Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Difference Between Film and Digital Photography (Video)

Roblimo posted 1 year,24 days | from the photographer-matters-more-than-the-camera dept.

Input Devices 182

Sally Wiener Grotta and her husband Daniel wrote some of the first books and articles about digital photography. Sally was an award-winning photographer in film days, and has maintained her reputation in the digital imaging age. In this interview, she talks about how to buy a digital camera -- including the radical idea that most people really don't need to spend more than $200 to take quality photos. (We had some bandwidth problems while doing this remote interview, but the sound is clear so we decided to run it "as is" rather than try to remake the video and lose the original's spontaneity.)

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It was better when it was wrong. (4, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | 1 year,24 days | (#44994753)

I read that as "The Difference Between Film and Digital Pornography (Video)"

Re:It was better when it was wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44994821)

your mind has been dirtyfied...
but its not as dirty as the kodak-of-Eastmann film repository (worse than the NSA repository)

Re:It was better when it was wrong. (1, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995205)

Dude, the NSA repository has a copy of EVERYONE'S pornography!
Nothing is worse than that... but it was a pretty cool place to work until they told us to stop downloading stuff to our phones.

Re:It was better when it was wrong. (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,24 days | (#44994903)

Isn't that what it really boils down to, anyway?

Re:It was better when it was wrong. (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,24 days | (#44994943)

I also misread the person's name as Sally Gotta Wiener rather than Sally Wiener Grotta.

Re:It was better when it was wrong. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995001)

Weiner Grotto is even funnier.

Re:It was better when it was wrong. (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995869)

Mr. Hefner does not like you laughing at his grotto, no matter how many weiners may be present.

Re:It was better when it was wrong. (5, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995027)

Grotta is not a particularly innocent word either. I'll quote the first sentence of the swedish wikipedia article after passing it through google translate.
"A [Grotta] is a natural cavity, large enough for a man to penetrate in."

Love camera phones (0, Troll)

mozumder (178398) | 1 year,24 days | (#44994797)

They really did bring about a revolution in photography. At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals, as image quality is far less important than image usability via social media sharing.

A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.

Re:Love camera phones (4, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | 1 year,24 days | (#44994927)

At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals,

Thank you for pointing out your beliefs that only certain people should be able to use certain products. I guess your opinion is also that only those who drive for a professional living should be allowed to buy a Porsche or those who make their living from cooking should be allowed to buy $300 knives [korin.com] .

Apparently it's your belief people shouldn't be allowed to buy what they want with their own money just because they enjoy a product.

A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.

Yup, there's the confirmation.,

Re:Love camera phones (5, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995185)

At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals,

Thank you for pointing out your beliefs that only certain people should be able to use certain products.

I read that not so much as 'should be able to' as 'will be able to benefit from'.

Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.

For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995259)

For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.

Unfortunately, the cheapest item in any category is often that cheap because it simply is crap. I used to do this for power tools for example, just occasional little diy projects around the house - so I figured cheapest is good enough. When I finally tried a decent drill and impact driver, I just could not believe the difference. Where the problem starts is that an _expensive_ item in the same category doesn't automatically mean it is not _also_ crap...

Re:Love camera phones (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995735)

Hey..for those of you that want to be a Professional Photographer [youtube.com] ...well, then just watch this first in a series of MWAC attack videos....

For instance, I did not know that "P" was the professional setting on my camera..?!?!.

Re: Love camera phones (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44996081)

Ken, is that you?

Re:Love camera phones (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995427)

For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.

This strategy works sometimes, but you often won't know what you're missing. I prefer the strategy of getting the top of the line of a broadly produced product - typically less expensive than the custom or specialized products, but you get value from the economy of scale, along with the features they cripple in the lower models hoping to up-sell.

Re:Love camera phones (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995465)

Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.

For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.

Well, there's a lot of different mindsets on things.

Me? I've always been one of those that when I set my mind to something or wanting something, a nice camera for instance...I'd research the hell out of it, drive everyone around me mad incessantly talking about it, and then saving and buying the absolute best of xyz I could afford. I never liked much the idea of compromising and buying something 'small' or cheap, learning to use it, then buying slightly better...then upgrading that...etc.

That may work in some cases, but I just never wanted to go that route....I'd much rather put off immediate gratification, and save and buy NICE and QUALITY the first time around, as best I could.

I've been that way on lots of things. My cookware, is mostly All Clad SS. My knives are Wusthof Trident. Yes, each piece can be pretty $$. I didn't buy the whole set at once....but piece by piece as I could afford it. And along with some choice cast iron stuff, I will have cookware that will last my lifetime and is quite good as a kitchen tool.

I've done the same with my camera. I got the bug about a year and a half ago. I ended up on a video shoot I saw them filming with a Canon 5D2...I'd never seen a DSLR used for video and was curious.

I researched and was getting close to pulling the trigger on one, and found the new 5D Mark III was coming out...so, I waited about 6 more mos...saved and bought one in June after their release.

I have been THRILLED with my choice. A whole new world has opened up to me. I'd never had a real digital camera before, aside from phone and one old point and shoot someone gave me a decade ago. But this new 5D3 is amazing. It can shoot in extremely low light conditions.

I've since then, been learning lighting (both video and stills), I've been learning the post processing tools now...I work with Davinci Resolve for color grading. I got the Adobe Production Premium CS6 suite of tools to learn PS, Premier, AE, etc....

So, I think the thing is...if you're really interested in something...research it, find what you really want....save and buy the best you can. Good tools will last you longer, and in some few cases, can save you money in the long run if it is something you will stick with.

I don't generally fritter my money away on crap. I save and when I have enough for something I want, I pull the trigger and buy something VERY nice, once or twice a year usually. I never have buyers remorse either.

At this point, I'm spending even more money (photography *is* an expensive hobby if done right) on lighting equipment for video, flashes and soon strobes for stills. And glass...that is where you DSLR money is best spent. I just rented the Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens, for a video shoot I did recently for charity. I hate sending that lens back, but I know now...next thing I'm saving for, is a copy of that lens for myself.

