Hi Dave,
I shoot both digital and film. Until about a year and a half ago, I was
shooting film only, and was subject to some frustration as well regarding
processing costs, delays in processing, etc. Since I shoot many pictures in
support of writing for Off-Road.com, and am often under time constraints or
was involved in things that couldn't be repeated (installations of products)
I was getting more and more frustrated with the problems regarding film.
I bought a digital camera (an Agfa) based in large part on the very good
reviews it got on Imaging Resource's site. The intent was in using it to
solve my film frustrations (as told above) primarily for photography
destined for the web. (So I didn't need very high resolution for the making
of prints) For those purposes, it works pretty well, and I like the camera.
However, I've rapidly decided that the digital has some significant
drawbacks.
The single biggest complaint I have regarding the digital camera is shutter
lag. The long delay between pressing the shutter and actually getting a
photo is significant and *highly* annoying. Most digitals have a 1sec+
delay, which I've personally found nearly impossible to get used to. I've
missed lots of shots that I've had had NO problem capturing with my OMs.
My second complaint is "cycle time". The time between taking a picture and
being able to take a second one is far longer than for film.
Automation is a problem as well. While I made sure to buy a model having all
sorts of manual over-rides, getting to those manual functions via a pile of
menus and selections is a significant PITA on every digital camera I've
used, including my own.
There have been lots of other frustrations and irritations also. Think an
"old" OM-4 eats batteries? HA! Try shooting a digital for an entire day.
Everywhere I take the darned thing, I take a portable charger and 4 (that's
right 4!) sets (of 4 ea. AA NiMH) batteries in the highest capacity I can
buy. Firing the flash for most of a "roll" makes them drain in the course of
what would be a single 36 exposure roll of film.
Forget fine focusing for all but the highest of the high-end digital
cameras. You *cannot* focus in any critical manner using the viewfinder
(normally just a window, on those that have it) or the teeny little LCD
screen. You can't depend on the autofocus mechanism getting the focus right
in many circumstances. Since your only review of shots in the field is the
same little teeny screen, good luck knowing if the shot was wrong, except in
those cases where it's wrong in grossly obvious fashion.
After a year of shooting exclusively digital (self-imposed, to force me to
learn to "think" in "digital camera mode") I've gone back to the OM for most
of my photography. If what I'm shooting isn't being shot specifically for
the web, I've decided digital just "isn't there" yet, except for snapshots
and the aforementioned web illustrations.
Digital *is* cheaper in the long term due to there being no development
costs. But film isn't all that expensive, if one exercises some "options".
I've done the following, and --so far-- it's worked out well.
900f the time I find myself shooting regular Kodak or Fuji or Agfa
consumer film. I simply don't feel good enough or confident enough to be
investing the extra money in pro grade films yet. I want quantity and
inexpensive (so I can experiment), not quality and expensive at this point.
I'm sure I'll feel differently once I feel like I've found my footing, but
it's my belief that consumer grade films are so much better than 20 years
ago that using them now is like using pro grade from back then.
I'm sure there will be gasps of horror from some at this next item.
Most all of my processing is done at the local Costco's "one-hour photo".
That's right, Costco. They have a near state-of-the-art Fuji processor, and
they handle film carefully and quite professionally. YMMV. So far I've had
NO failures in processing that way. I used to use their 2-day (out-sourced)
service for even lower cost, but that service screwed up a roll or two on
me. By specifying "negs only," processing cost is $2.35/roll. 24 4x6 prints
are under $5, total cost, but I'll be the first to admit you get "automatic"
prints that way, and nothing more.
I then bring the negs home and scan them on an Acer Scanwit. Cost of the
scanner was <$300. It's 2700 dpi and does a fine job for prints up to 8x10
from my Canon S450. If I want a given negative really "done well" I'll take
it to a pro shop and have it custom printed, but the method I'm using now
lets me keep costs low while I learn and experiment.
If/when I get to the point where I feel I'm doing consistently good work, of
a quality to warrant it, I'll likely get a more expensive scanner and use
pro film and pro processing. But for now, this works for me.
I guess the long and the short of all this is that as far as I'm concerned,
shooting digital is a whole different kind of photography than film, in ways
we don't appreciate until we've done it a while. Acceptable alternative?
Yep. But one having a whole different set of frustrations and limitations
(which don't have easy alternatives, either). I think there's room for both,
at least in the way I shoot pictures.
HTH, and grab me off-list if you want some more info (I've omitted lots
here, in the interest of not writing a longer book than I already have). Or
call--you're not far from me (I'm up near Lake Arrowhead), email me off list
for the phone number.
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: DAVDOU9211@xxxxxxx [mailto:DAVDOU9211@xxxxxxx]
Subject: [OM] Re: Digital Musings
Fellow Zuiks,
<snip>
If I were to acquire a quality digital camera I believe that I could
eliminate the involvement of the photo labs. Then I would have only myself
to blame for image quality.
Ok, guys, fire away! Let's discuss this 'cuz I am sure I am not alone.
Dave Dougherty
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|