Mama don't take my Kodachrome...

[my_daroga]

It has come to my attention that it may be prudent to make the switch from my 1985 Minolta X-700 SLR film camera to a semi-pro digital format. I've been holding on for some time now, because I love my camera. But film and developing costs, the time it takes to get developing done, and the lack of control I have over said developing are getting

Comments

[my_daroga]

I understand your problems with film, but when you grew up with it, and when you get shots like

[my_daroga]

heh I 'grew up' with film cameras

You said you didn't get into photography until digital; I was merely pointed out that we have different backgrounds.

I have different standards of what makes a good quality photograph and a lot of the aspects of film that people consider to be good (grain etc) are the reasons I dislike film.

I don't like the "shiny" aspects of digital photography; I don't like photos that are so crisp they look like they were photoshopped. Sometimes digital lacks "warmth" or a kind of depth. This is by no means all the time or necessary, and is much better than it used to be. It probably has more to do with the quality of lenses people are using than anything else. But so much digital photography looks like candy to me, and that's what I don't enjoy.

[desertcreature]

I have to confess to begin with that I am not a great photographer. However, my dad has done all of the photographs for my sisters' various ball teams for years. He always used film cameras but recently switched to a digital camera and loves it.

I really like the idea of digital cameras, but mine ran through batteries so fast, I hardly ever used it. I've gone back to using my trusty old pentax film camera lately.

I'd suggest borrowing someone else's and seeing how it works for you if you can.

Good luck!

[my_daroga]

I understand that I'll love the convenience and cost-effectiveness of it; I'm just worried about missing the film grain and the other qualities of film.

Borrowing is a good idea. Now I just need a friend with a good camera...

[ignite]

the main reason i like digital over film: i can take 400 shots and find the 10 (or 100) that are the best with zero cost involved.

[ignite]

also since you want a dslr this probably isn't possible but another favorite thing about my camera. rechargable double a batteries. they last forever but i have a 2nd set to swap in. the rechargables last maybe 4x as long as regular batteries too.

[my_daroga]

There are lots of reasons of convenience to own a good digital camera (I have one for snapshots and stuff, but it's not good enough to take "real" photos with). I'm just worried about quality--or rather, the specific qualities I like in my own photos disappearing.

[tinyholidays]

I heart and miss film cameras. But my digital is so crazily convenient. If I were doing anything artsy, though, I'd be using a nice film camera. I spent much of 2000-2002 glued to a Canon Rebel 2000.

Use what works for you, yo.

To me, what rocks about film is the mystery. With digital, you can decide instantly to keep or ditch a pic. There are no real surprises. With film, there's always that anticipation, that revelation of seeing what you captured. Then again, it sucks when you don't get what you wanted. IT'S SO HARD THIS BATTLE. SIGH.

[my_daroga]

I agree. I love the shots I do get with my film camera. What raised it to my attention, however, is when I was doing that "photo shoot" for the dog and realized that I was taking rolls and rolls of film that I couldn't even be sure I'd get one usable pic from; I won't know until I pick them up today whether there's one that's both a good moment and in focus. I'd gone in with my little digital thinking that for the purposes of this shoot (I'm not interested in the actual photo, but in getting a digital print I can work from) that was all I'd need--but the amateur (non-SLR) ones don't shoot fast enough to grab the action.

Part of it is jealousy and competition. No one I know is using film anymore, and so any "current event" I shoot appears for me up to a week or more late. While everyone else can just pop online (or to a newspaper) with their instant shots. I have no control over the processing (I'm not about to start developing color film) so I sometimes wonder what the point is. Then again, I'm not sure what my goals for photography

[kryss_labryn]

Hubby's cell phone (Erikson) actually takes ten shots for a split second or so on either side of the actual "moment". That allows him to find that exact moment when our young son actually has his eyes open and his head up, or whatever. He can keep or discard the rest. I love it because I HATE that delay (sometimes upwards of 3 seconds, it seems) you sometimes get when you go to snap a digital pic. Might be an option to keep an eye open for when shopping around. It's pretty cool.

[my_daroga]

Oh, that's a good point. Actually, I need to see if my digital will do that. No batteries at the moment. I'll keep that in mind.

[carmarthen]

You can use manual focus with a digital camera (and sometimes have to).

I just got to the point where I need an SLR to do what I want to do, rather than just the manual settings on my point-and-shoot. I think the best film work looks better than the best digital, but if you're not shooting large format or developing your own black-and-whites, it's hard to tell (I looooooove developing film, but I don't have a way to do it now--I only did with scanning electron micrographs in a class once). I appreciate the savings, and I appreciate being able to take more pictures and try more experiments without worrying about wasting money.

[carmarthen]

Oh, yeah--the other thing that helped for me with digital is thinking of PhotoShop (or other programs) as the darkroom. You can digitally produce most of the effects you can with film. In some ways, I think digital offers more control, since most photographers don't develop their own film (particularly color). But there's definitely a learning curve.

[my_daroga]

Yeah; without developing/printing my own film, and while using 35mm, it's not that big a difference. But I still need to determine how much a DSLR that matches my film camera in quality would be, and looking at them, I probably can't afford it right now. Though it'd probably mean savings in the long run.

I have an enlarger and all that stuff, but when am I going to do all that? And it'd only be b&w, which is awesome, but not for everything.

I know you can use digital focus on a DSLR, my point was more about the pride of knowing--and everyone else knowing--that anything I take with my Minolta was done manually. I see all these crisp digital shots of snails and things and think, "but they probably weren't sitting there for a whole minute trying to get just the right distance for each shot." Which I'm well aware sounds very snotty.