Limit myself to just film?

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>It's true, digital sensors have a wider exposure latitude than slide film. Negative film? It depends. Harry, Harry, Harry! :-P</p>

[johnmyers]

<p>Well, since you said you enjoy projecting your slides for your friends and family...I think that solves it. Perhaps sell the D90 and buy a 50mm, 85mm, and maybe a prime a little longer, too. Also, just in case you may want some digital photos in the future, you could probably afford a used D50 or D70...a lot of people are selling these for next to nothing and since you don't print from your digital files (which the D50 and D70 will do just fine, just not as large as the D90) the megapixel difference should have no relevance to you and yet those cameras will still provide you with the ability to take very high quality digital images should you want them at any time. You said you already had those cameras, but it's still a good "what if" option so you're not ruling out one format or the other. I use 35mm film, 6x7 film, and DX digital...and I love them all. I could not bear having to sell any of them, as all three cameras serve their specific purposes very well.</p>

<p>P.S. You said you like Kodachrome...well, Kodachrome is no longer around so you'll have to find another film that gives the look you want. Plenty of choices out there though (I never really cared for Kodachrome compared to other slide choices so this news didn't tear me up like it did to others)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If you like shooting film and projecting slides, shoot film and project slides. You don't need people on the internet to tell you that!</p>

[alan_ginman]

<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>

<p>I used a Leica rangefinder for years. It helped me to make photos but it never gave me pleasure. It's just a machine. I dumped it for a DSLR which helps me to make slightly different photos.</p>

<p>Anyway, to go back to the OP: Bryce, you mention that you were finding camera equipment heavy, yet you are thinking about a 70-200 f2.8. That is one heavy lens. Somthing to consider.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>you need a fairly expensive digital projector to equal what you can get from transparency film and a good quality slide projector.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are not anywhere near existing yet. Even if you had all the money in the world.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Strange thing, i use one ..maybe they are just in Canada? ; )</p>

<p>of course if you talk about those at 500$ i totaly understand and agree. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Bryce, I am not sure why you would even ask the question, you don't need our answers really, I mean look at good ol' Mr. Swinehart, brow beating us via the digital fan club at any chance he gets ( slight vomit taste in mouth now ).<br>

<br /> I am a professional who has used digital for 16 years, so it is not the new thing for me, it is the same old thing, just more computer work. So I am getting rid of it, sold all but one digital body. I too shoot Kodachrome and will until it is time for Grant / crew and I to open the chamapgne bottle next year. Sure I get nice prints from digital, but I enjoy the journey I live in shooting film better. I just sold a 40 x 40 Ilfochrome done from a medium format Techpan image processed as reversal, it is utterly spectacular and needed no dodging or burning at all, went straight to print.<br /> Life is too short to not do what you want to do and to buy into the hype of the digital world. It's perfectly OK to do what you want to do and you do not have to give any of us a reason. <br /> By the way, I love my F100 too..:-)</p>

<p> </p>

[tallnbig68]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=423056">Michael Chang</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 21, 2009; 11:55 p.m.</p>

 

<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.<br>

Yes I agree with your reply however my state of mind has not been what may be described as stable<br>

for some time. Diagnosed some years ago as bipolar and that combined with a diagnosis of Lupus<br>

(Sjogren's Syndrome) four years ago followed by the loss of a kidney and my spleen due to cancer.<br>

Thhree years of intense chemotherapy, has just concluded. The mindset that was once there is messed, totally.<br>

Which is why I am asking as I did. Therapy will only assist the process; it won't make the theory work.</p>

 

[tallnbig68]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=760139">Patrick Lavoie</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" title="Hero" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 22, 2009; 08:54 a.m.</p>

 

<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...<br>

>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, which was as fast as is film.<br>

As to "snaps" or positive prints, digital simply replaces film as the recording medium.<br>

In my own case I shoot film/colour slides. The JPEG result from the Canon Point and Shoot usually becomes<br>

an image on a compact disc which I then pass on to a friend who may well be the subject. The images as photographed usually remain with me. And as I have learned with film each image counts and has purpose. Ironically I take as much "time and care" recording a one off JPEG as exposing a frame offilm.<br>

IT is almost an inherent traint, be perfect first time. The ole cost per frame offilm remains, even if it is not.<br>

>I'm more comfortable on a Mac computer than on a PC... it does notmean that a Mac is better ; )<br>

I too use Macs, have two of them in fact. Like you I prefer the systems.<br>

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

 

[tallnbig68]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=585199">Ken Papai</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 22, 2009; 10:48 a.m.</p>

 

<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.<br>

>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.<br>

My Dear Sir: Please note in one of my earlier replies the physical body is not well. Lupus and the attendent joint, vision and urinarytract problems combined with post chemotherapy interferences often make simple mechanical movements of one's body well nigh impossible. I once was strong and healthy, the cancerd is in remission, the physical pain in joints and related can be eased by ingestion of certain prescribed medicinal potions, none of which are low in price nore do they seem to do as promised. Using the facilities in a gymnasium may well be detrimental, on a long term basis. However I thank you for the suggestion.</p>

 

 

[tallnbig68]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=86165">Steve Swinehart</a> , Dec 22, 2009; 04:38 p.m.</p>

<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.<br>

An excellent point. Suspect my commentary is perhaps the upper easily explained portion of the probem.<br>

The why "was" easy, to record the passing scene of railway locomotives as well as the local lineside physical structures and the people engaged in the occupation of railroading.<br>

These days such activities no longer have any requirements. others now record said activities (where allowed) and then publish images on the internet suggesting the photography is better than mine, who doesn't publish on the internet.<br>

