|
Wow--surprised! Never thought I would see another film camera again. I didn't want to get into the film/digital debate, but I have no life--so here goes: I can still tell the difference between film and digital. It could be I'm too used to film?
It could be I'm partially color blind? Whatever the reason, I like the look of film. Recent example. I watched Dumb and Dumber Too. Yes--it was bad on a lot of levels, but what really suprised me was the look of the movie. It just looked cheap. Say what you want about a Farelly brothers movie, they always looked great. I then looked into it, and one of the Farelly brothers was given the choice between film, or digital. The producers brought him to a digital lab, where the techs applied the film "look" program to make the digital look like film. Farley couldn't tell the difference. I sure could? They went with digital. If this is their last digital film--they will have settled to controversy--in my little world. I just have a feeling their next movie will be in film? As to digital photography. When digital finally hit the practical point, I went digital. For myself, it was the Canon 20D, I bought the camera, and three very expensive lenses. Yes, it took great pictures. Great pictures to what? I wasen't a photographer before digital? I didn't know better. Actually, as a kid, I was a photographer. I used a Pentax K1000, and a Canon 350D. A few years ago I found a stash of negatives. I had them blown up, and asked a couple of family members to pick the best pictures. These were nature pictures. All picked my kid pictures. Maybe I was a better photographer as a kid? I don't know. If I was going to "gear" up again, I think I would stay with film. Not because I think it's that much better, but because the used lenses, are so cheap right now. A used Canon F 2.8 300mm lens is under a grand used. The digital Canon 2.8 300mm lens is a minimum of $3500 used(usually beat up.). To anyone who honestly wants to get into photography, but funds are tight, look into film. Hell, I wouldn't even bother with color. I would set up a bathroom darkroom, and set up shop. I guess it's easy for me to throw around this advice. I'm not going back to chemicals in the sink. I have bought the digital equipment, and probally won't go back to film. Oh yea, whatever you do stick with prime lenses. That was my biggest mistake. Buy whatever camera bare. Buy the lenses(glass--if you want to sound like one of those guys--I never wanted to be in that club.) Buy your primes separately. Try to keep your digital camera not in [fully auto] all the time, but then again, I sometimes wonder why. My ex-girlfriend is a professional photographer--takes studio pictures of old stuff. She loved to brag about it. "I'm a professional Photographer. Did you know, I take pictures for a living?" Yes--it was worse than going to the dentist, but maybe I was being too critical? She has never been in manual mode, TV, or even AV mode. She doesn't know about F stops, or exposure times. I think she got lucky though. I told her the pictures were Spectacular, but I really though they were too Photoshopped. As to her job--well it's a lot about who you know at big corporations. Good luck-- |
I got one of those as a gift, probably so I'd stop borrowing his Spotmatic (the K1000 was basically an 80s version of the 60s Spotmatic, with an annoyingly different lens mount).
I think a large aspect of picture quality when we were kids, is rich grandpa can give you triple digits worth of camera at Christmas, but I paid my own way on consumables and I had to push a broom at the food store for something like ten minutes per pix once all the costs of analog were accounted for. Large sheets of photo paper for enlargements were not cheap, either.
Something often overlooked is the analog era was extremely expensive.