Wow, EdEnd, hit it right on the nail there- I hate it when people get in the way of my photos!

It happens especially during auto shows- I wait for people to move away from the car so that I can photograph it. But they stand there, caressing the damn thing. I don't want a photo of your back and all your hand oil all over the finish of the car. Get the hell away!

But seriously, analog has a good place in my heart. It's dead on reliable. Lets hope the reliability keeps it around, at least for the lovers of it. Let the haters hate it and move on. I still love film for all I care.

"Analog formats are a thing of the past except radio broadcast and that's only a matter of time before that changes. We're in a digital age and as someone said before, you'll either adapt or die."

Well I happened to be at a big radio station in the Netherlands yesterday seeing a friend making his radio show and I can tell you there's nothing analog any more. Everything comes from the computer except the talking and even that is pre-recorded a lot of the time. Make an advanced Windows media player playlist with fades and jingles and all you have to do is fill the gaps with some seriously weird talking. Just touch the screen and the show is on its way.

So is there nothing left analog? Maybe painting is, or did we somehow replace that through digital photography and photoshop as well by now?

I think it's okay for people to take a lot of photos ... all they have to have is a purpose behind it. The guy sitting in the cable car should go home after his ride, put his photos on his pc and then go through them. See which picture is best and then try to figure out why!

It turns out however that most people with a camera don't really care about the quality. They don't look at composition, or bother to do some post processing. Their perception of a good photo is merely based on the fact that the subject is generally in focus. Who cares about the face being right in the middle with at least half the frame full of distracting background clutter?

However, who am I to tell these people what to do and how to do it? It doesn't really annoy me if people take lots of pics at once, after all I don't have to sort them out for them. What does bother me is that these people somehow end up between me and the subject and stay there for a terrible long time because they have no idea what they are doing. As a concert photographer I happen to have that a lot at smaller venues, people holding up their cameras to just take a crappy blurry shot (often with flash) while blocking my view. With subjects like buildings or flowers there's time to wait but with ever changing conditions there's no time to waste. And yet they waste it for me. Well it's part of the game, I've learned to live with it.

Somehow this also reminds me of the whole video thing that has happened over the last 20+ years. People practically stitched to their video camera for the entire day who return home hoping all their friends and family will be ready to watch their 36 hour video of their holidays. Let's just hope there's enough talent emerging from all this because I'm sure digital photography has given more people a chance to develop themselves and the more people that try the bigger the chance real talents show.

I've largely learned to ignore the film vs digital argument.Bmxdad made some good points, especially about finding places that sell and develop film becoming harder to find. It's hard to find anything analog these days. Just deal with it because it won't go back to the way it was.

It's no different than everything else that has gone digital. That's the age we're in whether some choose to except it or not. We went from records and tapes to CD, from video tapes to lazer disc and later DVD's. Even television and cell phones are all digital these days. Analog formats are a thing of the past except radio broadcast and that's only a matter of time before that changes. We're in a digital age and as someone said before, you'll either adapt or die.

Yes in film days I took more time on critical shots to try and get them right, special when shooting slides and was kind of exciting to wait to get them back to see how they turned out. But unless I took notes(most of the times I did not) most of the times I ended up liking some pictures but was not sure of how they were done. (Digital takes notes on your settings)

Now some pictures are shot fast, kind of spray and pray, special when taking BMX pictures or shots of my son doing bike stunts. Others I might use my tripod and use my screen to check for exposure, composure, DOF or simply does the picture look great. I like to add flash, even 1 or 2 controlled remotely, then I would use my screen and histogram to fine tune exposure, I might even take a laptop along. So I would argue that overall I take better pictures now after my move to Digital. I have debated on getting a used F100 but would I use at all, properly rarely. I have an old FE that might use with my pinhole cap or for hourly long star exposure. I am a bit afraid of damage to my D300's sensor on lets say a 6 hour star exposure.

