Ever stop to think how cool digital is?

[tkbslc]

So yesterday I had the day off work. I was playing around with my kids and took some impromptu portraits. A couple of them turned out pretty nice. So I printed them, framed them and hung them on the wall. So what, right?

I did all of this without leaving the house in about an hour total, and it was easy. Now I know a lot of you can also do this, but ever think how cool and spoiled we are? Think even 10 years ago when 97% of us still shot film for anything important, and almost nobody had good photo printers at home. If you were like most people, you would have to take your negatives to the lab and wait for processing, not even sure if you had any good shots. If you had a home darkroom, it was a messy and somewhat complicated procedure that required a small dedicated room in your house. Even 4-5 years ago when I starting shooting digital, home printing was not quite there yet so I would have to wait a day or 2 for prints. Now all you need is a small desk with a computer and printer. And the computers and printers are practically free. My $100 Canon printer can produce prints rivaling our local photo lab if I use good paper.

Maybe it is just me, but I sometimes I am just amazed how fun photography has become. Less work, and instant results - for relatively low costs.

[Jannie]

Yup!

[DStanic]

If it were not for DSLR I would just be taking snapshots with a P&S occationally, or possibly using my Minolta SLR with kit lens once in a while for kicks, but I do not think I would be anywhere near as interested in photography as I am today.

[CanonHowitzer]

Ansel Adams used to have to take a big tripod camera and glass film plates up the mountains.

We are lucky to be digital.
:cool:

[doubledragon]

definitely agreed.
I took some photo class in college, and spent way too much time messing up in the darkroom and wasting expensive film to really enjoy it. circa 2001, and I remember my professor when someone asked why we can't shoot digital, he said with a smug chuckle, "digital will never match the quality of 35mm film."

Years later, when i got my first digital point & shoot, I was thrilled to be taking pictures and experimenting for relatively little cost. Took it up a notch in 2006 with a rebel series, it's been fun and instantly gratifying ever since!

[Mosca]

It first struck me a few years ago. We were out on the Nescopeck Creek, fishing and taking pictures. My brother in law had his laptop with a cellular modem (this was several years ago when they were not common). I took a shot of my daughter catching a fish, and we emailed it to my sisters. Right there from the creek.

That was when I knew the times were a changin'.

[Chairman7w]

Great post tkbslk, I think it's important to look at the big picture sometimes and appreciate all the great stuff we got!

Too easy to get caught up in the day-to-day grind. Thanks for bringing this up!

[Thalagyrt]

definitely agreed.
I took some photo class in college, and spent way too much time messing up in the darkroom and wasting expensive film to really enjoy it. circa 2001, and I remember my professor when someone asked why we can't shoot digital, he said with a smug chuckle, "digital will never match the quality of 35mm film."

Years later, when i got my first digital point & shoot, I was thrilled to be taking pictures and experimenting for relatively little cost. Took it up a notch in 2006 with a rebel series, it's been fun and instantly gratifying ever since!

You should email that professor and see if he's eating his words at the moment. :D

[FELINEDEBOURGES]

I do appreciate it, but I also am amazed at what I can get from film as well. It had been so long since I'd shot color film that when for an assignment for my first digital photography and PS class required us to shoot a roll of color film so we could scan the negatives and the prints to see what we could do with them in PS I was blown away by the results of my film exposures. I had been shooting digital exclusively for so long that I only remembered the really crappy blurry family snapshots of my childhood and because of that I had it in my mind that color film sucked. I didn't put two and two together to realize that it wasn't the medium but the camera operator who made the photos look terrible.

Anyhow I do love digital and am mesmerized by what I can so easily do with it and so quickly. I don't understand the science behind it, and I don't think I have the capacity to understand it without my head exploding either - lol - but I appreciate it nonetheless.

[rogazilla]

I do!

But I often wonder if anyone will make one that gives me back all the manual controls EXCEPT with a digital sensor so I dont have to process the film. I know it is a step backward but I think I'd buy it in a heart beat.

