Ever stop to think how cool digital is?

John_B wrote in post #9622595
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 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.

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.

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

tkbslc wrote in post #9622473
I don't know if photography was ever really a prestigious or terribly lucrative career save for the few with celebrity status.

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.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9622382
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.

sapearl wrote in post #9623101
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...

tkbslc wrote in post #9621822
At the very least a digital back for some of the more popular models.

sneakerpimp wrote in post #9622524
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.

sneakerpimp wrote in post #9622221
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.

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=9510878&po​stcount=24
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=9510893&po​stcount=25

Digital photography is completely amazing.

tkbslc wrote in post #9620494
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.

CanonHowitzer wrote in post #9620814
Ansel Adams used to have to take a big tripod camera and glass film plates up the mountains.

We are lucky to be digital.

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.

doubledragon wrote in post #9620864
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.

RPCrowe wrote in post #9621917
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.

sapearl wrote in post #9622273
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.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9622382
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.

The ease and versatility of digital is indeed pretty crazy.

tkbslc wrote in post #9621822
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...

rogazilla wrote in post #9621720
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

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.

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..

Understandable Jurgen .

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.

yogestee wrote in post #9626152
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 wrote in post #9626292
Understandable Jurgen .

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..

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