Maybe Monty, just take your Digital SLR out and pretend that it is film, maybe cover your LCD so you don't know how your shots turn out, just use your knowledge and take that pretend roll or two. Now go home read your card and see your shots for the first time

Pete

You want to know why I take the film camera out on occasion? I'll tell you why ... the film camera makes me take better pictures, well for me at least. I take more time to look at the scene and decide if the picture is worth taking.

I am sick and tired of people with this attitude towards digital photographic. I have tons of film cameras incl my first camera that I bought back 30 yrs ago a Canon AE-1, it took lots of great pictures incl many snaps of events when growing up. Later I had a Minolta Maximum 7D, loved that camera. I shot lots of slides, sadly they are setting and collecting dust. On of these days I might convert some to digital (ha) or even dig out my old Kodak slide projector. Now I shot digital and yes I shot a few thousand shot per month and even at times have 2 cameras on the go. Editing is honestly a nightmare and I hate doing it and that is properly why they are not ready for on-line display yet. But I like the fact that I can work out a certain shot that I just would not have tried before in film days.

Anyway the fact is that even shooting film is kind of digital. Our lab and most labs today scans the negative after being developed. So yes you shoot film but your picture was printed (any size, incl 4*6) from a digital file. Also the places that actual will sell film and/or develop film will get harder to find.

In my dear old camera club we have 3 left that have that digital phobia, I truly enjoy listening to them talking about their camera experience and knowledge but at the same time they are missing out on things that we do and talk about. I often tease them about finally getting that digital camera, but they feel that it is not pure, one of them gets lots prints from our place, I wonder if she realizes that we scan her negatives.

I know some of you get that film camera out, but why, what does it do that is better. Yes I know the DR is better on film, but colors and other things from most labs are digitized.

Pete

My wife works in the mental health profession and she says my mental problems have nothing to do with my cameras ! :^)

guys, but what is wrong with taking a lot of the same pictures of the same subject, what is wrong with taking blurred images???

... for me nothing at all, at least till the time it makes my life better or make me happier, personally I don't like "myspace" style of picture, but that's me, but as moregan17 wrote about this kind of pictures "...are often reflections of the popular media and pop culture..." - and this statement is, at least for me, the clue of this whole topic, if someone wants to compare this to any kind of illness that's hers/his choice, but it only means that this person has no idea about the times we are living in

"Back when I was a young whipper snapper like you Gentoo there was none of this...this auto focus in cameras crap! My pictures were blurry as hell and I liked them! Hell My Kodak Brownie was just a damn box with a hole in it that cost me one dollar! You heard right! I said one dollar! I worked my butt off all summer to afford that camera! None of this buy it on credit for me Mommy and Daddy shh...shenanigans! Ahhh, those were the good ole days....Myspace!? Myspace? I'll show you my space you little....

Now Get off my Lawn!! And take your shutter happy friends with ya! :^)"

LMAO!!! You make me laugh at the same time as putting me back in my place. Not many can do that you know? lol.

Ha I'm not so young though.

"im not so sure I can agree with teenagers(or amateurs in general) getting cameras is a bad thing, gentoo."

True, my statement was a generalization.

;)

Back when I was a young whipper snapper like you Gentoo there was none of this...this auto focus in cameras crap! My pictures were blurry as hell and I liked them! Hell My Kodak Brownie was just a damn box with a hole in it that cost me one dollar! You heard right! I said one dollar! I worked my butt off all summer to afford that camera! None of this buy it on credit for me Mommy and Daddy shh...shenanigans! Ahhh, those were the good ole days....Myspace!? Myspace? I'll show you my space you little....

Now Get off my Lawn!! And take your shutter happy friends with ya! :^)

im not so sure I can agree with teenagers(or amateurs in general) getting cameras is a bad thing, gentoo.

I'm only 20 and the "myspace" style pictures I've often seen from friends are often reflections of the popular media and pop culture. Some people have skewed perceptions of what makes a good picture, but they didn't come up with it on their own.

monty: "I'm not against taking doubles or even ten shots of one thing if you are worried about camera shake, misfocussing or trying out different apertures or perspectives. But doesn't it feel a lot better if you take a only few good shots rather than find those few shots from a pile of snapshots?