[tkbslc]

Sorry, I don't follow. What manual controls don't you have on the 450D and 7D that they had on film cameras?

[sapearl]

No question that digital has been extremely satisfying for me. It's enabled me to experiment in a manner that was cost prohibitive when I used film. BUT....... the COOLEST THING was the very first time I saw an image "magically appear" before my eyes in a tray of developer. That left a lasting impression..... :D

[rogazilla]

Sorry, I don't follow. What manual controls don't you have on the 450D and 7D that they had on film cameras?

I guess it didn't come out right. I basically want it completely mechanical. I want to feel turning the ring for aperture. a prism on the focusing screen. no computer assist me in anyway. closet thing I can think of is Just something I considered to get say a m4/3 (example, GF1 or Oly e p1) + some old lens but those don't have a view finder or they have the evf (which I dont think its ready yet). I doubt many people wants the same thing... But basically I want to take my dad's old minolta from the 70's and use it but replace film with digital sensor but nothing else. Not sure if that make any sense :lol:

Maybe I need to get a beer and take my camera out and shoot instead of sitting here coming up with crazy thoughts.

[banpreso]

digital is so cool! instant result and no need to pay for film and go to darkroom!

but back in the day everyone with a slr knows what they are doing, not anymore. but honestly that's okay.

[masterwillems]

I think that if there was no digital, I would not be shooting. It would be to expensive for me to pay all the films, processing, and not knowing if a picture would come out nice.

Hell I love digital for that matter :D.

[tkbslc]

I guess it didn't come out right. I basically want it completely mechanical. I want to feel turning the ring for aperture. a prism on the focusing screen. no computer assist me in anyway. closet thing I can think of is Just something I considered to get say a m4/3 (example, GF1 or Oly e p1) + some old lens but those don't have a view finder or they have the evf (which I dont think its ready yet). I doubt many people wants the same thing... But basically I want to take my dad's old minolta from the 70's and use it but replace film with digital sensor but nothing else. Not sure if that make any sense :lol:

Maybe I need to get a beer and take my camera out and shoot instead of sitting here coming up with crazy thoughts.

Go get a Pentax DSLR and some old K-mount lenses. Put the camera in M mode and have fun. You'll have to change the aperture on the lens, focus by hand, and set exposure by hand in M mode. You can even turn of the LCD review if you don't want to see it.

I guess you can do that with your Canon, too, with the right adapters.

[Thalagyrt]

I guess it didn't come out right. I basically want it completely mechanical. I want to feel turning the ring for aperture. a prism on the focusing screen. no computer assist me in anyway. closet thing I can think of is Just something I considered to get say a m4/3 (example, GF1 or Oly e p1) + some old lens but those don't have a view finder or they have the evf (which I dont think its ready yet). I doubt many people wants the same thing... But basically I want to take my dad's old minolta from the 70's and use it but replace film with digital sensor but nothing else. Not sure if that make any sense :lol:

Maybe I need to get a beer and take my camera out and shoot instead of sitting here coming up with crazy thoughts.

Sounds like it's time to take an old digital camera and your favorite old mechanical body, hack it up, and have some fun with a DIY project! :D

[tkbslc]

Sounds like it's time to take an old digital camera and your favorite old mechanical body, hack it up, and have some fun with a DIY project! :D

It would need to be FF though, so pretty expensive hacking project! :)

I keep wondering why nobody ever made a digital "film" insert that could be placed in any film camera. It would be expensive due to FF sensor, but I think it would sell well. Imagine a Digital EOS 3 or Canonet qL17, or Leica m3, etc, etc,

At the very least a digital back for some of the more popular models.

[RPCrowe]

I think about how cool digital is every time I shoot and don't have to worry about how much the film and or processing will cost. It is guilt free shooting and I can shoot as many variations of an image that I want without financial repercussions.

