Film vs. Digital... Die, Die, Die! (was: VCF suggestions...

[Roger Merchberger]

Any replies, offlist please!

Rumor has it that John Foust may have mentioned these words:
>At 06:58 AM 8/5/2005, you wrote:
> >but with digital
> >you have to worry about being able to recharge the camera batteries,

Show me a consumer film camera made in the last 15 years that doesn't take 
batteries in some form or another...

> >finding somewhere to download data off the camera every so often (or
> >take enough CF cards with you to cover the amount of photos you're
> >likely to take) etc.
>
>Ye gods.  I get about 500 pictures on a $100 1 gig CF with a 8 megapix
>Nikon.

Then you're shooting in the wrong mode. ;-) I get 140 pictures on my 
1Giggers with only a 6MP Nikon (D70), because I shoot raw instead of jpg.

I can then bibble the pix to help bring out extra detail & whatnot, as (at 
least on my camera) raw == 12-bit lossless info, whereas jpg == 8-bit lossy 
info. More info means I have a better chance of recovering a bad shot taken 
by the idiot behind the camera (me).

>   Sometimes I can shoot that many on a single charge.  How much
>space and money is consumed by 14 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm?

Many would say that if you're serious, you're not using 35mm... ;-) I'm an 
amateur (at best) and my digital SLR outperforms my old Canon 35mm (in ways 
that only I care about! ;-) enough for me to ditch film.  'Course, I will 
never, never, never, never take pictures on the level that Tony does. I 
don't need equipment like that to take pictures of my kids stuffing 
blueberries up their nose.

>   Next time
>you look for film, look for memory cards.  They're there, too.
>
>You like analog cameras and lots of pictures?  Great, take one
>along with your digital.  You're stingy with film and you don't even
>realize it.  You won't be with digital.

For a lot of people, there's a huge difference between "stingy" and 
"careful." Why do we work with computers with K's of memory instead of 
laptops now that can take G's? Are we "stingy" with memory??? I'm not 
saying you can't be a great photographer with digital - just that those who 
are learned to be careful with film first, and *do it right the first time.*

Because of the ease of chimping photos with digital cameras, many people 
who claim to be pros aren't because the don't learn what they should know 
*before* they push the shutter button. [[ Roger holds up 2 fingers on each 
hand facing outward, in a 'V' fashion, puts on his best Nixon impersonation 
(Best == pitiful...) and says "I am *not* a pro." ]]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

What's sad about this thread is:

1) I started it, altho ontopically [[ my offer to make a calendar with all 
my neat (to me) shiznit ]. My offer still stands, BTW. ]]

2) This pissing match [ film vs. digital ] has happened on this list 2-3 
times before, and it's the same old roadkill.

How does one invoke Darwin on threads like this? "Survival of the fittest" 
--> and this thread ain't fit to survive anymore...


--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger   | "Profile, don't speculate."
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers |     Daniel J. Bernstein
zmerch at 30below.com          |