Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenvic
I have read this thread with a great deal of interest. In earlier years my husband owned an SLR film camera and he and I spent many a happy hour developing and printing black and white photographs and developing slide film but I did not become involved in taking photos - after all it was an expensive hobby and we couldn't afford two cameras! I also worked in a specialist photo printers where my main work involved printing selective enlargements although I saw first hand the result of the "average" photographers output.
I have always been interested in computer technology and have owned digital cameras for many years, my first being a Kodak DC model in the mid 1990's. I bought my first digital SLR, a Canon 300D, but like many did not have a clue how to use it and practically glued the dial to P mode. I gradually learned how to use the camera through looking at books and trial and error but whilst I took a lot of reasonable snaps (and the rare good image) I was never going to be a good photographer. I needed something more - and found it by enrolling in a City & Guilds Level 1 photography course. For me it was an eye-opener. Suddenly AV and TV modes had a use - I even found that I was using the camera with that little dial set on Manual. I gained a Distinction for that first course which inspired me to go on to take Level 2. I'm still waiting for the results for the course but even if I only get a Pass I will be happy because whilst I will never be a great photographer I am certainly better than I ever was beforehand and now have an understanding of my camera. Whilst undoubtedly it is easy to fire off a series of 100 or more shots quickly and without giving thought to composition, light or subject and produce a series of "snaps" suitable only for the bin, using the camera properly can take these from a snap to a photo. No different to a film camera used properly but quicker as you can see the results immediately and re-take your image if it is not right. In the days of film how many good usable images would the average photographer have had from three rolls of 36?
|
Well over the holiday's I've been using both the OM-1 and the 30D. The latter is ideal for action and macro stuff (I have a particularly excellent set of butterfly photos) while the former was for everthing else, landscapes and architecture, not to mention the Minox loaded with colour film for general touristy stuff. The dSLR is way too heavy to carry around everywhere, I often found myself unwilling to lug it around in the heat.
I haven't yet developed any of my film shots, so I guess until then I can't make a final judgement over which medium gives me the best results. Overall the digi does have some big niggles (rubbish viewfinder in comparison to any old SLR, the size and weight, no subtlety, still don't like the way the manual controls are, need to mess around on the computer for hours afterwards) but also pros like fast AF, versatility and the fact you don't need to worry about the film being too warm, or too humid, or in any way damaged (such anxiety really grips me when I'm away from home togging).
Overall one medium doesn't hinder another, and it is my hope that as digital image capture becomes all the more sophisticated it will help delineate the niche that film has and thus bring more people back to this wonderful alternative way of taking pictures.
My keep rate on a roll of 36 is 2-4, so from 3 rolls I can expect to get back a good 9 back or if I'm luckier 4 or 5 ones that deserve to be framed on the wall. With digital the % of good shots is much lower but the volume means I get around the same amount.