I think about how cool digital is every time I can view an image as soon as I shoot it. No more worrying, did I get it right? No more having either to process the images myself or wait for a commercial processor to accomplish its mission.

I think about how cool digital is every time I am able to open an image and to post process it in myriad ways and then save the image only to be able to reopen it any time I feel like doing so.

I think about how cool digital is every time I access a digital photo web site like this one. I can upload images for critique and I can critique other photographer's work.

DIGITAL IS WONDERFUL - I have not shot a frame of film since I purchased my first DSLR.

For TKBSLP: There are digital backs available for selected medium format and view cameras. However the price of the package, including both the back and either a medium format DSLR or view camera makes me shudder. But, if I was still shooting professionally with Hassleblad gear I might have been tempted to at least look into a digital back back. However the extremely high price tags would probably have scared me off. I don't expect that the backs would depreciate like DSLR cameras made by Canon and Nikon; so buying used might not be much of an option. I don't think that the manufacturers are changing these models with the regularity of Canon and Nikon.

[MrWilliams]

Took 300 pictures at my sons basketball tournament this weekend at 6400 iso. Deleted about 200, cropped and straightened the rest and posted them on flickr for the other families - took about 3 hours while watching the Olympics. That was fun for me. While learning (still doing that) to shoot in manual i can take 30 or 40 pictures getting feedback from the histogram and image and it doesn't cost anything. I will say that as a child I would watch my father set up his tripod and put a lot of thought into a picture, probably because it was costing money and a lot of time to develop. I guess with no histogram and viewfinder to look at the image you had to get it right the first time. Plus we have these forums now to get advice...

[sneakerpimp]

everything is cheaper but photography as an art and as a business have devalued as well... now i think how cool it was to be a photographer.

[gonzogolf]

I remember being in college (1988 ) and attending a photojournalism workshop. The photojournalist teaching the seminar showed us a photo that had been taken the night before in Japan uploaded from the camera and sent via payphone to the states 10 minutes after the end of a race just in time to beat a hard deadline. We all laughed because the image was horribly pixelated and honestly not fit for publication but that paper had scooped the rest of the US by a full day because of the technology. The guy went on to explain that our trusty 35mm's had 30 million pixels and digital simply never would match that. So yeah, I stop to think just how far we have come, and marvel at where we are going with digital.

[sapearl]

It's certainly cheaper from the standpoint of no proofing, no chemistry, no enlargements for the vast majority of folks..... but the time investment has gone way up. That's because YOU are now the lab. If you don't care about the worth of your time, that's ok. But for people running a business it's a different story.

And I TOTALLY agree with your statement regarding how it's been devalued. Too many people assume that owning a camera makes them a photographer ....... it just makes them owner of a camera.:rolleyes:

everything is cheaper but photography as an art and as a business have devalued as well... now i think how cool it was to be a photographer.

[John_B]

tkbslc,
Yes I think of it often, as its a lot easier and quicker with as good/better results.

I don't miss film, don't miss slide projectors, don't miss expensive 8x10's, don't miss scanning negatives/prints, don't miss buying film all the time (sorry Kodak).

I do love instant previews, quick fast prints, excellent quality with sizes larger then I did when using film, love on TV/monitor slide shows, and the list goes on ;)

[gonzogolf]

At the very least a digital back for some of the more popular models.


I would love to have a digital back on my old F1N

[FlyingPhotog]

It's certainly cheaper from the standpoint of no proofing, no chemistry, no enlargements for the vast majority of folks..... but the time investment has gone way up. That's because YOU are now the lab. If you don't care about the worth of your time, that's ok. But for people running a business it's a different story.

I was just thinking the exact same thing. It actually was kind of convenient to drop it off and let someone else do the work. Now I'm my own worst enemy at a computer! :lol:

And I TOTALLY agree with your statement regarding how it's been devalued. Too many people assume that owning a camera makes them a photographer ....... it just makes them owner of a camera.:rolleyes:

Yup...

