safeman wrote:
No. 1 I am a 75 year old curmudgeon who enjoys generating these type of questions.
No. 2 I am a traditionalist who prefers bound books to e-books and the ability to hold negatives or slides in my hand.
No. 3 I don't have to worry about some electronic glitch or a ransomware hacker causing the loss of 76 years of pictures.
No. 4 I had to buy a scanner to convert 65 years of pictures to digital.
No. 5 I realy believe that not having the ability to snap off 10 or 100 or 1000 photos a day makes you try harder to ensure the few you do get are the best you are capible of.
If I think about it somemore I'm sure I can come up with more reasons. In reality I'm in the process of buying a Nikon D7200 and to tell you the truth I am terrified I am going to become one of the 10, 100, 1000 shooters looking for one good shot and I hope that having a "Super Camera" is not going to detract from my film shooting.
No. 1 I am a 75 year old curmudgeon who enjoys gen... (
show quote)
Don't be so afraid of taking more shots than you have before. Did you ever think that you might get a shot that you did not think of that would be even better than you imagined? i think it increases creativity, which is why I mostly keep everything until they are downloaded in the computer so I can see them on the larger screen.
To convert to B&W first or not. I shoot a lot of B&W and B&W Infrared, film and digital. Color Digital images have much lower contrast than do B&W film images. I find that if I fix everything in Color, then convert to B&W and adjust contrast, levels, etc. it is a much better image.
safeman wrote:
No. 1 I am a 75 year old curmudgeon who enjoys generating these type of questions.
No. 2 I am a traditionalist who prefers bound books to e-books and the ability to hold negatives or slides in my hand.
No. 3 I don't have to worry about some electronic glitch or a ransomware hacker causing the loss of 76 years of pictures.
No. 4 I had to buy a scanner to convert 65 years of pictures to digital.
No. 5 I realy believe that not having the ability to snap off 10 or 100 or 1000 photos a day makes you try harder to ensure the few you do get are the best you are capible of.
If I think about it somemore I'm sure I can come up with more reasons. In reality I'm in the process of buying a Nikon D7200 and to tell you the truth I am terrified I am going to become one of the 10, 100, 1000 shooters looking for one good shot and I hope that having a "Super Camera" is not going to detract from my film shooting.
No. 1 I am a 75 year old curmudgeon who enjoys gen... (
show quote)
If you are that good at film, then changing to digital will not change that. There is no difference. If you want to take that one shot at a time you can do that. I was there. I do not spray and pray but I sure do take a few extras to get what I want.
I regularly shoot 4x5 and my total cost per negative is roughly $1.50. Not all that outrageous.
--Bob
David Lyon wrote:
The way Ansel shot can be done at great expense, as he used LF with its movements, which any Canon or Nikon can not get. Yes, you can get a digital back for a 4x5, though I hate to think of the cost.
to quote, "There is no difference".
If one is shooting black and white using film and switches to digital, there is a considerable difference. Fortunately, I learned that I needed to think 180 degrees from film in order to achieve what I wanted for black and white digital images.
--Bob
rplain1 wrote:
If you are that good at film, then changing to digital will not change that. There is no difference. If you want to take that one shot at a time you can do that. I was there. I do not spray and pray but I sure do take a few extras to get what I want.
safeman wrote:
Currently shoot Velvia 50 and various B&W films. Scan color to create digital images. B&W processed by commercial lab and Photoshop is my darkroom. By the way I need a new B&W lab, suggestions please. Monsoon season is coming to Arizona and I generally look for ominous, dark, contrasty storm images. With the color digital images should I PP in color first and then convert to B&W.
Doesn't "Monsoon Season" in Arizona last about 3 hours? I heard it fell on a Tuesday last year and most people missed it because they had to work.
Paladin48 wrote:
Doesn't "Monsoon Season" in Arizona last about 3 hours? I heard it fell on a Tuesday last year and most people missed it because they had to work.
I think you are thinking of our fall.
Paladin48 wrote:
Doesn't "Monsoon Season" in Arizona last about 3 hours? I heard it fell on a Tuesday last year and most people missed it because they had to work.
Over the years I have live in two places where summer storms are spectacular, South Florida and South Eastern Arizona.
In 1963 my uncle (Sam) sent me to South Florida. For almost 3 years I lived in a six man squad tent west of Homestead and 5 miles from the entrance to Everglades National Park. Have you ever seen 100 Wood Storks silhouetted against a pink sunset, Swallow-tailed Kites doing barrel rolls in a blue sky? Thunder storms so violent you had to pull off the road because you couldn't see the hood ornament on your car, sunsets so vibrant they could make a 20 year old want to cry. I have and all I have to do is close my eyes and remember. Because during that period I was making $99 per month before taxes. If I could have afforded a camera I couldn't have afforded film and processing.
Now I live in South Eastern Arizona. Monsoon season has historically been from July to September. Monsoons are different from Florida storms mainly because the terrain is different. The storms are as violent, thunder, lighting and downpours of rain. Maybe because of confining terrain, mountains, canyons and valleys the storms seem darker more malevolent than the storms I remember in Florida. There are times they actually scare me. I still chase them though, trying to capture that dark malevolence.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.