I also don't think the article is meant at photographers who have some purpose and know what happens when they press the magic button but rather at the point-and-shooters who download their memory cards to flickr or other similar sites.

Am I making any sense here? :D"

You are making absolutely perfect sense. I agree with you entirely! I will add that one of the worse things to happen to photography was letting teenagers have cameras. The most god awful pictures I ever see are on myspace. I work with this age group in case you're wondering. When they "learn" how to destroy the art of photography at this age, they never get any better and there are lots of older adults now who take equally horrendous pictures! I probably should not have said teenagers now that I think about it as it's more widespread than that.

I no longer see the point of shooting everything that I see.
A lot of things that you "see" are so only because of tunnel vision while your camera sees it with all the clutter around it. At other times there is nothing in the picture worth taking.

I'm not against taking doubles or even ten shots of one thing if you are worried about camera shake, misfocussing or trying out different apertures or perspectives. But doesn't it feel a lot better if you take a only few good shots rather than find those few shots from a pile of snapshots?

I also don't think the article is meant at photographers who have some purpose and know what happens when they press the magic button but rather at the point-and-shooters who download their memory cards to flickr or other similar sites.

Am I making any sense here? :D

EDIT: Let's make that a blind man with no clue about photography then :D

Actually guys there are some pretty damn good photographers around who happen to be blind.

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1899017,00.html

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/blind-photographers/

click on the name of the photographer to "see" their photos
http://www.theblindphotographer.com/main.asp?thePage=Gallery&CL=ENG

But I do know what you mean monty11. :)

Is that the visual equivalent of a million monkeys with typewriters producing a Shakespeane play?

Besides, sometimes it's wise to shoot everything and then edit. I'd like to see that blind guy doing the editing!

I wasn't looking at the issue from a professional's (one who shoots for a living) point of view but drew the parallel with that exact point which was mentioned in the article ... a guy shooting everything he sees.

Give a blind man a camera and let him fire away. I'm sure there will be a couple of good shots among the 1000 he takes. Who wants to raise their hand and say that they are that blind man on a nature trek?

gentoo - "...now I sometimes carry two DSLR's with me..." - Yup, I know the feeling

The guy has a point, but I wouldn't call it a mental illness. People don't value each shot as much as they used to, and in a way you can call it a bad thing. I sometimes am guilty of that, so yes, I do sympathize with him, but as an amateur photographer (if I am allowed to call myself that), you can't take a good photo with your camera holstered all day long.

Learning to shoot with film, I've had the chance to experience both worlds- before digital and afterwards. I love both worlds and I hope film never ceases to be produced. There are advantages to film that digital can't really reproduce, and vice versa.

I think he is more annoyed at the guys who don't know anything about photography- the type of person who would go take photos all day long instead of taking in his surroundings. I do that once in a while as well, unfortunately. I gotta change my habits!

I know Gentoo :)

Like I said in another thread, learn to play with new technology or take your Atari and go home.

true I think he meant adapt but we get the point lol

"the best remark made....ever!"
Whoa! We've got some big shoes to fill now don't we.

I better hurry and go adopt a puppy before I go extinct :^)

adamz: "mentally or physically who cares, at least I don't - I love to take pictures, even if for some others it looks like I'm mentally ill. couple days ago, when I was in the park hunting "red rats" I was lying for couple minutes on the grass, and I've pretty much sensed what all people, that were passing me buy, were thinking about me."

Glad you said this. It's a whole different stare you get when you're a wildlife shooter. This is especially true if you live in a city like San Diego where anyone who's a bit different really gets scrutinized. It's best to make sure there are too many other people around otherwise you look like one of those people neighborhood parents warn their children about.

If the use of digital cameras in mental illness then I need to be committed to an asylum for the photographically insane because now I sometimes carry two DSLR's with me.