And, I've still yet to see any image from digital either on a monitor or in print that rivals a well-exposed and properly projected transparency. Becuase film actually has physical depth, a well done slide does as well. Digital still ain't quite there yet.

[tkbslc]

everything is cheaper but photography as an art and as a business have devalued as well... now i think how cool it was to be a photographer.

I don't know if photography was ever really a prestigious or terribly lucrative career save for the few with celebrity status.

[sneakerpimp]

I would love to have a digital back on my old F1N

i remember several years ago, maybe a decade now, that someone was developing a back that would fit any 35mm SLR. i don't recall what happened to it, nor the name of the product or its 'inventor'.

[sjones]

Digital got me into photography and served as an excellent training ground before I switched to film. I still rely on digital to scan and post process my negatives.

[John_B]

sneakerpimp,
Yea back in my film days I hoped the Imagek film insert would be available but it seems it never was. Here is a page on dpreview Imagek becomes SiliconFilm (http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp) that has a pic of it and its specs (not too good at current standards)

[sneakerpimp]

sneakerpimp,
Yea back in my film days I hoped the Imagek film insert would be available but it seems it never was. Here is a page on dpreview Imagek becomes SiliconFilm (http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp) that has a pic of it and its specs (not too good at current standards)

YES, that is exactly it. now i'm wondering if canon/nikon bought them out of existence.

[junipa]

I think about how cool digital is every time I get the camera out.

I used to be a happy snappy with my Olympus Trip 35 (never had SLR back in the day - way too expensive for me then) and made quite a nuisance of myself among friends because I was always taking photos. 'Always taking photos' could equal 10 - 15 on an outing or get-together. I would always get two-for-one processing just in case there were a couple of particularly good snaps.

Now I might take 100 - 150 on a similar outing and probably delete 90% of them but at least it's not costing me - 90% of my photos were rubbish in the film days as well but I had no way of knowing until the film was finally developed - and that could have been months after it was first put into the camera.

[sapearl]

Actually there were quite a large number of magazine, portrait, product, news, sports, wedding, architectural and other photographers out there who made very good if not excellent incomes in their specialties. And these were in addition to the big name people

I don't know if photography was ever really a prestigious or terribly lucrative career save for the few with celebrity status.

[sapearl]

I'm with you there Jay ;). Years back I attended some pretty phenomenal multi-media slide events as well as some fine art projection shows. These things were incredible in their smoothness of tonality and vibrant depth.

A couple of times/year I judge some "projection" shows at two local photographic societies. In lieu of the old Kodak Carousels we now use Epson DLP projection units. They're actually pretty good.

I'm not sure how those things are calibrated though. The show I attended last week displayed images that were all a bit oversaturated. Because of this uniformity, I suspect it was either the "projector" or the MacBook driving it. It was nice.... just not the same as the old slide projector.;)

I Yup...And, I've still yet to see any image from digital either on a monitor or in print that rivals a well-exposed and properly projected transparency. Becuase film actually has physical depth, a well done slide does as well. Digital still ain't quite there yet.

[FlyingPhotog]

Actually there were quite a large number of magazine, portrait, product, news, sports, wedding, architectural and other photographers out there who made very good if not excellent incomes in their specialties. And these were in addition to the big name people

The true "superstars" are those who are able to command huge fees for shooting within their niche.

The working photographers are those who are known for a niche but still supliment their income with general photography duties.

A great example is the gentleman who is the Senior Photographer for the Experimental Aircraft Association. He'll do all their publications and get to do all kinds of cool air to air assingments for both editorial and commercial but he still does Seniors and HS Sports as well.

Of course, he may just flat out like doing Seniors and HS Sports...

The gentleman who moderates the flesh and blood photography group of which I'm a member has been a commercial photographer for nearly 30 years. He's a master of product photography as well as fine art nudes but he teaches at two different colleges and runs probably 30-40 workshops a year as well.

