minutes. Can't beat that with film. Michael Krebs Jeweler and amateur photographer. On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:20:59 +0000 Qkano <wildimages@lineone.net> wrote: > > It's kind of different though when you can > take photos 'free' rather > > than with film where you'd like take way > less. Depends on what > you're > > doing with those shots though. I figure most > new digital photogs > like > > take thousands of test shots after getting > their cameras, so it's > > tough to compare to what they actually might > have taken with film. > > Jim > > It also depends I bet on what sort of > photography people are in to. > "Monkeys and typewriters" > > Firing away blindly does not create great art. > > > > Of the "Masters of Photography" it would not > surprise me if some of > them had not reached 5000 frames in a lifetime. > What is remembered > are the best of the bunch. If you go out to > take a landscape, the > light might only be right for a few minutes: > if you capture it right > then the other 1000 low res frames are > irrelavent. > > Does taking more shots get you better pictures? > It depends. > > > For wildlife you always take more than you need > because some won't > work: birds can have moved / blinked while the > shutter is closed. > For journalism you might not always know what > shots will be valuable > till later. > For weddings ... well, it's questionable. I'm > left wondering if it is > better to take less to a plan than just fire > away. > > > > Perhaps someone has access to the stats (yawn - > google ;) but IME > most camera owners spend *far* less on film > than they ever do on > equipment. It's psychologically easier to > spend a grand on a new toy > than it is for the couple of dollars a week for > batteries. > > > > For someone who *needs* to take tens of > thousands of shots per year > (let alone having the time to review them) the > balance is obvious. > But for someone who already owns a perfectly > good slr, with disposable > media available capable of storing 36 > ultra-high res images for 4 > dollars. > 200 films a year (that's actually high usage) > ... under a thousand > dollars including processing and no need to > "upgrade". > > But keeping up with the digital revolution: > within three years to > have bought a D30 (now a toy), D60 (now a toy) > and taken out a > mortgage for the latest ... > Keeping up with other side of the digital > revolution ... new hardware > + software, printers etc etc ... > > > Film used to be a cheap low tech solution to an > expensive high tech > problem ;o) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