If you're not into photography, don't bother buying something nice....but for any hobby or any thing you like doing and appreciate quality and being able to do things....save and buy the best.

Ever since I was a young kid, I worked and saved...and have always had nice stereos (still important to me), nice cars, etc...and now cameras.

In many cases, you get what you pay for.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

mooingyak (720677) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995537)

Me? I've always been one of those that when I set my mind to something or wanting something, a nice camera for instance...I'd research the hell out of it, drive everyone around me mad incessantly talking about it, and then saving and buying the absolute best of xyz I could afford.

I respect that approach, and it probably works for you. For me... I learn best by doing, and until I've used something a bit I don't really get a solid feel for what I want. Once I've played around with something and find myself saying stuff like "I wish it could do XYZ", then it's time to do some research and pony up for a legit item.

Re:Love camera phones (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995481)

> Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.

Ignorant nonsense.

A better device allows for taking photos under conditions that a lesser device is simply incapable of managing. As a camera, a phone is actually a step backwards from film cameras in terms of features and ease of use.

While it's true that more expensive "pro" cameras are a matter of greatly diminishing returns, they too have their uses and situations for which they product useful output rather than a pointless blur.

It doesn't take a lot of skill to benefit from better gear. That's one of the great things about modern technology.

DSLRs multiply your skills (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995639)

Not only that, but the thesis that one can take "good" photos varies hugely with the definition of what a "good photo" is. It's one thing for social media; perhaps another for family; another for marketing; another for deep space; another for stacked macros and stacked low light; another for historical archives; another for forensic analysis; another for HDR; another for sports and other rapid-motion incorporating shots; another for time lapse; another for journalism... you get the idea.

DSLRs are to point and shoots what high end sports cars are to volkswagons. They have a great deal more potential, said potential rather easily tapped by one with expertise in hand, but getting that potential out of them requires more than picking them up and pushing a button without some supporting knowledge.

The biggest upside, at least in my opinion, is that if you decide to go for a DSLR, all that's between you and expertise is your learning capacity and available time. Truly invest the one in the other and you'll never, ever consider going back to a point and shoot.

Re:DSLRs multiply your skills (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995949)

We have a range of DSLRs (a low-end Canon, a mid-range Nikon, and a Canon 5D2), a couple of point and shoots, and our cell phones. What gets used the most? The cell phone, because it is available and makes it easy to share the pictures. Where does most of our best pictures show up? Also on the cell phone. Even if we take a picture with the DSLR, we'll tend to take the ~same picture with the cell phone for the sharing.

I tend to use and fiddle with the DSLRs more, but my wife has more training and takes better pictures - and usually choose to use her cell phone, to make it easy to share the pictures.

Yeah, I occasionally get an exceptional picture out of the DSLR, and many of her shots would be better with the DSLR than the phone - but having it on the DSLR and not bothering to share it would be less useful to us than having it on the phone.

Re:DSLRs multiply your skills (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995951)

Truly invest in a medium format and you will never, ever consider going back to a 35mm format.

Truly invest in large format and you will never, ever consider going back to medium format.

Truly invest in a Panaflex movie camera and glass and you will never, ever consider going back to large format. (I'm stretching the point here, I know.)

All academic, I learned to shoot on my dad's Exacta film SLR. (talk about old patents, That's a lefty SLR, film goes in upside down and winds to the left.)

There is also something to be said for a 'student photographers dSLR'. Automatic settings are more useful when you understand what they do because you know how to do it manually. Dad was pretty strict, no automagic features could be used until you could explain what they did and do it manually. Fortunately this was before automatic image stabilization.

Re:Love camera phones (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995567)

For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.

While this works for a great deal of things, there are some that this shouldn't apply to. Such as cars, parachutes, chainsaws, fire extinguishers....

Re:Love camera phones (4, Insightful)

Hazelfield (1557317) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995725)

Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.

For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.

I did the opposite and started out by buying one of the more expensive consumer-level dSLRs (a Nikon D7000) without having a clue about photography. The idea was this:

a) A camera like that will not be the limiting factor - my own skills will be
b) It's expandable by a myriad of objectives and accessories if I want to get more advanced
c) If it turns out this photography thing wasn't really for me, I'll still get great vacation pictures with the auto mode!

I think some hobbies are just like that - you can't have gear with too poor quality or it will affect your experience so badly you'll lose interest. Learning to play the guitar on a cheap guitar that can't keep the tuning sucks. Learning astronomy on a cheap toy-level telescope is just as bad. Photography might be a different beast, but to me it seems you can't go wrong by buying quality gear from the outset.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

jareth-0205 (525594) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995873)

I read that not so much as 'should be able to' as 'will be able to benefit from'.

Except even the simplest thing, like taking a shot of a friend and having the depth of field short enough that the background is out of focus, is beyond the point-and-shoot. Sure, not everybody needs the top camera, but the benefits of the physics of SLRs is still massive.

Re:Love camera phones (2)

timeOday (582209) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995223)

You just used one of the oldest misdirections in the book - pivoting from "what people should do" to "what people should be allowed to do." Start watching for this and you see it all the time.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995273)

True, but the tone of the comment, when looked at in its entirety, was one of, "Only professionals should be using this stuff," meaning the OP doesn't believe non-professionals should be allowed to use the equipment.

I try not to do what you said but I do make exceptions. Such as this one.

Re:Love camera phones (4, Insightful)

bagorange (1531625) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995509)

A much fairer summary of their belief would be:

"People who don't make their living from pictures but insist on using equipment this expensive have more money than sense"

A lot of fancy cameras could be considered jewellery given how many are owned but never used to their potential. Lots of camera enthusiasts think of Leicas as jewellery no matter who is using them (thanks to their hilariously high prices)

Re:Love camera phones (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995617)

"People who don't make their living from pictures but insist on using equipment this expensive have more money than sense"

And well....some people have a lot more disposable income than others.

To them, $3K is not a lot of money, more like $300.

