Why a Gen-Xer is not going digital

Is anyone else out there resisting the digital onslaught? I am 28,

I grew up with computers, CDs etc. I am very computer literate, in

fact I built the system I am using to send this, however, I have

lost almost all interest in digital photography. I find it sterile

and lacking in feeling. I am tired of playing catch up with the

latest and greatest in digital technology only to have to spend

thousands more to upgrade to the next level.

 

Case in point, I had a 20 year old olympus OM-10 which I sold to

help pay for my Leica M7. (It didn't pay for much :) With my OM-10

I enjoyed the benefits of advancement in film technology by simply

paying the $4.50 for a roll the newest film emulsion. I had to

invest no more than that to enjoy the latest technology. In 2002, I

could still get great pictures with the 20 year old Olympus and my

trusty 50mm f1.7 lens and a roll of the newest NPH or Portra films.

 

Before I went on my honeymoon in september 2002, I thought I should

buy a digital camera to take some photos to send to family and

friends. I bought a Sony DSC-707. It was the latest and greatest -

for about a month until the DSC-717 came out later that fall.

 

The first thing that struck me about the digital photos it took was

the strong color cast and the extremely "hot" red and green colors.

(a problem with the Sony 707) I didn't have photoshop and didn't

know how to fix these colors with the lousy software the program

came with. So I looked into getting photoshop and was shocked by

the $600 pricetag if one was to buy the full version. So I bought

the program (luckily I qualified for the academic discount as I was

an instructor) Now I was into already outdated digital technology

to the tune of $1200.

 

Then came the learning curve for photoshop. It was a steep as the

Rockies during a blizzard. I have spent countless hours trying to

figure out curves and levels and saturation and what not, all to no

avail. That's why I don't post anything here, I can't get anything

to look right in photoshop. So after a year of having a "good"

digital camera and photoshop 7 and having blown $1200, I have

learned to do very little and am more frustrated than inspired.

 

The aforementioned is the reason 95% of my photos are taken on

film. After the roll has been exposed, I take it out, take it to my

lab, and have the photos back in a day or two. There are no

frustrating hours trying to get a single photo to look the way I

want it in photoshop, only me and my camera taking photos. I feel

that my time is better spent working on my technique, than fooling

around with curves and levels and all that garbage.

 

Am I crazy? Is there anyone else out there resisting this?

no, you are not. you pretty much answered your own question. And the answer is pretty accurate. stay with film. Although I mistakenly also got into digital and I love and hate the same time. I am sure i will get out of it as soon as I passed all the learning curves which really is a sad thing. But even with digital in hand, I still load my film into my Leicas. I still take the same amount of films plus digital craps.

No you're not crazy.Shoot film,be very serious about learning Photoshop,scan

film,print,and/or have a trusted lab print your photograph.But learn Photoshop before

you even think of purchaseing the next new megapixel wonder.Photoshop is common

to both film and digital.just my 2cents.

If all you do is drop you photos off at the lab, then you aren't really comparing the same things between film and digital. Why don't you shoot some photos with your 707, and them drop them off at an digital imaging lab to have them processed? Or why don't you develop and print your own film? The learning curve to do good darkroom work is just as steep as Photoshop. There are easy ways that cost money or hard ways that cost time. But that applies to everything in life.

 

Digital and film both do great stuff. But don't think you are making any grand point by comparing apples and oranges.

Wentong! Digital "craps"? What's that? ;)

 

Todd, on one hand you're saying you're computer literate and at the same time you say photoshop is too much for you. Essentially photoshop is patterned after darkroom skills, so maybe it's a case of not having mastered basic darkroom? Most photographers take advantage of some of what digital technology offers even if they use a film camera.

rather than learning how to use the technology you abandoned it for what you know, which is fine. do what you feel most comfortable with.

 

<br>

however theres nothing wrong with the technology as you suggest, thats really just your lack of understanding of it.