I don't know what the ratio is but one wonders how many "working" photographers there are per "superstar?" 100:1 .. 1000:1 I dunno...

[sandpiper]

At the very least a digital back for some of the more popular models.

i remember several years ago, maybe a decade now, that someone was developing a back that would fit any 35mm SLR. i don't recall what happened to it, nor the name of the product or its 'inventor'.

Digital backs for 35mm (film) SLRs have been around almost as long as digital photography. The backs of the old SLRs simply clip on and off, so I imagine it is an easy job to swap backs as required.

I remember considering a digital back for my old Canon SLRs before I bought into the DSLR outfit.

Leica do a universal digital back (10mp) for film SLRs and there are others available for less money.

Just google " 35mm slr digital back " for options.

I agree and also miss the tactile qualities of the old gear, despite still having 3 old bodies and a dozen lenses for them. It would be nice to have a digital back for the old A-1 (and, I suspect, it will fit the AE-1 as well) in order to get back to that old-time mechanical feeling.

However, despite having lenses that were high end in their day, I know they won't compare well to my current outfit (including 3 'L's) so it would be rarely used and certainly not enough to justify the expense (I can always run a roll or two of film through, if I want to feel the nostalgia - in fact I do on occasion).

It would be more practical to convert a film EOS body and share the lenses, but I guess that would be essentially the same as using a regular digital EOS, and defeat the object of the exercise.

[mathogre]

everything is cheaper but photography as an art and as a business have devalued as well... now i think how cool it was to be a photographer.

No more than programming. Anyone anywhere can program a computer. So many people today *have* computers. That said, I'm a programmer by trade, and I work in scientific programming. Frankly I think things are far better today for photography than it's ever been.

My first SLR was a Pentax K1000, fully manual. It was a great camera. I had a 50mm f/2.0 lens and a 135mm f/2.8 lens. I shot Kodak ASA1000 shortly after it came out; it was my future sis-in-law's graduation in 1983.

Today I wouldn't trade my XSi for the K1000 at all. Geez, it was the little Sony in my sig that brought me back to photography. Even at 5.1 MP, it's a sweet little pocket p&s. I moved to the G9 and after a year to the XSi. In 9 months I've put nearly 12,000 shots through the XSi. Do that with film.

I've been able to do so much with it. Sure, some of what I take is junk, but some of it is simply amazing. I credit a lot of that to digital technology. I get instant feedback. If something isn't working, I don't have to ruin two rolls of 36 exposure film to find out, especially when it's too late. If I want to go back to shoot something I shot months ago, all I need to do is check the EXIF data from the old photos to see what I did so I might do better. Last November we went to Walt Disney World for a vacation. 1,700 photos later and I had enough good photos to easily make a hard cover book with nearly 100 photos for under $100, all from the comfort of my computer room. WOW!!!!!!! Try that with 1980s technology.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=9510878&postcount=24
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=9510893&postcount=25

Digital photography is completely amazing.

[photoguy6405]

So yesterday I had the day off work. I was playing around with my kids and took some impromptu portraits. A couple of them turned out pretty nice. So I printed them, framed them and hung them on the wall. So what, right?

I did all of this without leaving the house in about an hour total, and it was easy. Now I know a lot of you can also do this, but ever think how cool and spoiled we are? Think even 10 years ago when 97% of us still shot film for anything important, and almost nobody had good photo printers at home. If you were like most people, you would have to take your negatives to the lab and wait for processing, not even sure if you had any good shots. If you had a home darkroom, it was a messy and somewhat complicated procedure that required a small dedicated room in your house. Even 4-5 years ago when I starting shooting digital, home printing was not quite there yet so I would have to wait a day or 2 for prints. Now all you need is a small desk with a computer and printer. And the computers and printers are practically free. My $100 Canon printer can produce prints rivaling our local photo lab if I use good paper.