People seem to forget that a lot of people make a decent amount of money...so, much of it depends on what you have coming in...and what is important to you. Maybe owning a house having 3 kids is what you want. Others may want a smaller house, or just rent...no kids and have more disposable income to buy toys with. Nothing wrong with either one, but doesn't show a lack of "sense".

My first DSLR was a Canon 5D3. it isn't top of the line, but it was a bit pricey, and I've had a blast with it. I've been learning so much on how photography works and what can be done with it (and videography too). I put it on manual about and 2nd day I had it and have been learning since then how to shoot and get the effects "I" want.

Some people like and value nice things. I've never bought anything really that I can think of...as "jewelry" that others can see, with the exception of a couple of actual pieces of jewelry, and even those, like my cars and other toys...have been bought for ME, and no one else.

Nothing wrong with liking nice things...I doubt in most cases it is bought just to show off to others.

Re:Love camera phones (2)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995673)

...but the tone of the comment, when looked at in its entirety, was one of, "Only professionals should be using this stuff," meaning the OP doesn't believe non-professionals should be allowed to use the equipment.

No. No, it did not have that tone at all. Your reading is an enormous stretch, and does not mean that at all, and unbiased native speakers of English will not interpret it the way you have. I don't know if English is a second language for you or if you same some bias here, but your reading is not accurate.

The comment was no different than telling someone about to spend $5,000 on a PC that only hardcore gamers or media composers should spend that sort of money, that if you're just web surfing and writing an occasional paper something much less expensive will suit your needs. Absolutely no intent to institute some legal restriction can be inferred from such advice.

Re:Love camera phones (5, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995289)

I'm not a professional photographer, but I do not like point-and-shoot cameras, shutter lag, limit of lens choices (actually no choice just the one), terrible f-stop range, terrible noise on sensors, tiny sensors, and they are way too light to be able to make steady shots, and not seeing through the lens at what you're shooting is totally weird with the electronic lag of CCD to LCD display.

With a DSLR I can shoot with very high shutter speeds, having the ability to change lenses allows me to get either macro close or very far objects closer up. You can also clip on filters to change the image, like polarisers.

Most people will not need a DSLR, but to claim that those cameras are only for professionals is rubbish. Even a cheap DSLR will out do a point-and-shoot. And let's not even get into thiny pinhead size sensors in mobile phones and claim that it's genuinely 8MP+.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995417)

At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals,

Thank you for pointing out your beliefs that only certain people should be able to use certain products. I guess your opinion is also that only those who drive for a professional living should be allowed to buy a Porsche or those who make their living from cooking should be allowed to buy $300 knives [korin.com] .

Apparently it's your belief people shouldn't be allowed to buy what they want with their own money just because they enjoy a product.

A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.

Yup, there's the confirmation.,

Did she really say those things? (The video won't play for me.)

So, really, all those prosumer and entry level DSLRs are only to be used by people who get paid to take photos? I think that would be news to... almost everyone, I'd guess.

I'm a professional photographer. (In that, I make part of my living from photography.) I got into the profession by buying a digital SLR and learning how to use it, in particular how it is different from the film cameras I had previously owned. I learned about post processing and presentation and how to sell photos off a website. I have my photos on display on three art-related websites and have my own website from which I sell photos. During this process, I purchased two professional digital SLR bodies for specific purposes -- one for sports photography (high FPS, good in low light) and one for portrait photography (slower FPS, higher resolution). My first body went to my daughter, who has her own website for displaying her artistic photos (but hasn't gotten paid for it, yet) and she recently upgraded to a prosumer body.

So.... how does one get started on a track that eventually leads one to professional photography, without a DSLR? The ability to change lenses is pretty important.

If she's saying that the proles should be using pocket cameras, I would say it depends on what they use them for. Daughter now owns two DSLRs but also has a waterproof pocket digital camera and a gopro. The waterproof camera goes with her everywhere, because the best camera is the one you have on you. It's pretty good about deciding focus and exposure and will do things like macro and panoramic and HDR in software. But there's very little control of the photographic process. It's very good at taking average photos. She's managed to do interesting things with it, (through unusual composition or picking the "wrong" preset, tricking the camera into doing what she wants) but for certain kinds of photos there's no substitute for complete control over the process -- exposure, depth of field, white balance, and type of lens -- macro, extreme fisheye, (6mm) long telephoto (500mm) and very fast (f1.2). Not to mention quality of the glass. These are the places where pocket cameras fall short.

Point is, she doesn't get paid to do this, (although she may someday) she's working out her artistic flair.

When people ask me what kind of equipment to buy, my first question is "what kind of photos do you want to take?" It's a vital question. If they want snapshots, I recommend one of the rugged and/or waterproof pocket cameras. If they want any kind of creative control, the question gets a lot more complex.

"Only used by professionals"? Really?

"if no one sees your photos"... true, but... instagram, deviant art, flickr, hell even Facebook. Lots of opportunities to display your work. I guess I don't get it. (I really wish the video would work so I could see the comments in context.)

Re:Love camera phones (1)

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995445)

I see now that the comments were from another commenter, not TFA. I think (some of) my comments still stand, though.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995775)

A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.

Yup, there's the confirmation.,

Agreed.
But on the other hand, since nobody has seen Mozumder's photos, any camera he posses is useless as well, according to his rules.

Only an idiot would assume a camera phone is the way to go for anything but the most trivial subset of general purpose photography.
and 99.9% of camera phone shots are never viewed, by anyone but the phone owner, and at least 40% of them aren't even viewed by the owner except to delete them.

Maybe most people don't need a dSLR with the quality of some of the Mirrorless cameras on the market today. There is very little real need for reflex cameras at all, since all they do in introduce another source of vibration.

But to assume that they are useless and no one should have one is just silly.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995857)

No where did he suggest that the purchase of DSLRs should be legally restricted to professional photographers. My thing is bikes, I have quite an expensive bike, and I am fully aware of what a waste it is. Whenever people ask me about bikes, I tell them not to buy an expensive one. I do not think that they should be prevented from buying an expensive bike if they want one, just that it would be a waste for them. Similarly it would be a waste for you to buy a DSLR.