<br>

i use both film and digital with equal results.

I'm not buying heavily in to digital for other reasons, mainly being there's no camera that covers everything I need yet. The EOS 1Ds is close but not quite there.

 

I have a G3 but I still shoot film for most things...

 

and i'm 20 so haha!

 

I'd suggest looking at taking a course in digital photography, or checking out a book like "Real World Adobe Photoshop 7 for Photographers." I never used a book but that one comes with high acclaim.

With the Olympus and Leica, you bought into a mature technology, providing top-grade results at minimal cost. You are separated from it now by some years, but at first there was a learning curve for THAT too.

 

With digital, you bought into a newer technology that is developing by leaps and bounds. This provides good results too, but is quickly overshadowed by technical progress. As with computers, you just need to recognize there's acceptable productivity with existing products; pick a good point to buy in, and don't get too overwhelmed by the next hot hardware.

 

I loved working in my wet darkroom but am transitioning to a digital workflow while sticking with film cameras.

Todd, as a film + CD user I dont like the expensive Photoshop, and I dont like the less expensive Photo-Shop-Elements.

Compared with these both I like much more the Jasc-Paint-Shop-Pro-8 (or 7) (about the same price as the ps-elements) which I recomend.

There's really no sin going into dogital or not going into digital. Why do people need to keep justifying their cases in either situations? There must be a reason why you use one medium over another and that reason may be totally irrelevant to other users with other reasons.

I suggest you look into a real photo based editing program like Picture Window or Picture Window Pro $35-$89.00 last time I checked Photoshop is a graphics program being used by photographers. Picture window is the other way around it is a Photo editing program writen by and for photographers (same guy that invented Lotus 123 wrote Picture Window he's a big photo buff) You can down load a free 30 day trial. I have a older copy of Photoshop and I completely understand traditional darkroom work and Photoshop was a total mess to try to figure out for me. Picture Window Pro took about three evenings and I had most of it figured out and was already using it to improve my scans and digital images.

 

To try it out go to: http://www.dl-c.com/aboutpw.html

 

Good luck. Don't get rid of your digital they are great for making ebay photos of your camera gear when you want to upgrade or to sell off all the junk you will have by age 42 that you don't need in order to get more money for film.

Sorry, no sympathy from me... I've been using the same f707 cam for two years and

have quite a different story.<P>

 

Whatever floats your boat - use what you like. However, whether digital or film you'll

need to make a commitment to get decent images. BTW, many people here on this

forum shoot digital - and those that aren't complaining about the technology get

great results.<P>

 

Also, you speak to the time you spend in post processing your images. When you

send your film off to the lab for processing, do the results come back "looking the you

want it?" <P>

 

Stay with film, why make a big deal over what you weren't able to accomplish?<P>

 

And the "hot red and green colors" you mention on your f707, mine doesn't seem to

have that problem...<BR>

<P>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/WebImages/SF1-1-04Web/image/

chinatowntruck.jpg">

</center>

<p>Coo, that's the first time I've read "Gen-Xer" (or "Gen-X") in years.</p><p>Use whichever you like. Meanwhile, you might enjoy reading Dante Stella's <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html">Film Digital Indifference Page</a>.</p>

Todd, I think you underestimate the work people do to become proficient. Some people do it with a lifetimes experience, some do it by going to college for three years. But in either film or digital capture I'm sure nobody who regularly posts on this forum would consider that they have ever stopped learning, or ever will.

 

I would guess in a lot of cases of people who can't settle into learning its not the technology of darkroom or PC practice but the lack of direction in their photography that leads to the problem. They simply can't see the point for the effort required, because the photographs don't justify it. And it is something a good teacher would integrate into the learning by ensuring you had a direction, or a 'project' to put it crudely. Now I'm not saying this is the case with you Todd, but if for instance you had a body of work that you were desperate to show people, I'm sure you would soon master the technology. Or, you would soon master that bit of the technology that you need. Even in darkroom practice you don't need to learn everything all at once, just the bits that let you develop a film and print in B&W. Likewise in Photoshop, just press the 'Auto Levels' and 'Auto Colour' buttons and then learn how to size and print. Photography is about communication, and if you have worked out how 'Word' works for your written work, then Photoshop isn't any more complicated for a photograph. You just need something to say. If that's not the problem OK, just a shot in the dark on my part.

