Furtism vs. Faddism

[stickmaker]

I have been taking 35mm photos for well over 20 years. The past few years people have been pressing me with the question of when I will switch to a modern, digital camera. My answer leaves most of them unsatisfied, either because they don't understand it, or it makes them realize they didn't think things through.

A digital camera with a sensor good enough to match good quality 35mm film in resolution and color fidelity currently (as of late 2005) costs nearly $1000 for just the body. I already have three good 35mm film camera bodies, with an assortment of high-quality lenses and other accessories. Yes, I have to process the film to get a final image. If I want prints from a digital camera I'd either have to send the memory card off for printing (just like a roll of film) or buy a photo-quality printer.

Film is cheap, especially if you shop around. Unused, it keeps for two years or more in your freezer. Once processed, it is a stable storage medium, as long as it is kept cool, dry and out of strong light.

Yes, I will get a digital camera, probably in a couple of years. They're still on the steep part of the curve when it comes to image quality improving and price declining. I would almost certainly buy a digital camera if one of my current 35mm bodies needed replacing. I *like* digital cameras and the conveniences they provide. But I like what I already have better. So far.

One of the most ironic parts of this situation is when these digital proponents ask why the photos I show off are so much better than theirs.



Stickmaker

Comments

A little of both..

[(Anonymous)]

For many, everyday uses,a digital camera is the better choice because of its convenience-but not all situations.. If it's photos I want to archive, I'll use my 35mm camera,and my scanner that reads negatives. I have a 25+ yeat old Yashica that works just fine-no real need to replace it yet,but I do want a digital camera for some uses.I had an all-mechanical Ricoh SLR camera suited me just fine, but someone else decided it suited them,too,and stole it.I suspect over the next decade, film and processing will become a specialty item and service,not readily available in,say, WalMart..Scott

[amethyst-dancer.livejournal.com]

Tell them you'll switch when prices become reasonable on digital equipment that's as good as what you have now. Digital is still for amateurs and rich people. It's not worth it to get mad at their ignorance and arrogance. Making them realize they haven't thought things through will help the overall situation -- they won't be as likely to bother someone else about this.

If you want to answer in their own language, tell them how many megapixels your 35mm camera equates to.

Maybe your photos are better than theirs because you're a better photographer. :-)

I love my digital camera, although it's four years old, and I look longingly at the newer ones that are a small fraction of the size and weight of mine. Like any purchase, there are many factors to consider, especially the skill level of the user and what the device will be used for. I have a lot of friends (and husband) who are much more into photography than I am, and I don't intend to spend as much time, money or effort as that. In fact, John lets me use his OM-1 whenever I want to, but I almost never do, because it has such a steep learning curve, and I don't use it often enough to remember how to.

Digital cameras are wonderful for people who don't feel they need the resolution provided by 35mm, and they're great for people who are not such serious hobbyists. I love being able to take a picture and immediately see whether or not it came out the way I want it, so I know if I want to try again, and what I might want to do differently. In that respect, I feel that digital can be a learning tool. Learning to take better pictures with 35mm doesn't provide immediate feedback.

There is one thing I use my digital for, that I wouldn't have ever considered worth the cost of film and processing. I take pictures now for information, especially information that's not easily accessible. For example, I took a lot of pictures when I was working on fixing the hot tub a couple years ago. If I need to know the technical specs on its heater, I can look at the photo. I also used the pictures to re-assemble everything in the equipment compartment when I was finished repairing it. Which way was this turned when I took it out, and how does it connect with the other parts? You probably wouldn't need photos for reassembly, since you're an engineer, but it helped me. The tech specs could be useful regardless. It's just faster and easier to take a picture than to take notes and copy everything on each of the labels, and I can find those notes later on my computer easier than I could find them on a piece of paper. (My computer's more organized than my papers.) Of course, if you wanted to use photos for information, you could use your 35mm camera. If you wanted to use a digital for that sort of purpose, though, a cheap camera would be sufficient.

What's right for one person isn't necessarily the answer for everyone.