Maybe it is just me, but I sometimes I am just amazed how fun photography has become. Less work, and instant results - for relatively low costs.
This.


Ansel Adams used to have to take a big tripod camera and glass film plates up the mountains.

We are lucky to be digital.:cool:
The first downhill skiers had to climb the mountain before they could ski down, too. In many ways it is nicer to live in the modern world.


definitely agreed.
I took some photo class in college, and spent way too much time messing up in the darkroom and wasting expensive film to really enjoy it. circa 2001, and I remember my professor when someone asked why we can't shoot digital, he said with a smug chuckle, "digital will never match the quality of 35mm film."
LOL! Never say never.


I think about how cool digital is every time I shoot and don't have to worry about how much the film and or processing will cost. It is guilt free shooting and I can shoot as many variations of an image that I want without financial repercussions.

I think about how cool digital is every time I can view an image as soon as I shoot it. No more worrying, did I get it right? No more having either to process the images myself or wait for a commercial processor to accomplish its mission.

I think about how cool digital is every time I am able to open an image and to post process it in myriad ways and then save the image only to be able to reopen it any time I feel like doing so.

I think about how cool digital is every time I access a digital photo web site like this one. I can upload images for critique and I can critique other photographer's work.

DIGITAL IS WONDERFUL - I have not shot a frame of film since I purchased my first DSLR.
I did both for awhile, but I finally had to make a mental break with film and focus all my energy on digital. There are aspects I miss, but overall I don;t miss much of the hassle that you describe.


It's certainly cheaper from the standpoint of no proofing, no chemistry, no enlargements for the vast majority of folks..... but the time investment has gone way up. That's because YOU are now the lab. If you don't care about the worth of your time, that's ok. But for people running a business it's a different story.
Yep. Now, it's completely on ME.


And, I've still yet to see any image from digital either on a monitor or in print that rivals a well-exposed and properly projected transparency. Becuase film actually has physical depth, a well done slide does as well. Digital still ain't quite there yet.
Totally agree with this. Probably the only thing I really miss about film is the results I could get with transparencies. I can get very good results with digital, but something about transparencies is still another level all its own.

[Morlow]

The ease and versatility of digital is indeed pretty crazy.

[rogazilla]

It would need to be FF though, so pretty expensive hacking project! :)

I keep wondering why nobody ever made a digital "film" insert that could be placed in any film camera. It would be expensive due to FF sensor, but I think it would sell well. Imagine a Digital EOS 3 or Canonet qL17, or Leica m3, etc, etc,

At the very least a digital back for some of the more popular models.

^ Yeah! Something like that! And I will look into the pantax...

As for right now, I might get a Katzeye for my XSi and see if that prism is worth it...

[sjones]

I guess it didn't come out right. I basically want it completely mechanical. I want to feel turning the ring for aperture. a prism on the focusing screen. no computer assist me in anyway. closet thing I can think of is Just something I considered to get say a m4/3 (example, GF1 or Oly e p1) + some old lens but those don't have a view finder or they have the evf (which I dont think its ready yet). I doubt many people wants the same thing... But basically I want to take my dad's old minolta from the 70's and use it but replace film with digital sensor but nothing else. Not sure if that make any sense :lol:

Maybe I need to get a beer and take my camera out and shoot instead of sitting here coming up with crazy thoughts.

Wanting to use an affordable rangefinder was one of the factors that moved me back to film. Currently, I am using an all-mechanical camera---no meter, no batteries---and I love the process.

[yogestee]

I love digital photography and would never go back to shooting 35mm or even medium format.. But I'd gladly wind the clock back to 15 or even 20 years and shoot 4x5 again..

For me 4x5 is the closest thing to a religious experience.. There is something magical about shooting, processing and printing 4x5 black and white..

[sapearl]

Understandable Jurgen :D.