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/flowers-1133f.jpg"><br>

<i> Little Flowers - Canon 10D + 50mm f/1.4</i><br>

</center>

<br><br>

The first thing is to learn to see photographs. <br>

The second is to learn your equipment, your process such that what you see is what

the camera will see. <br>

The third thing is to make photographs that satisfy you. <br><br>

That should take you about a lifetime. In the end, no one cares what equipment you

use, they care about what the pictures look like. <br><br>

Godfrey

Cameras, film, scanners and printers are merely tools to be used to reach an end-

goal, i.e.

a pleasing image. Film and digital based tools each have their own advantages and

disadvantages, but I believe that Todd has hit on an important disadvantage of digital

imaging devices--the expense of keeping up with advances in technology. Although

one can choose to ignore such advances and stick with what "works," this is surely

not how most serious photographers approach their craft. They inevitably want to

use the best tools available. With film, it is a simple and inexpensive matter to switch

to newer emulsions. Not so with digital. This is why I believe that digital cameras do

not yet make sense for amateurs, at least from an economic standpoint. The

technology is still too immature. However, if one likes to scan film images onto a

computer, the same considerations will pertain, only at a different step in the

workflow.

<i>Is anyone else out there resisting the digital onslaught? I am 28, I grew up with computers, CDs etc. I am very computer literate, </i>

<br><br>

<center><img src=http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2021685&size=md><br><i>Computer literacy (hopelessly obsolete coolpix 990)</i></center><br><br>

<p>I'm pretty computer literate as well (that isn't me above) having been an engineer in silicon valley, and now working on platforms for distributed scientific computing.

<p>And you know what? I still find photoshop to be vast and bewildering. But I don't need to know all that much to do the basic things I want. I honestly think you've made things more complicated than they need to be.

<p>How about you just drop off the files at the local lab and have them print them for you?<br><br>

<i> I find it sterile and lacking in feeling.</i>

<center><img src=http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=15600484><br>Hmmm...sterile and lacking in feeling...(Nikon D100)<br></center><br>

<p>Sterility and feeling seems to be a quality of composition and subject matter, not the equipment.<br>

<i> I am tired of playing catch up with the latest and greatest in digital technology only to have to spend thousands more to upgrade to the next level. </i><br>

<p>So don't play catch up anymore and just use what you have. It takes the same pictures it always did - just like your old OM-10 did. Its entertaining to get the latest and greatest gadget, but if you are feeling anxious about keeping up, then you need to realize that you've falling into a foolish consumerist mindset and wake up.

<p>There are shortcomings to digital cameras, but I don't see how any of the things you've mentioned are really related to it. I love film (I just shot some B&W portraits this evening) but the film camera isn't going to get jealous if I like digital as well. And there is certainly no reason to feel any kindof exclusive loyalty to film or digital.

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW3/large/54c.jpg">

<br><i>Time For A Drink - Canon 10D + 28mm f/1.8</i><br>

</center>

<br>

I occasionally drag out a 1938 Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta, for the lovely qualities of its

old Tessar lens. One does not "need" to keep up with the Joneses to make good

photographs.

<br><br>

From my critical point of view, you don't need anything better than a current Canon

10D to equal what 35mm can do, and many people seem to feel that much of my

work looks like a medium format camera was used. At that quality level, and at a

system price comparable to what I used to own in Leica M + lenses, my assessment is

that the technology is mature enough.

