Limit myself to just film?

[tallnbig68]

<p>On December 19, 2009 took my first picture in nearly five weeks. <br /> Between various external issues beyond my control and severe <br /> personal health issues over the last year, have had little desire to <br /> do any photography. <br /> Any photography that I did do seemed devoid of life, <br /> with out reason or cause.<br /> <br /> My low-priced Canon point and shoot does most all my photography <br /> these days. My Nikon D90 had a dead battery when I went to use it<br /> it was last used well over four months prior.<br /> <br /> Which brings me to a point. My photography is next to nil, yet my <br /> Nikon F100 gives me more pleasure than the D90, or any of the<br /> other D100, D200, D70, D50 or D40 DSLR cameras prior.<br /> All those cameras are now long gone, none of which were able <br /> to satisfy my photographic wishes. <br /> My images don't get published , I am not out to<br /> be THE photographer with all these many images <br /> on the internet.<br /> <br /> And unlike the days of old, I can not handle two cameras <br /> at the same time one with black and white and the other with colour slide film<br /> and obtain a decent image of the subject, in my case often a speeding railway train.<br /> At my age of 60 years plus, find camera gear is heavy!<br /> <br /> I do very very few long distance shots; most of my photography ranges between <br /> FX 20 mm to about 135mm, rarely iif ever, more than that.<br /> <br /> So if I sell off the Nikon D90, <br /> c/w Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED DX<br /> and the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6G VR<br /> <br /> and get reasonable money for them, would like one<br /> lense with a minimum f2.8 aperture and if a telephoto<br /> some form of VR. (The new 70-200 maybe although that is C$2500)<br /> I do have a 20mm prime f/2.8 which I picked up for song last<br /> summer, c/w with hood.<br /> The current 28-105 f/3.5 macro zoom on the F100 is OK, but is limited by the<br /> larger than normal minimum aperture, so it too could be sold.<br /> <br /> I can still obtain reliable E-6 film processing done here in Southern Ontario<br /> with a one week turnaround. (C$13.99 plus tax)<br /> <br /> So am wondering;; sell off my Nikon digital gear,<br /> or simply shelf everything and sell it all and keep doing what I am doing <br /> with the less than $100.00 point and shoot?<br /> <br /> Your suggestions, please.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>It sounds to me like you already know the answer: shoot film because it gives you pleasure. I'd keep the digital p&s for quick snaps, though. If it's a recent model, they work very nicely in macro mode too.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"have had little desire to do any photography.... My photography is next to nil"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bryce, I have found that the quality, quantity, creativity and ingenuity of our images will often mirror our state of mind, but it doesn't have to be this way: instead of allowing our mindset to control our photography, let photography be the therapy to heal our spirit.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Keep the F100 and 2 or 3 prime lenses if you have them. Keep the point and shoot and broom the rest of the stuff. </p>

[User_276104]

<p>It was a bit longer and more expensive journey for me, but I eventually realized/admitted that I enjoy film photography more than digital. </p>

<p>The D90 still has some life in its product cycle, so don't wait until rumors start about its replacement to sell it. I made that mistake with my D2x, which I recently sold. I began to consider selling it in summer of 2007 when I probably could have gotten US $3,000 for it, but then the D3/D300 came out and its resale value tanked.</p>

<p>So I sold that camera, the albatross is gone, and I'm enjoying slide film and the occasional digital shots with a D40.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>If you really enjoy using film, then I find no reason to NOT go out and do it. For a film body, I'm not sure your lens list will be that helpful, with the exception of that 20mm, based on your comments. How much you want to spend on lenses is the question, I guess.</p>

<p>I often check a few of the web sites that review lenses to narrow down the really good lenses from the just run of the mill. Start with www.nikonlinks.com and do some searching.</p>

<p> I find myself drawn to the lenses used by the authors of photo books I read. Which is not a bad starting point. I figure the well published pro shooters should know what's good. Sometimes, I just can't afford them !</p>

 

[david_carroll4]

<p>In your situation, I would get rid of all of the "stuff" and use the money to buy a few nice primes for the F100. You have a 20, so a 28/35, a 50 and a 105/135. I have a bunch of stuff - more than I need by a long shot, but if it all disappeared bar a decent SLR body (F2 or F3HP) an a 24, 50 and 105, I'd be alright.<br>