Re:Love camera phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44994975)

I don't seem to have a problem sharing photos from my CSC; a friend of mine only has an Internet connection through his smartphone and he seems to be able to share photos from his DSLR just fine.

What are we doing wrong?

Re:Love camera phones (1)

Entropius (188861) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995069)

Never been a problem for me either. Pop SD card into computer, grab pictures, pull out ones that don't suck, upload to Facebook.

Re:Love camera phones (3, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995055)

dSLR's "should" be used by whoever the hell wants to use them. That's as absurd as saying that pianos should only be used by professional pianists because anyone else can get a harmonica. Who says?

Re:Love camera phones (2)

carnaby_fudge (2789633) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995061)

I've got iPhone 4, Nokia 920, Nikon LS120, and Canon Rebel T3. For taking product photos (and I am not a professional), the T3 blows all others out of the water. The LS120 is somewhat disappointing given the specs, and the 920 easily takes better photos than the iPhone 4.

Surprisingly, the Nokia 920 takes the best video of the bunch, at least when it comes to my son's hockey games. I haven't taken any video with the T3, so I guess my statement is somewhat stupid.

Re:Love camera phones (2)

Entropius (188861) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995219)

Shooting video of your son's hockey games with the Canon SLR will be a disaster unless you are prepared to manually focus all the time; the autofocus systems in SLR's don't work in movie mode. (Some of them don't work at all, and some of them just suck; I don't know which the T3 is.) The one exception is the Canon 70D, which has a fancy split-pixel sensor that lets it AF during movie shooting.

The exceptions are the Sony SLT cameras, which send 2/3 of the light to the sensor and 1/3 to a dedicated AF sensor, and the Olympus and Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras, which can use the readout from the main sensor to autofocus. (This is the same thing that the SLR's try to do when autofocusing in movie mode; the Micro 4/3 cameras just manage to not suck at it so badly.)

Re:Love camera phones (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995693)

Shooting video of your son's hockey games with the Canon SLR will be a disaster unless you are prepared to manually focus all the time; the autofocus systems in SLR's don't work in movie mode.

Funny....that manual pulling of focus hasn't seemed to hurt the movie industry for oh say......forever?

If you have a DSLR and are wanting to shoot video, you know what is required of you. If you want auto focus, then don't use it...but you CAN get extremely high quality video from a DSLR. It is a different shooting style. But it isn't a problem.

I recently shot a video of a party doing some bar hopping...I used my 5D3, and with its extreme lowlight capabilities (along with some VERY fast glass that you'd not gonna get one a consumer video camera), I was able to get some very nice footage. I had my RODE video mic parked on the hotshoe and get some good audio I can use too.

A little more effort, sure....but, after a little magic in post...I should be putting out a very nice final product everyone will enjoy. It will be a cinematic look...with good cuts, background music..etc.

Heck..if you do want something more dedicated...maybe look at the Blackmagic pocket camera that is now starting to come out....VERY nice images from that.

But really...manual focusing isn't THAT hard...and the tv and movie industry have been doing manual focus for generations now.

Besides...how are you going to play with depth of field creatively...if you're depending on the camera computer to figure out what YOU want....?

Re:Love camera phones (1)

Entropius (188861) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995769)

I'm not at all demeaning SLR's for video -- they do it very, very well, as you say. (Hence my first sentence: if you are prepared to manually focus, it will work, otherwise not.)

The issue is that the people who do manual focus pulling are very very good at what they do. Most DSLR owners, even ones who are excellent stills photographers, are not experienced with video manual focus. It seems that you are; good for you. Lots of folks aren't, and I know of quite a few people who have gotten rude surprises when they find that the video on their new SLR disables autofocus. A hockey game isn't exactly the easiest of targets, if you're new at that sort of thing -- especially if you're using nice fast glass.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

alen (225700) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995175)

i see a lot of parents with DSLR's on the playground. lugging around the camera in a pouch and the accessories to take a few photos of their kids. sometimes they scream at their kids so they can get that nice shot

me, i have my iphone. i'll take 10 or 20 photos in a few seconds of my kid in action and keep the best one. its also small enough for me to go into knee deep water and get some awesome action shots of my kid playing in ocean waves as they splash around him

Re:Love camera phones (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995355)

What you describe has nothing to do with the equipment but entirely to do with who is using it. Said parents could be just as obtuse with an iPhone, and you could shoot 20 photos in burst mode and wade out knee deep with a DSLR as well.

I use both. For the casual aw-isn't-my-kid-cute stuff the phone camera is fine. But for wide-angle, low-light, no-flash indoor photography it just has to be a DSLR because camera phones don't do that.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995183)

as image quality is far less important than image usability via social media sharing.

Uh, right.

You can keep your pathetic little phone camera or your overpriced point'n'shit. I'll stick to my T2i with an L-series 24-105mm.

Hope you enjoy grainy, blotchy, shitty pictures.

A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.

Come again? I shoot for my own pleasure. I really don't give a shit if a bunch of retards on Facebook see it or not.

Re:Love camera phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995467)

Your profanity and stunning insights such as "Uh, right" have won me over. I realize now that I am truly less of a man than you because I do not use the same camera as you do. Can you please share with me the secrets of your success - the car you drive and the breakfast cereal that you eat? Also, I need to know what brand of cellphone and garbage bags you use because these things are the true measure of a man.

Re:Love camera phones (4, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995521)

What's obscene here is the idea that you have to buy a device with Facebook built into it in order to publish things via Facebook. One should be able to easily combine devices that conform to open standards to achieve things with technology the engineers never thought of.

Profanity is not an inappropriate response to proprietary walled garden nonsense.

Re:Love camera phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995965)

Maybe one should, but as of today it is much easier to share from a phone that has it built in than going through software for the DSLRs. It is *possible* to share otherwise, but it's not as easy, at least not with the software I know about.