<br><br>

Godfrey

Ok, you prefer film. Use film. The selection has never been as good (in my memory anyway; I wasn't born in the grand old times of super XX and doubleweight Azo which gives some old-timers that far-away look...).

My take is that when you figure out why and what you want to photograph these questions will resolve themselves. Since this is a hobby anyway, and your gear works, why bother about getting a new camera? (Not that there's anything wrong with that..)

1. A little history:

 

I remember the 1st digital camera I bought was er...6.5 yrs ago, it was a Kodak

DC something or rather, it was tiny, and it could only produce fuzzy and low

res 72dpi images about the size of 2.5inch square. I think I used it a total of

less than 25 times, because the image was so crap.

 

2. The fish bites again:

 

I didnt buy another digital till last year and that was a Canon G2 which was

reduced because the newer G3 had just been released. When I bought it I

knew I was getting just a point and shoot. Why didnt I get the G3 instead? -- It

was because it was 1MP higher and that was pretty much it with a higher

price tag. And the next digital camera I'd get would be close to double that in

MP and have pro-specs, and for that you I'm prepared to pay dearly for it.

 

The G2 produces smooth stunning 4MP images, has a pretty good fast lens,

but the shutter lag really bugs me coming from using Leica M's. The strong

colour cast you mentioned on your Sony, I have seen with many digital

cameras. But I did my homework on the G2 prior to buying and saw that it

produced very clean, film like images. Canon seem to have a real winner with

their imaging software, colour algorithms and noise reduction at the higher

iso's. Nevertheless I enjoy (the G2) for the fact I dont have to spend money on

film, processing and printing costs.

 

3. 100% or nothing at all:

 

When you buy into any new technology you have to do it with a certain

amount of acceptance that you will be commiting yourself to being up to waist

(if not neck) level, rather than just getting your toes wet, both in time and

money when you do it. As you have found out with having to buy photoshop

etc... BUT this is the reality of going down the digital route. You cannot get the

best out of this medium without commiting to the full extent and plethora of the

"process" to get the end result You want. ie the final image/print. And this is no

different to the 'film' route either. If you were to develop and print you own

prints. The darkroom, enlager, papers, chems, time you'd have to invest in. Or

else take it to a pro-lab and get someone else to do it. And you pay them to do

it for you.

 

4. You pay for what you get:

 

Regarding Photoshop...It is Professional grade software. Okay it might not be

up to the level of a SGI equivalent, but it is a fine piece of software for what it is

designed to do, and with it you have to Know how best to use it to get the

resulting image you want. There are so many ways to arrive at the same result

with such a powerful piece of software. So, the reason it is so pricey, is its

'right up there' with the best. And thats why you always get 'lousy' software

bundled with your camera, or a limited edition of Photoshop

 

5. You or a lab:

 

The fact that you use a lab to dev and print your film, but yet you try to post

process you digitals suggests that there is a skill gap at home. So a). take it to

a digitial pro lab and let them do it, and pay them for their time and skill. or b).

You sit at home and learn that photoshop you paid so much for, take courses,

buy a third party book, beg a friend to show you -- and then once you have

that skill under your belt, do it all yourself and save ALOT of time & money.

Which is the reason you got into digital in the first place isnt it?

 

6. Know the traps, get what suits your requirements. And be more at peace:

 

I am like everyone else, i think, when I say that I hate having to play catch up

and buy the latest and greatest. But with technology, if you can Isolate

yourself and do & achieve with what you have, then its absolutely good

enough. Be happy.

 

eg1. I have had an Apple G3 for the last 6 years, and I have held off replacing

it till I had too, or new software levels had reached a point that made my G3

out of date. Such as all the latest versions of Quark, Illustrator, PS are built for

OSX, and in order to keep pace for work, I have had to upgrade to a G4. But if

I had been using my G3 for hobby and personal pursuits, then I would have

been very happy with my OS8.6, my Freehand 9.0 and Photoshop 5.5!

