Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Emanuel, This is what I thought digital imaging was like, until I tried it. Admittedly, my transition was not from pure film/darkroom, since I had been using the digital darkroom (film scanner plus printer) for printing for the last several years. But now that I have made the jump, I can say the following: - my fear about batteries was overblown. I bought two spare batteries for my Canon, but on most days I do not need more than one. Earlier this week I shot over 300 images during 1.5 days in Seville and did not have to change battery. I do not use flash and I very rarely review the images on the LCD screen. Putting a battery in the charger overnight is truly NO BIG DEAL. - storage: same story as for batteries. I have a portable hard drive to take along on trips so that I can dump the contents of the flash cards on it without having to carry a notebook PC. But with the prices of flash cards being what they are, I now have 4 GB of storage (one 2 GB card and two 1 GB cards) in my bag. Collectively, these three cards weigh less than a roll of film and can hold about 430-450 images between them, shooting RAW with my 8 MP DSLR. My camera bag is certainly lighter for not having to carry 12-14 rolls of film (the equivalent of the capacity of the flash cards). - when I get home, the process is no different for me than before, only faster. Instead of scanning film, I transfer the images to the computer and review them on the screen, deciding which ones to trash, which ones to just convert to TIFF and save, and which ones merit further work in Photoshop. From this point on, the process is exactly the same as it was with scanned images. One difference is that I no longer have to worry about removing spots on the image resulting from dust and scratches from the film. In summary: the hassle factor is LESS with digital imaging by an order of magnitude. There are other reasons for not using digital imaging, but this is certainly not one of them. Regarding technological change: sure, things move on. Next year Canon will probably come out with an improved camera which will make my 20D obsolete. But so what? My camera does not get worse because there is a newer model out there. It will continue to produce excellent images. In the meantime, by the end of this year I will have saved several hundred Euros in film and processing, coming close to having "paid" for the camera. At the end of the day, what matters to me is quality of the images. I made the switch only after I had seen with my own eyes what is possible and became convinced that I can achieve image quality on par with film. Nathan Emanuel Lowi wrote: > As Tom A. says in his excellent Epson review today, > you shoot the digital images, burn them to a CD, and > then what? > > You invest in pricey droplets of jetable ink and > costly paper that is destined to fade in sunlight. You > babysit your computer and printer. You become a > manager of batteries, needing recharging almost every > day of serious shooting. You start worrying about > software and hardware upgrades, because you're now > caught in the "I gotta have the newest" marketing > trap. I betcha it all adds up to as much time and > hassle as darkroom work, yet it seems somehow more > slick because of all those nice newly stylish gadgets > you've just bought yourself. > -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com