Re:Love camera phones (2)

dgatwood (11270) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995381)

Love camera phones. They really did bring about a revolution in photography. At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals, as image quality is far less important than image usability via social media sharing.

Maybe in your universe. In my universe, camera phones are still relatively poor even when compared with even my original Canon 300D DSLR from a decade ago. Compared with my current 6D, the difference is night and day. Literally. The amount of light is proportional to the square of the lens diameter, which effectively means that I can take high-ISO handheld photos with my 6D in an only partially lit parking lot at night that are similar in quality with pictures shot using my year-old cell phone during the day.

This is not to say that camera phones aren't good. They're great within very well-defined limits. On various photography boards, they have a saying that the best camera is the camera you have with you. If I don't plan to take photos, I always have my phone with me, which lets me shoot acceptable photos so long as the lighting is at least moderately decent, and so long as I can get close enough to not need to use the zoom. However, when I'm traveling or doing anything where I think I might want good pictures, I always drag my DSLR along, because A. there's never enough time to foot-zoom a quarter of a mile, and B. I appreciate shallow depth of field.

Re:Love camera phones (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | 1 year,24 days | (#44996157)

I can take high-ISO handheld photos with my 6D in an only partially lit parking lot at night

Dude, you can get arrested for doing things like that.

Seriously, though, DSLRs are amazing, so long as you actually learn to use them. I almost laugh out loud on a regular basis when on holiday every time I see someone with an entry-level DSLR in full auto mode with a kit lens, shooting some artefact or monument with the built in flash. Those sorts would do better with an all in one bridge camera and spend the difference in the hotel bar.

Re: Love camera phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995539)

The point in having dSLR is everybody seeing your dSLR.

Re: Love camera phones (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995645)

The point in having dSLR is everybody seeing your dSLR.

Says the person that sounds like they don't make enough money to buy nice things they want...?

I'd say frankly, that in this day in age, most high end DSLR owners don't want to promote the fact they have a $$ piece of equipment around their necks...due to some asshole wanting to rob and steal it from them.

I just don't get the point of so many people these days, spouting off that "They only buy xyz for other people to look at it".

Ok, I'm sure some do, but I don't believe the majority do. I'm of the thought that most of the people bitching about what others buy and why, have serious self image problems themselves because they can't work for and make enough money to buy nice things, and are jealous.

Maybe you should spend less time worry what others buy and own....and spend more time educating yourself and trying to get a better paying job for yourself?

Re:Love camera phones (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995547)

A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.

Well, if you have a nice DSLR, you're also likely using some nice tools, like Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture to post process or "develop" your images...and you can easily post to social media (if you're into that type thing) directly from there.

You don't have to send everything you shoot immediately from then and there. Frankly, most images people send out immediately aren't worth looking at...

:)

Personally, I like to shoot pics....and with good ones, I've actually had made into wall sized prints, even cropped in, my 5D3 has good enough resolution to make them look nice on the wall.

Also, what about photo books? Things like that are really nice to give as gifts. They will hang around and be appreciate much longer than a small, crappy, out of focus blurry pic on a Facebook wall.

Depends on the person and the quality they want out of things. To some people, low res mp3's on cheap earbuds are enough....I like good quality sound myself.

I listen to higher quality res mp3's on high end earbuds while at the gym, but for home listening, I play either from CD or flac lossless ripped files, on Klipschorn speakers off a couple of nice tube amps. It depends on if you like quality and thing it is worth the time, price and effort.

If it isn't...go with the cheap crap....

People use to carry much more bulky gear just a few short years ago before digital cameras, and didn't really have much a problem with it...they took billions of pictures before there was social media, and those family albums are still valuable today to those families.

Not everything is only valuable for 20 minutes you know.

Re:Love camera phones (2)

bagorange (1531625) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995595)

A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.

It's really quite stupid to state that photos not on a social network are useless:

You might want pictures to put on your own wall?

Portraits of your own family?

Perhaps social networks mean that people are more inclined to view hundreds of slightly interesting pictures instead of a a few nicer ones (since the cost of a photo is now approximately zero), but not everyone shares that opinion. (This is not to state that "good" photos can only be taken on expensive equipment.)

What a fucking dickhead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995911)

At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals...

Thousands of Canon DSLR-wielding astrophotographers are laughing at you right now.

200$ is fine (2)

marcello_dl (667940) | 1 year,24 days | (#44994813)

Please slashdot, direct me to the 200$ camera that makes good shots, and video (this is 2013, cameras should do video without too much moire or sensor overheat) of low light theater settings.

I was thinking a nikon 5200 with some hdmi recording to compensate for the 29 mins recording artificial limit. Or a non eu market panasonic gx7 which looks cooler. All of the above means shelling out some $$$.

Re:200$ is fine (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44994841)

google dpreview.

Re:200$ is fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995073)

google dpreview.

Google it? It's dpreview.com, man. Were you trying to be cute or something?

So Cute (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995709)

Google it? It's dpreview.com, man. Were you trying to be cute or something?

No, no. This [lmgtfy.com] is being cute.

Re:200$ is fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44994905)

Please slashdot, direct me to $200 good anything...

Re:200$ is fine (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995077)

Low light? $200? I think you're looking for a low-end strip club.

Re:200$ is fine (1)

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995347)

Please slashdot, direct me to $200 good anything...

It depends very much on one's definition of "good".

Re:200$ is fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995005)

Any of the canon point and shoots (digital elph, ixus) are pretty lovely, but it's not the camera that will make good images.

Bringing in some good lighting helps though-

http://www.jjtiziou.net/jj/community/the-engineers

Re:200$ is fine (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995017)

Please slashdot, direct me to the 200$ camera that makes good shots, and video (this is 2013, cameras should do video without too much moire or sensor overheat) of low light theater settings.

In the interview, Grotto says: "I don’t relate to video well at all. I am very much a still photographer." So I don't think her $200 number applies for something that has the good low-light video performance that you're looking for.