 

eg2. Jack (Flesher) has a Canon 1D and 1DS, and has said although they will

be dated (if not already) in the near future, he has invested in technology that

is of such a level that is perfectly adequate for his needs now and in the

foreseeable future. So no matter what else comes out, he'll be happy with

what he has. Just like people here who are very happy with their mecahnical

M's.

 

7. There is hope yet:

 

No you're not crazy. Why resist? -- Start learning that software and be flexible.

Embrace both mediums for their strengths.

Where is the inexpensive home printer that will hook up to your computer and spit out archival black and white silver/gelatin prints from digital files? Where is the digital storage media that a manufacturer will guarantee is stable for 50 years without recopying every few years? Not only is it an immature technology, it is a technology that lives in a dream world. A century from now historians will have more U.S. Civil War photographs available (and not all that many were taken) than all the photos from all the news photographers in the current Iraq conflict.

"If man were meant to fly, God would've given us wings". "The Earth is flat you idiot,

you'll fall off if you go to far". "Get a horse". "TV will never be popular, it costs to

much". etc.,etc, etc.

 

The popularity of this technology is less than a decade old. Someone will solve the

archival issues before all the images are lost for one simple reason... a fortune will be

made by those who solve it.

 

Right now the solution is a bit expensive... double back-up on mega hard-drives. A

hard drive is a hard drive. With a converter I can plug mine into any computer

interchangeably and read the universally recognized Tiff or J-peg files. If the file

format ever changes, there will be a converter for that which will be batch automatic,

and do it all while I go watch that TV no one was suppose to ever have.

 

Now where the heck did I put that negative? ; -)

This is a very interesting thread giving reasoned tthoughts on all side of this debate. My own $.02 is that as a long time user of Kodachrome exclusively I feel the process stops when I click the shutter and I want the picture I saw without being either Ansel Adams or Bill Gates.

<<Am I crazy? Is there anyone else out there resisting this?

 

-- Todd Boyer >>

 

You're not crazy, but certainly in too small a minority to hope that film will coexist with digital. The profit potential is so enormous from a technology that requires not only a camera and lens, but storage media, batteries, chargers, storage devices, processing software, printers, inks, paper, etc. that billions of dollars are being spent on slick marketing--people who know how to manipulate the ignorant buying public like marionettes--to drive film into extinction. The choice in a few short years will not be between film and digital, it will be between digital and finding another hobby...unless you are willing to suspend any sense of rationality concerning the cost of buying film and having it processed.

Todd, I'm a generation older than you, but I don't think you're crazy. I got a nice little digicam a year ago, and I got rid of it a month later. There just wasn't any pleasure in using it, no satisfaction in the pictures. I also built the computer I'm writing this on, and in fact, I was a very early adopter. I bought my first home computer in 1978, and I've never been without one since. I've owned TRS-80's, an Apple II, a Mac and a number of Windows PC's. I put the last two together myself. Even though I'm not an IT or computer professional, I've programmed in Basic, Pascal, C and I've even dabbles in LISP. I've successfully installed and used many Linux distros on many different computers. But when it comes to photography, I don't like digital, I'm not waiting for prices to come down or quality to go up. I like film and the darkroom, period. If photography is an art, and I think it is, then industry cannot dictate to an artist what medium or what tools to use. And leaving aside the process itself, I do think even nice digital photos somehow look plasticky and sterile, and I'm not afraid to say it.

 

Instead of joining the digital bandwagon, I've backed up my feelings about it with action, by going even deeper into film. For one, I've reconstituted a B&W darkroom after many years of not bothering with it, and I've complemented my 35mm camera with 2 Rolleiflex TLR's that are just a year younger than I am.

 

I also find Photoshop to be very unintuitive. Learning darkroom work 30 years ago was a breeze in comparison. I do use Picture Window Pro 3.5 to finish up scanned photos, though. I only scan for the web, not for printing. I would rather get a conventional custom print when I want a good enlargement.