The why of my photography is become more and more the topic of query. Have graduated from a wear out the camera person during the Nikon F2 era to now where my simple needs can be accomodated quite well by a simple digital point and shoot, all automatic. I might add I also have an older Pentax Espio film camera which is duplicated in purpose by my Canon 580 IS, Both cameras in automatuic mode reveal themselvesto be good gear.</p>

<p> </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>

[tallnbig68]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=613449">John Myers</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 22, 2009; 08:57 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Well, since you said you enjoy projecting your slides for your friends and family...I think that solves it. >Perhaps sell the D90 and buy a 50mm, 85mm, and maybe a prime a little longer, too. Also, just in case you may want some digital photos in the future, you could probably afford a used D50 or D70...a lot of people are selling these for next to nothing and since you don't print from your digital files (which the D50 and D70 >will do just fine, just not as large as the D90) the megapixel difference should have no relevance to you and >yet those cameras will still provide you with the ability to take very high quality digital images should you >want them at any time. You said you already had those cameras, but it's still a good "what if" option so >you're not ruling out one format or the other. I use 35mm film, 6x7 film, and DX digital...and I love them all.<br>

Ah, my point as well. Any and all formats are suitable for any and all subjects.<br>

It depends on how or what will happen to the image down the road to speak.<br>

Either way the image is what counts and if it looks good to me, it stays. I prefer colour slides as noted. The amount number of processing labs in the Toronto Hamilton corridor is dropping yet astill able to get E-6 processed within a week , ditto Kodachrome. And Kodachrome is not dead; yes it takes about two weeks out there, accross and international producer, have to processed and returned with internal documentation intact.<br>

I could not bear having to sell any of them, as all three cameras serve their specific purposes very well.<br>

P.S. You said you like Kodachrome...well, Kodachrome is no longer around so you'll have to find another film that gives the look you want. Plenty of choices out there though (I never really cared for Kodachrome compared to other slide choices so this news didn't tear me up like it did to others)</p>

 

[johnmyers]

<p>Bryce, you may want to read this link regarding Kodachrome...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/catalog/kodachrome64ProfessionalFilmPKR.jhtml">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/catalog/kodachrome64ProfessionalFilmPKR.jhtml</a></p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I'm sure he's aware of it John, ease it up a bit, it's Christmas. Besides, you can still find it on ebay and as the end of next year comes around, prices will drop as the hoarders panic and sell for cheaper, Overstock.com style.<br>

If some one does not want to be part of the digital Sh_t show, I say more power to them and there are other choices besides Kodachrome.</p>

[tallnbig68]

<p>All very interesting responses.<br>

Some I suspect may be of the Christmas Grinch variety.<br>

No matter, threads oft become something other than what the original poster may have intended.<br>

Have discovered it is not so much a dislike of digital, rather an inability to<br>

enjoy photography as it once was. Call it increasing age,<br>

overtures from the last four years of major illness or something entirely different.<br>

I know not what. <br>

However to ease my pain the D90<br>

and accompanying glass shall be sold, and the money stashed.<br>

The F100 and the lenses for same shall be placed in plastic bags with silica to absorb moisture.<br>

They too will be shelved. There is no need for me to tell myself to take photographs if<br>

I don't really enjoy viewing the results, and as noted such enjoyment has not been seen in many a moon.<br>

Yes, many metal 600 slide capacit boxes and projectors of past times are <br>

available to view however even those don't awaken my soul.<br>

Dangerous as the thought may be, perhaps time for me is needed as<br>

opposed to time to handle mechanical devices which record the passage of time.</p>

<p> </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Bryce, consider this man's battle with Lymphoma and how it affected his photography:<br>

http://www.jeffjacobsonphotography.com/about-the-last-roll<br>

It certainly made me value my time and make the most of it, just food for thought....</p>

[tallnbig68]

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=321228">Daniel Bayer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Current POW Recipient" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" title="Current POW Recipient" /> </a> , Dec 27, 2009; 01:57 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Bryce, consider this man's battle with Lymphoma and how it affected his photography:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jeffjacobsonphotography.com/about-the-last-roll" target="_blank">http://www.jeffjacobsonphotography.com/about-the-last-roll</a> <br /> It certainly made me value my time and make the most of it, just food for thought....</p>

<p>Read his website and can agree 100 percent. Now he did not specify exactly the type of lymphona, I had Non-Hodgkins, which was discovered to be in late stage III after the kidney surgery. So the weakness and tiredness after each round of chemo is so familiar to me. However I also have Lupus which complicates the mess hence a much extended series of chemo, almost three years in fact. And after each round of chemicals weakness and tiredness to the extreme. By the time I started to feel more energetic, wham, another round of chemicals.<br>

So I have to recover; the desire to do what I once did isn't there. <br>

The D90 and 18-105 DX lense is now in the hands of a friend who is interested.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

[tallnbig68]

<p>To follow the note of December 27, 2009 the D90 has returned, here to my home. <br>

My friend purchased a D700 account his lenses work now as they should, in his opinion.<br>

My own doctor sent me to a psychiatrist who listened to my tale and suggested that after major crisis points of our lives things do change, not always for what we would think as the better. "You can try to reinvent yourself however accept yourself for what you are now, rather than try and return to what you were. If pleasure is not forthcoming, the problem is not always you!"<br>

"And give yourself time to heal, more mentally than physically. Keep in mind too you had a number of major family issues to deal with over the same time period. No man can do everything; let some of what was, go, and then regroup."<br>

So may well do these and then some. In the meantime maybe I can learn how to operate a Nikon D90.</p>