Re:200$ is fine (1)

Entropius (188861) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995091)

Depending on what you're doing low-light video is easier than low-light stills; most cameras will show less noise in video mode at any given ISO, plus you can fix the shutter speed to 1/30 or whatever your framerate is rather than using the 1/100 or more you need to avoid blur on moving targets for stills.

Re:200$ is fine (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995255)

Having purchased 7 point and shoot cameras over the years (and borrowed several others), low end camera quality has significantly improved. I was very impressed with the Olympus XZ-1 at the time. The ability to get the shot I wanted improved dramatically. However, something was still lacking. On the technical side the dynamic range was very limited, the effective f-stop (as compared to full frame) was weak, and the shutter speed abysmal. Capturing children in motion with indoor lighting was damn near impossible.

After recently moving upto a highend DSLR and associated lenses, the overall quality (technical and artistic) of my pictures is mind boggling better. I was floored by the quality of the very first shot. I will never go back to a P&S camera.

If you're a fan of boken, no $200 camera can not produce the equivalent technical and artistic effect of a DSLR with a 50mm or 85mm f/1.2 lens.

The low light capabilities of a Canon 5D Mark III or Nikon D800 are simply impossible to match with a $200 camera.

Re:200$ is fine (1)

Entropius (188861) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995085)

For $200? Find a used Olympus E-510 or E-520 and its kit lens. You can do a lot worse. There is a telephoto kit lens too (40-150, 80-300 equiv) that is small, cheap, and surprisingly sharp.

Re:200$ is fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995605)

Please slashdot, direct me to the 200$ camera that makes good shots, and video (this is 2013, cameras should do video without too much moire or sensor overheat) of low light theater settings.

As a (hobbyist) concert photographer I would have to agree with your comment for the most part. In low-light or high-action conditions (sports, music, animals e.g. birds in flight) you pretty much require a high-end camera even nowadays. It's dang hard to shoot concerts even with a crop DSLR unless you're 1) at a big venue with good lighting, 2) using prime lenses (awkward), or 3) using a flash (often not allowed).

Having said that, canon's EOS-M with the 22mm f/2 lens was recently down to $299. Not quite $200, but close and it would probably do the trick. I've shot concerts with a Canon 7D and an f/2 prime. I believe the EOS-M has the same APS-C sensor, so it should be enough in many cases. Likewise, I suspect that a lot of the other mirrorless cameras with relatively large sensors paired with prime lenses could take good photos in low-light theater settings.

Of course many professional photographers work almost entirely in studio and speak with the perspective of a studio photographer. Yes, when you have all the lighting you could possibly need and control over the models and environment, almost any camera would do. But when you don't have that control, you'll still need a DSLR.

Re:200$ is fine (1)

atomicthumbs (824207) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995681)

Well, it doesn't take video, but a Pentax 67 medium format film camera can be had for less than $200, and will take shots that come out looking better than those of any DSLR. :P

a used DSLR (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | 1 year,24 days | (#44996077)

Low light means you want the largest sensor well size you can (ie biggest individual-sized pixel), and a wide aperture lens. A few P&S cameras have both, but you're better off with an actual DSLR.

In terms of a body: the Panasonic GH2 is pretty popular among videographers for quality and controls; there are a bunch of firmware hacks out for it. If you don't mind not having video, you can pick up a used Canon 40D for peanuts, and it's a fantastic camera, and close to your price range.

In terms of lenses, you'll want the widest aperture lens you can afford. The simple/cheap way to do this is a fixed (prime) lens; figure out what focal length you need (for non-photographers, the "mm" in "100mm lens", aka "zoom factor".) Canon and Nikon both, for example, sell a 50mm f/1.8 lens that costs about $50-60. Even with the crop factor, might not be quite enough for your purposes, however.

article ? (1)

roscocoltran (1014187) | 1 year,24 days | (#44994871)

Hey, it's clickable! I learn a bit about slashdot everyday!

A sixty-second commercial? (2)

OpenGLFan (56206) | 1 year,24 days | (#44994947)

A sixty-second commerical? Nope.

Re:A sixty-second commercial? (2)

opusbuddy (164089) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995145)

In the time it took the commercial to play, I shot and edited three images on my iPhone...lost interest after that...

Re:A sixty-second commercial? (1)

Morpf (2683099) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995469)

Sixty? You are lucky. For me it was around 200 seconds.

What a terrible interview (5, Insightful)

jkflying (2190798) | 1 year,24 days | (#44994955)

We're nerds. Not blind consumer-sheep. We want to know what she thinks, how the sensors work, what makes the cameras good. We don't want to know that the interviewer has a smartphone with an integrated camera, and that he's about to buy his new camera as a phone from BestBuy because he dropped his old camera.

This is a professional here, stop thinking you know *anything* about the intricacies of her job and show some respect. Imagine interviewing Linus or Wozniak and telling them that you're going to buy a new keyboard because you spilled coffee on the old one. Then asking them for recommendations on what brand of bluetooth keyboard you should get to go with your $120 tablet. I'm surprised she didn't hang up out of sheer frustration.

I have an ANURIsm (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995231)

We're nerds. Not blind consumer-sheep.

What?!?

I've lost feeling in my toes...

I can't typea

Ahhhhh DUUUH

F/oss, Linux, Apple, Buffalo,

Really,

Guys.

F/OSS!!!!

Not consumer sheep?!

RMS dictating what you should do?!

Not sheep?!

Re:What a terrible interview (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995303)

The previous interview about 4K TVs was the same thing. He kept interrupting the interviewee to voice is opinions and whatnot. Just create a blog and leave the interviews to someone else.

Re:What a terrible interview (2)

Luciano Moretti (2887109) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995315)

I get the impression from the way that Sally responds that the interviewer Robin (who is not properly identified) is

1) Someone she knows.
2) Someone who is known in some groups for her photography work.

This isn't a random journalist interviewing a photographer, but a slightly lesser know photographer having a conversation with a more well known photographer.