BTW, I know you talked about some sort of tele with VR, but I don't know if the F100 has built-in VR.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>inspiration doesn't come from flm or digital, they are just means. <strong>Limit</strong> is the operative word here. While mostly we see posts here about one being better than the other the simple truth is both have very distinct advantages and I think a lot of people might be better off getting to know and understand those and use them to their advantage instead of limiting themselves to just the one. Learning never stops. In the end however it's a very personal choice.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Obviously a personal choice... but I have to say, you have a potential dilemma. The digital gear will get you more money, but you'll have to spend it on film. The film gear will get you less money, but you have to spend less with digital capture. :-P</p>

<p>OTOH maybe a proper, old camera like an F or F2 might be what the doctor ordered? I got to mess with a Canon FTb for a while yesterday. Apart from the light meter it's purely mechanical. I like that.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>You should sell the digital gear now if you don't want it. It's only going to lose value sitting on a shelf.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>the question is; do you have more pleasure shoothing film because you control it more than you know your digital? My father enjoy for years shoothing with film because it was easy for him...</p>

<p>load, shoot, send, receive pict. Nothing for him to upload, backup, search, work, print, reprint, test etc... so for him, film was more superior. Then one day, he bought a p&s small canon camera, leave it at auto click click click give the memory card to the local lab and receive print that where far better exposed, well done and colorfull than is old film camera... then digital become the new standard for him because he enjoy the result, was as fast as is film.</p>

<p>Im more comfortable on a mac computer than on a PC... it doestn mean that a Mac is better ; )</p>

<p>Just thinking out loud..you already have plenty of good answers ; )</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Maybe sleep on it a couple of days. It's your stuff, and there's no hurry. </p>

<p>You don't have to put yourself on the grapefruit diet of photography. </p>

<p>Every so often someone will ask, Maybe I should limit myself to this extreme for that ____ long period of time. Why not give that a trial period, or set a shorter time limit? Instead of sell off forever, how about some holiday picks with the equipment that has your interest right now? If you haven't had any interest in using it for over six months, then it may be time to think about whether or not you're going to use it at all. </p>

[jtk]

<p>It's nearly 2010. Sixty is teen-age. My gym is packed with men and women in their 60s-70s, half of them building physical fitness, the other half maintaining it. </p>

<p>Give the cameras to someone who will appreciate them. Join a gym, hire a personal trainer.</p>

<p> </p>

[tallnbig68]

<p>I should have maybe qualified or expanded on my initial comment.<br>

When I do use film, it is almost always Kodachrome or Fuji Sensia.<br>

Yes, 95 percent of my film photography is colour slides. Like those of similar<br>

interest (railways/transportation subjects) I then project slides on a screen<br>

so others of similar presuasion can view them.<br>

And too, the digital images end up on storage medium of some sort, rarely printed.<br>

It was also suggested off line that maybe I should reconsider why I even carry or use a camera.<br>

Good thoughts too, and food for thought. Comfort is a big part ofthe game, go with that with which you are comfortable. Oh and yes I too use Macintosh computers exclusively, again it is what works, for me.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>I'd sleep on it a bit. However, I shoot film and that is what I really enjoy. I keep wondering if I should go digital because frankly I don't like scanning film, nor waiting for the long turn around on processing (I always do next day as it is cheaper). That said, the pleasure I get out of shooting my old OM-1s is second to none. I do not get anything like that kind of pleasure from shooting with dSLRs that I have borrowed from people (sometimes for several days).<br>

I have some nice glass for my OM-1s, a Sigma 70-210/2.8 APO and 400/5.6 APO that I really like and produce great images. If push came to shove, I'd keep my little Zuiko primes and that is all I'd ever use and I'd probably still be happy. Architecture, people and landscape shooting is what I enjoy the most and my little Zuiko primes are pefect for that. I enjoy a fast, compact camera and compact lenses (preferably fast as well :D).<br>

I don't make money off my photography, I do it simply because it gives me pleasure. The day that stops is the day I never take another picture.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Not knowing that much, but if you are close to 60 +/- a few years and find camera gear heavy then accept the gym invite. Life is far too short... far too short.</p>

<p>Do what makes you happy and allows you to live life. A gym (or its equivalent) is a must for everyone... far more important than a camera or "what damned camera system should I?"... is your health. </p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Please disregard</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>One of the reasons I still shoot film the overwhelming majority of the time is I really enjoy the darkroom work. I tray process everything up to 11 x 14 and used one of my color drums to process 16 x 20 since it occupies a whole lot less space.In the darkroom I feel like I have actually <em>created something</em>. Much more so than sitting in front of my computer and messing with a digital image in PS and then letting my printer "make" the image for me. That goes for both color and black and white. I guess I am the perfect example of the old dog that really doesn't want to learn new tricks. :-)</p>

