I agree with nearly all of this, Ken. I shoot much better with my OM-4T or -2n
or -1. I can not only see the composition much more clearly, but I can make
the technical part do what I want. With digital, it is a struggle, even though
you can see what you got right away.
I went to Hico, Texas yesterday for the Billy the Kid Day festival. I saw work
by a really fine Texas landscape photographer in a gallery there (Hico,
Texas?!) I can see doing work like that with my OMs or with a 4x5, but it is
really hard to visualize doing it digital.
That said, I've been able to do some pretty good digital infrared wotk with the
D7. It is almost too easy. Probably won't be shooting HIE any more.
I lean towards getting an additional body - a, gasp, Canon - just so I can use
the 100-400 IS for airshow work. But when we go to the Four Corners this
summer, it will be mostly an OM-4t, a -1N, a Zuiko 24/2.8, and a 50/1.4.
And, Ken, I'll be glad to scan a few for you if you'd like to try the Minolta
5400 out.
Gary
AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've been way too busy working with my new Digicam. This thread
on "Why the E1" has got me thinking.
Any insistance that "Film is Superior to Digital" is biased and
those stating it are as much "Technogeeks" as those who lunge
after the latest/greatest. We've got to get our collective heads
out of the film canisters and see that the very fact that we're
Zuikoholics says something about our personalities and that our
"anti-technology" is possibly putting technology over results.
Now that I've got that out of the way...
I absolutely love shooting with the OMs. I am taking my BEST
pictures with the old technology. Why? Because the viewfinder
is perfect? Yup. Because it is ergonomically a terrific
camera? Yup. Because of the optics? YUP! Because of the
types of film I shoot? Yup.
I admire Gary for going ahead and making the investment on the
new film scanner. I'm really gealous. I've been struggling
along with a second-hand 2700ppi BlurScan. Fine for web use,
sometimes for other things, but it's gut-wrenching to get a
decent 11x14 out of it. I've done it, but it's a lot of work.
The 5MP A1 gets me as good enlargements WITHOUT the work.
Just maybe Gary is onto something. Just maybe my purchase of
the M*nolta A1 was part of the bigger picture. Just maybe I
won't get a new DSLR, but instead just get a new scanner (much
cheeper) and shoot film for a while yet. For one thing, I have
a big investment in a darkroom--both money and time developing
skillsets.
The Digicam DOES fulfill a need. I am able to use it for
professional use. It does make me money--and I'm sure a DSLR
would too. The question is: Does film still have any benefit in
my active kit?
The answer is: YES. Not because of any perceived technical
superiority, but because of artistic superiority. I'm a much
better artist shooting film rather than digital. My
compositions are better, stronger and more dynamic! There are
nuances in my film pictures that are lost in digital.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|