Protip: Cutaways (5, Informative)

forkazoo (138186) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995103)

Taking advantage of the conversation audio was probably much better than trying to reshoot it while reading off a transcript. Good call there. That said, cutting from video of a person to a similarly framed still of a person is not a big improvement from a cinematic perspective. If you want to do more of these, and you want something to show when the video goes wonkey, you should get some other cutaway material. A great example in this case would have been some stills from her portfolio, Ken Burns style, with some simple annotations of what we are seeing. Another easy option would be occasional reaction shots of the interviewer. Obviously, you have4 complete control over that half of the connection so you can always capture decent quality video on your side. (It's a good excuse to clean up your bedroom, if nothing else.) You could also have images of the things that are being talked about. Pictures of cameras, screenshots of software, etc. At around 10:30, you say "I will have this cheapie as a spare" as you cut away from the video. Would have been perfect to cut away to a shot of the cheapie tos how what was being talked about. Or a shot from the cheapie. Etc.

And of course if you have more technical interviewees, you can ask them to record video of themselves on the call and send it to you after, while you have an audio Skype call for the interview. You can spend as long as you need downloading the already recorded video after the fact.

That said, good job providing the transcript below the video. Excellent model to follow.

Re:Protip: Cutaways (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995887)

What you saw is an improvement from the last video I watched on Slashdot. The guy got up and left the room and no one edited this out the video. So there was just minutes of his empty chair and dead air. As I sometimes tell posters, you're creating something to be viewed by hundreds of people. Show them some respect and spend a few minutes saving each of them a few minutes hundreds of times over. I'm glad they have transcripts, because I can read them far faster than watching any video.

Re:Protip: Cutaways (1)

JanneM (7445) | 1 year,24 days | (#44996269)

Good points all. Just a small addendum/correction: replace

"Ken Burns style"

With

"although not Ken Burns style, as that has been overused lately, and makes it harder to appreciate the image"

films en streaming directe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995137)

voila un site des films vf en streaming directe sur vk http://www.streamingdirecte.com

Right tool for the job (3, Interesting)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995267)

For 95% of what people take pictures of in the real world, yeah, a camera built into a smart phone is probably good enough. However, if you're shooting:

  • * Stuff that moves fast
  • * Stuff you want to print really, really big (over 4 feet across)
  • * Stuff that needs to be color-accurate
  • * Stuff where you want to control what part of the image is in focus

Then you need something like a DSLR with a real shutter & aperture and honkin' big sensor, and hopefully expensive lenses that can take advantage of all of the above. Spending $200 on a hands-on photography class will have much more impact for most people than spending the money on an expensive camera, and then hoping you getting better results when you push the button (which ain't happening).

Re:Right tool for the job (2)

Longjmp (632577) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995401)

In other words, if you want good pictures, as an amateur or not.

Oh, but Sally.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995297)

How is it that all of this technology - image stabilization, megapixels, digital zoom... How is it with all that, so many of those digital photos are blurry garbage?

And yet our photo albums and history are filled with incredibly sharp photos that were shot on film. All without image stabilization technology. All without instant feedback on quality, or taking the same photo a dozen times.

Digital photography: never in history have so many people been able to take so many lousy photos, and share them.

Re:Oh, but Sally.. (3, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995715)

And yet our photo albums and history are filled with incredibly sharp photos that were shot on film.

Selection bias. When sharing photos was expensive, only incredibly sharp photos were shared. Digital photo-taking developed with digital photo-sharing, cheap and easy.

It's true (5, Insightful)

eriks (31863) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995425)

I liked what she had to say, especially: "The camera doesn't take the picture, the human does." -- that's very important. It's always been possible to take *great* photos with very inexpensive gear, if the composition, subject and lighting are all great.

Most people don't need anything more than a decent $200 or even $100 camera. The trouble is that if you want to go to the "next level" -- you need to spend two or three times that (or lots more), and you can then get into low-light territory, which (IMO) is where all the excitement is. A truly *usable* 6400 or 12800 ISO is unbelievably liberating, and that's now here for well-under $1000.

Re:It's true (1)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995571)

> if the composition, subject and lighting are all great.

That's the problem. Most of the world isn't inside of a well managed portrait studio. You have to take the world and your experiences as they present themselves to you.

Quite often life won't accommodate your point-and-shoot camera and what you could manage with a phone would be even worse.

More importantly (1)

avandesande (143899) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995483)

Is this the slowest of slow news days?

Thanks for the interview (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995513)

I now know not to take classes from her, she clearly knows very little about digital photography. She may be a great photographer, but her technical understanding is very very weak.

As long as you know what you are doing (1)

bobjr94 (1120555) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995561)

I see people who go out and buy 800$ DSLR cameras, have no idea how to use any of the functions, just keep it in auto, making their pics no better than a cheap point and shoot. They don't know what shutter speed, iso, white balance is or what the difference between a 55-80mm lens and a 75-300mm.

They can learn (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995755)

Why would you be surprised that someone buying an entry level ($800, your number) DSLR would be a beginner?

When they spend $3000 or $5000 or more on the camera -- plus perhaps as much on lenses -- and they don't know how to use any of it, now we're talking smile-into-your-napkin time. Even so, there's nothing saying they won't learn how to use it eventually.

After all, it's a lot more fun learning to play guitar on a Martin dreadnaught than it is on some cheap box from the low price specials category of Musician's Friend. You dig?

Re:They can learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995921)

If you're serious about it, don't let your tools limit your ability.

But you better be serious about it. Really serious about it. Professional tools come at a professional price.

She is probably correct in that the majority of folks who own a camera will likely -not benefit- from the high dollar variety.
However, if you ever wish to dip your toes into the pro waters, or even create similar level output, you'll need equipment that
will allow you to do that.

I like the DSLR in that it comes in many flavors and options depending on my needs. I would love a medium format digital,
but I don't have a studio budget to back up such a purchase. ( $30k + for the camera body ) Thus, I stay in the mid level
budget ranges. ( Nikon, Canon, etc. )

I can quickly swap from a super wide-angle 14mm lens, to a 600mm telephoto. ( assuming you have no issues spending
$10k on a lens anyway ) If you can think of a type of shooting you like to do, they probably make a lens for it.