<p>Keep your film camera and if you want, sell you digital and get yourself a few more good prime lenses. Film is not dead and it is certainly not on life support. I have several very good friends who are professional photographers and for them the digital honeymoon is over and they find themselves going back to film for everything except weddings, where digital really does have an advantage over film, at least in terms of speed and ability to handle a lot of production without having to deal with 8 or 9 rolls of film.</p><div></div>

[mikal_grass]

<p>Keep and use the F100. It is the one of the only Nikons that I lusted after before my late father bought me a Leica M6. <br>

If you like film, then shoot film. I love the feel, smell and look of film, though I have to tell you that I recently took possession of the Epson R-1Ds, and I love it. For color work.</p>

[hjoseph7]

"I have several very good friends who are professional photographers and for them the digital honeymoon is over and they find themselves going back to film for everything except weddings, where digital really does have an advantage over film, at least in terms of speed and ability to handle a lot of production without having to deal with 8 or 9 rolls of film."

 

 

My sentiments exactly. I got into Digital because of the Business side of things where I knew I had to please my clients or keep up with the competition. I still have my darkroom although it's not as tidy as yours. If you move the enlarger to the right and the color analyzer to the left you might be able to place a chair in there so that you can relax while you are printing. My darkroom was in a 5X5 closet but I managed to place one of those swiveling chairs in there so that everything was at my fingertips. right now it's in an empty bedroom. It's a PIA running from the bedroom to the batroom, but what can I do.

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon F100 gives me more pleasure than the D90...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'll have to help me out on this one. How does a piece of equipment give you "pleasure"? This is like obsessing over a torque wrench as being more "fun" to use than a box wrench. I'd start investing more time in the "why" you make photographs rather than than how their made .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And unlike the days of old, I can not handle two cameras at the same time one with black and white and the other with colour slide film...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please review your statement. If that is true, then digital makes far more sense than film as you can more easily convert an image to black-and-white while carrying only one camera. While you can scan color and then convert that image, if you're shooting transparency film, it's a lousy way to get to a B&W image when compared to shooting B&W film. A good digital camera will have more dynamic range than any transparency film made. Having made Ilfochromes for nearly 25 years from a multitude of different transparency films - color prints from transparencies don't come close to what you can do with a digital camera - and that includes scanning and printing in the method of your choice.</p>

<p>If you do go to film and you want both color and B&W, I'd suggest using color negative film rather than transparency film - at least you'll be getting the advantage of the dynamic range of the material which is larger than digital, and you can then convert to B&W and have a greater range of tones.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All those cameras are now long gone, none of which were able to satisfy my photographic wishes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you define exactly what your photographic wishes are?</p>

<p>I don't care to hear about "short comings" that you've found with equipment as every single camera that I own has some sort of a "problem" that I have to work around - like the Holga requires strategic pieces of photo tape to block light leaks, the H-blad requires you to have a recocking tool in case you inadvertently trigger the body removing an extension tube, the M6 shutter has to be set to "B" when putting the camera away so you don't drain the battery, etc., etc., - none of that has anything to do with photographic wishes or making photographs - it's just equipment idiosyncracies that you work with to get to the image.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>After reading your second post clarifying your usage - I'd question why you even bought digital cameras. If you truly do project the images 95% of the time and rarely make prints - then by all means dump all digital and go straight to transparency film as you need a fairly expensive digital projector to equal what you can get from transparency film and a good quality slide projector.</p>

[rossb]

<p>You'll have to help me out on this one. How does a piece of equipment give you "pleasure"? This is like obsessing over a torque wrench as being more "fun" to use than a box wrench. I'd start investing more time in the "why" you make photographs rather than than how their made .</p>

<p>Or why would a 63 Corvette stingray be more fun then a 63 Chevy Biscayne. </p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"You'll have to help me out on this one. How does a piece of equipment give you "pleasure"?'</p>

<p>Have you ever driven a fine sports car? Or handled a finely crafted watch? Ever used a Contax rangefinder or a Leica? If not, I can see why you don't get it.</p>

[hjoseph7]

Sreve -"A good digital camera will have more dynamic range than any transparency film made. Having made Ilfochromes for nearly 25 years from a multitude of different transparency films - color prints from transparencies don't come close to what you can do with a digital camera - and that includes scanning and printing in the method of your choice."

 

Have you looked at some Nature books taken with Chodachrome 64 or 25 lately. Or some 24x30 prints in a museum taken with a medium format, or an Ansel Adams print taken with 4X5 or 5X7. Steve, Steve, Steve.