I had the pleasure of using a Linhoff Technika Press/Field camera some decades back. Being the "press" varient it was a bit more compact than most, and even had a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 roll film back. That was fun to play with along with the 4x5 sheet film. Resolution and depth of those images was phenomenal printed b/w to 16x20 at home.

I love digital photography and would never go back to shooting 35mm or even medium format.. But I'd gladly wind the clock back to 15 or even 20 years and shoot 4x5 again..

For me 4x5 is the closest thing to a religious experience.. There is something magical about shooting, processing and printing 4x5 black and white..

[yogestee]

Understandable Jurgen :D.

I had the pleasure of using a Linhoff Technika Press/Field camera some decades back. Being the "press" varient it was a bit more compact than most, and even had a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 roll film back. That was fun to play with along with the 4x5 sheet film. Resolution and depth of those images was phenomenal printed b/w to 16x20 at home.

I cut my teeth on Linhoff Technikas and later Sinar P2s..

I loved the Linhoff but the Sinar was an absolute work of art..

[Depth]

Digital is cool and all, but I still find myself enjoying film more. Maybe that will change if the Pentax 645 Digital is affordable...

[tkbslc]

I didn't mean to get into a film vs digital debate. Film is certainly capable of excellent, and in some cases superior, results. There's a definite technical and "instant results" improvement going to digital, but I think some people just like it analog.

I don't know if anyone bikes, but there is a growing fixed gear movement in most cities. Road bikes got so advanced with super light wheels, integrated brake/shift levers, 30 speeds, carbon everything. Some people just wanted a simple bike. Now you will see a lot of college kids riding around on a steel bike with no brakes and no gears, just the bare minimum. Probably the same with some poeple eschewing digital to go back to 70s full manual gear. It just feels different, simpler, etc.

That said, if you really need to nail the shot today, most would be picking the latest and greatest gear. Same with a bike race.

[johnaengus]

I think it is cool every minute of every day. I worked for a studio in the lat 1980's and the closes we had was a Polaroid back for the Hasselblads. The Macintosh Plus with two floppy drives and 1MB RAM was the big thing too. This digital and being able to post process is the coolest thing ever.

[jacobsen1]

10 years ago, yes I could have turned around prints in an hour, but it would have been a PITA and my fingers would have smelled. ;)

I wish digital had come around earlier and or I was 5~10 years younger though. I just wish I shot more personal stuff when I was in college and I REALLY wish I could have had a blog back then. I would have so many more images and better records of everything I did out in MT while I was there...

[sam walker]

after spending 30 years in the litho printing field I saw acres of monocrome film processsed. We washed away gallons of polluting chemicals. Digital is so much greener.
Sam

[oaktree]

If it were not for DSLR I would just be taking snapshots with a P&S occationally, or possibly using my Minolta SLR with kit lens once in a while for kicks, but I do not think I would be anywhere near as interested in photography as I am today.

+1.

Digital brought back all the good vibes I had when developing b/w film and prints during the 50's and 60's...but now I can do everything in color.

Also, I tried to keep a record of the shots but couldn't keep up using pencil and paper. Now with Lightroom, I have a 10,000+ archive, fully keyworded and it's growing at about 5000 shots per year.

Life is Good :D:D:D

[JeffreyO]

I haven't read every post on this thread but part of the reason I quit pro photography is the stress of not knowing what you got (and other things which is a long story). If there was digital back then it wouldn't have been so stressful. So I REALLY appreciate digital and don't take it for granted even though I'm only shooting for myself now. I also love using the computer so they go together very well.

[yogestee]

Probably the same with some poeple eschewing digital to go back to 70s full manual gear. It just feels different, simpler, etc.

That said, if you really need to nail the shot today, most would be picking the latest and greatest gear. Same with a bike race.

If Nikon released a full frame, manual focus, manual exposure with a large bright, viewfinder, 15MB and around 4-5 FPS at a basement price I'd be lining up to buy one..

I still have a bag full of Nikkor AI-S lenses that would be great on such a camera..