Landscape or Macro maniac ? Camera bodies with better sensors exist for you. Weddings and sports types ? Cameras
with blistering fast frame rates and outstanding low light capabilities exist for you too.

You just can't get that out of a standard point and shoot or ( god forbid ) a camera phone.

Re:As long as you know what you are doing (1)

MouseAT (945758) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995867)

Well, they immediately benefit from a much better sensor and much better lens, so that's one hell of a benefit. Plus, auto mode is a great starting point. Once you start looking at the photos you've got, that's when you can figure out what didn't work particularly well, and how to adjust your settings accordingly. My camera tends to stay in "P" mode 90% of the time, and only gets switched into one of the manual modes when I specifically need to override the default settings.

The difference? (1)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995647)

Between film and digital photography? I heard no such discussion. Slashdot, please take your editors out behind the barn and shoot them.

On another note: Right at the end of the video, we all heard someone's camera ring with an incoming call. This is a problem I've never encountered with my SL66 [sl66.com] .

Some thoughts on film and digital (0)

atomicthumbs (824207) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995807)

Something I've realized in my career as a photographer is that newer isn't always better. I started off doing it as a hobby with a Canon point-and-shoot with CHDK firmware, and eventually I bought an entry-level Canon DSLR when I decided I wanted to focus on photography.

My photos taken during the period when I was using the DSLR were generally crappy. I experimented some, learned about aperture and shutter speed, but mostly kept it on program mode. I had a few good photos, and thousands of bad ones.

In late 2010, I decided to take a black and white photography class at college. It required a film camera, and we would learn to develop our own film and print photos with enlargers. My friend happened to have a camera he wasn't using, which he very graciously gave to me: a Mamiya 645 medium format SLR.

Being limited to 15 shots a roll helped my skills immensely. I started carefully considering each photo I took, since I could only take a few at a time, and each one cost me money (in film and chemicals). My compositional skills went from "occasionally lucky" to "I can look at and evaluate my own photos and use elements I like later on". I learned how to expose correctly (the camera is manual with a built-in light meter), how to take great landscape photos lit only by the full moon, and (later) how to scan and process my film photos on the computer, so I could put my Photoshop skills to use and show my photos to people.

One of the most helpful parts of switching to film, though, was the quality. The 645 format (each photo is 6 cm by 4.5 cm on the negative) inherently gave me better resolution than my DSLR. Photos that would have turned out disappointing on the DSLR turned out great with the Mamiya, because film has so much more dynamic range than digital (no matter how hard digital tries with new sensors and HDR gimmicks). I learned to use the grain structure of each kind of film to my benefit, and to create specific effects.

I now use a Pentax 67 camera for a great deal of my work; an Olympus OM-4Ti and various film point-and-shoot cameras fill in when I don't want to carry around an enormous chunk of steel and glass. Not only are the 35mm film cameras smaller than their digital equivalents, but they cost less (for the cameras and lenses both), and especially with the point-and-shoots, take better photos than equivalent digital cameras.

I have abandoned digital photography entirely. I have spent, in total, less on my entire ensemble of cameras, lenses, film, chemicals, and equipment than I would have spent to buy a prosumer DSLR and one or two lenses of lesser quality than the ones I own now. I have to spend 45 minutes to an hour to scan each roll of film, much less process each photo, I had to upgrade my computer to hold twelve gigabytes of memory to process the biggest photos comfortably, and 190-megapixel photos occupy most of my hard drive space; my best camera is hard to transport easily without a suspension backpack, and I love it. With Kodak Alaris continuing Kodak's film lines, and with Fujifilm and Ilford still devoted to upholding film photography, I do not think me switching back to digital is in the cards in the foreseeable future.

Re:Some thoughts on film and digital (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44995999)

Cool story bro, now, did you know that the once you scan that analogic film into your computer the best way to make a backup of it is to use monster cables [monsterproducts.com] to transfer it to your external hard drive and avoid losing any bits in the process due to low quality digital cables and non gold pins?

Re:Some thoughts on film and digital (1)

El_Oscuro (1022477) | 1 year,24 days | (#44996309)

In the 1980's, I got my first SLR after owning a bunch of crappy 110's. It was a basic Pentax and cost a little over $100. It had no flash and manual everything, including threading the film, but was the best camera I ever owned. 35mm film was expensive on an Army salary, so I had to plan every shot I took. I could take shots with that camera that I have never been able to take with any other. Went down into the dimly-lit tunnels of the Maginot Line and took some perfect pictures there, with no flash. The simple expedient of setting the camera on something solid and having a long exposure time does wonders.

I now have a DSLR, but it doesn't work nearly as well as my old Pentax. I am get another one if I can find it.

Define "quality" (1)

kermit1221 (75994) | 1 year,24 days | (#44995943)

If "quality" means "good enough for facebook" or "your mom will love it" then yeah, $200 is a fair number.

I, like many I'm sure, have taken a few amazing photos with crap gear (like a plastic 35mm thrift store find). I've also had my share of lousy photos with expensive gear (like a month's salary DSLR). But I've never had a better-than-mediocre photo come out of mediocre gear.

Did I miss something? (1)

angiasaa (758006) | 1 year,24 days | (#44996029)

When I see a title like "The Difference Between Film and Digital Photography", I expect to see exactly that in the article (or in this case, video). Apparently, that was not really discussed. Yeah, one is film and it is cumbersome, while the other being digital, is much easier to share with others. However, what I was really expecting, is how it affects the images that are captured. What is the difference at the grassroot level between the two? When I'm taking pictures, I want to know what the advantages and disadvantages are, or something on those lines. I did not get what I was expecting. It would have been a safer option to just call it "A conversation about digital photography with Sally Wiener Grotta". Yes, I'd still have watched it, but I would'nt have been so disappointed. :(
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?