Digital Rocks!

[ditto1958]

I have posted at least a couple of threads on this forum lamenting, not the advent of digital photography, but rather the rush to throw away film and stampede over to digital. Although I am still sad that we have been so quick to abandon a mature technology that has served the world extremely well for a century and a half, I must admit that I am very glad we have digital.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that it is now possible for amateurs such as myself to get much better results from digital than we ever were able to obtain with film.

A case in point: the other night I attended a graduation ceremony at the Field Museum in Chicago. The event was held on the floor of the main, central hall of the museum building. The room is pretty large, and was darkened for the ceremony. The lighting up on stage was not very bright. I was seated about 20-30 rows back from the stage and couldn't move around much to get better vantage points.

I brought my Olympus E-300, 40-150 zoom and also my trusty old T-32 flash from the OM system. When I got home and fired up PS, I was amazed at how many acceptable and sometimes very acceptable shots I was able to make under relatively adverse conditions. (As a side note, I was also VERY impressed by how powerful the T-32 is. Although you have to use it manually on an E system camera, I couldn't believe how it could light up that huge old room from such great distances). The E-300 has a terrible reputation when it comes to noise at high ISO settings, yet I shot most of my images at 800 and 1600. Of course they were noisy, but most of that was able to be improved greatly in processing. Looking back at was I was able to do (or NOT able to do) at events such as this one in the past, I simply could not have done this event with my old OM gear.

I must now count myself in as a 100% digital convert.

[JDArt]

I'm not sure that many have been pressed to throw away film if they wanted to keep it as an adjunct. After all, film can be shot side-by-side with digital if one wants to reap some benefit, perceived or real, that film provides over digital.

I think what happens in reality for many, if not most, is that those who pick up a digital camera no longer pick up their film cameras much, if at all. Whether that's lamentable I'm not sure. I personally don't miss the smell of chemicals, the long processing times, or the extended *learning* time that comes when the results of your experimentations are visible to you only long after the exeriments took place.

[Paul Shields]

I have to say, I've been coming to that conclusion recently too. Though long used to film, and still a fan, I feel my old stuff is now going to be sitting on the shelf looking rather tired and sad... :-[. The quality even from my 'puny' 5 megapixel E-1 is stunning. I only wish I'd started on the digital path sooner (when my film gear may have been worth a bit more on ebay too ). I'll still keep some old gear just for shooting B&W (using the Ilford XP2 film that can be developed in any lab), but all in all as you say, digital rocks .

[deluco]

I did keep my film equipment for two years, but having not picked it up after that amount of time I was forced to dump it for next to nothing.

[dmacgee]

I was a hold out for several years. The first digitals didn't have the options I was looking for, I wanted a digital to give me the same options as an SLR. To get these several years ago was too costly.

Today's technology has brought me over to digital, I have a lot more freedom not haivng to worry about processing cost and if I think the shot was bad I can take as many as I want.

[Wilt]

Like you, I have lamented the mad dash away from film equipment, and the very rapid decline in value for that stuff. Film based photography is still a valid means for the student of photography to learn fundamental skills and concepts. Dozens of years of knowledge about what constitutes 'image quality' has suddenly been undermined by the all-too-simplistic understanding today about 'pixel resolution' as the only aspect of what differentiates cameras for quality (well, that is overstated, as 'CA' and 'noise' has now crept into our vocabulary). Forgotten are acutance, tonality, and a number of visual characteristics.

But like you, I have an appreciation for how digital provides much superior tools to help us...immediate evaluation of test shot on a 20" monitor rather than peering at fuzzy Polaroids, ability to rescue that horribly underexposed shot with just a minute or two of tweaking with the digital editing program, or the ability to instantly use ISO1600 with relatively noiseless images after discovering ISO400 just cannot possible capture the scene -- try ISO1600 film graininess in comparison!