>You only have about 100 billion images to go. :-)
Maybe, but a journey of a thousand rolls begins with one click. If enough
of us MAKE THE EFFORT instead of just taking the easy way out, we'll keep
film viable for a long time to come. Digital is easy, way to easy. Has it
improved the overall image-quality for the masses? No question about that.
But in the hands of a skilled photographer, there is usually a very specific
gain in one format over the other and film still maintains advantages in
certain circumstances.
A "skilled photographer" is not the same as a "professional photographer".
Most professional photographers are no more skilled than than a professional
call-center telephone operator. It's just the job they do. You have good
ones, and not so good ones. Just because somebody earns a living doing
something doesn't mean they are any good or talented or have a clue what
they are doing. Frankly, most skilled photographers aren't professional
photographers and most professional photographers aren't skilled
photographers.
Where am I going with this? My point is that in the hands of a skilled
photographer, the medium is generally selected not for convenience, but for
specific results. A skilled photographer will make whatever sacrifice
needed. Often times, in the digital age, this means investment in
Photoshop, L-glass, full-frame sensored cameras and widgets galore. But it
may also mean using a film camera.
BTW, I got my new National Geographic yesterday... There is an article in
there where the images are definitely sourced from a film camera. Nice to
see. If I had to venture a guess, the choice of film was specific to the
location not being conducive to charging batteries as well as it being a
high moisture environment.
I know that I'm not going anywhere--shooting film is just too rewarding to
me. I've learned so much from shooting digital and taking what I've learned
and applying much of it to film has been a wonderful eye-opener. But mostly,
there is tremendous satisfaction in taking what is arguably one of the two
or three finest 35mm cameras ever made and shooting with it. Who cares about
the back-end process--once digitized, the images are all digital anyway, but
it's about the shooting process that is so different and rewarding.
Sometimes, as stated above, there are other inherent advantages to one
medium over another or one camera over another.
Besides, for the quantity of pictures I shoot, both professionally and
personally, to stay reasonably current in digital photography is a $1000 per
year investment. By altering my "style" and giving myself a signature look,
I can spend half that on film and processing. The numbers just don't work to
be digital only.
The bad thing is that I'm now got a desire to acquire a very specific lens.
A rather costly Zuiko. Grrrr.....
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|