Sad to say goodbye.... and an interesting digital/analogue question.

Just wait until the debate starts about the use of a new product called EZShoot.

Part of the graphic design course I did back in the late '70's was a photography class, and I spent many a happy afternoon with an Olympus SLR, then went through that arcane ritual in the darkroom developing the pics. Something very magical about seeing the photograph slowly appear in the developing tray under that red light.

Spent a lot of time in a recording studio in the early '80's, and I don't have particularly fond memories of hanging around all day waiting to do a take while the engineer endlessly twiddled with a kick drum sound. Very happy to be able to record as and when the mood takes me these days.

I still have my Canon A1 Steve.
I take it out every so often just to look at it. I have a lot of very old cameras
but my wife made me store them...I understood.
I have a digital camera now. It seems to dial me in.

I like the digital stuff.
The band for many years had a very nice 8 track analog studio and it was
great fun. It was great for that time. Life is different now and the digital
fits in nicely.

Still takes effort to be good....just a different effort I think.

Hi,

There is a side of the old photography thing that I liked ... knowing the fstops and the shutter stuff was nice, because you could easily add/subtract the background and add something else to the picture.  But you don't really get more of this until you also do the photo lab thing, and you know that you can adjust the printing so you only get that part over there, and it looks like it was the photographer's shot, but in reality it was only a quarter of the whole picture.

So far, I just bought me a cheapie digital camera, it's ok ... though I'm finding that when I want a specific shot, to make adjustments on the digital camera is a hassle ... but this might be on the account of its "automated" stuff, instead of my knowledge of the camera and its lenses.

I always had a Wide Angle lens, that was also a Zoom that went quite far, and I miss the Zoom lenses in the digital cheapie ... I always liked the idea of adjusting how far and how close ... which is something that comes from film, for me ... for example, if someone is licking their lips, a face shot would not be as efficient as one with just th elips and the stop action of the moment ... this is easy to see in film and in some of the digital stuff that films it, but really hard to select the proper moment with a live camera. In this case here, my trusty AE-1 was dandy, because I already knew I could move this 2 stops to the left (or right) focus, and then go for it.

All in all, I will be able to add more to this later as I get used to my little bugger and go from there.

But I got my eyes on that one biggie with a couple of lenses so I can get back and shoot the music again ... who knows ... we might even see a few shots of Bapu playing some stick on his hand!
 
I'm thinking (can't tell yet) that effects are going to be the hardest thing to learn with digital cameras. I'll let you know after I take the class from a good friend of mine, and professional photographer ... he does night courses here in Vancouver on Digital Photography ... but I'm not sure that my cheapie camera is good enough for his class ... knowing him, a bit more is better! 

I always end up thinking in terms of quantity vs quality. We never had fancy cameras when I was a kid, but I remember each photo being precious. W/ only 12 or 24 shots in a film, you didn't want to waste a single one. So taking 40 pics of yourself at Time Square on your first trip to NY was out of the question. Similarly, you wouldn't take a picture of your meal.

Easier access to unlimited pics somehow changes our relation w/ photos. Almost as if photography was a way to immortalize something back in the days, whereas now, it's a way to share the moment make the present more "official". As if things weren't happening unless we take a picture and update Facebook. As if we didn't really take pictures for us, but to share, to have witnesses. It's all about now.

On a similar note, one thing that bugs me to no end... When I go see the show and see all those people w/ their iPhones and iPads filming, sometimes paying more attention to their screen than to what is happening on stage. And then uploading all those crappy quality bootlegs to YouTube. It's like, who will ever want to watch that stuff anyway? I can't believe that the people paying over $100 for a ticket will actually watch that thing again after they've dumped it on YouTube... Yet they miss most of the show.

Musically, I think there is a parallel. Coming from the old days, even though digital audio removed limitations and we can now "keep the tape rolling" and record every idea, personally, I'm still thinking in terms of highlights and moments. And there is something about earning those moments, earning the skills. It's always about making the best possible song in order to learn and be able to do even better the next time. It's all part of a long-term process, so instant gratification isn't part of the objective. And some songs are written just for that purpose - not to be shared. Their like a study or something.

Hi,
 
Nice one Paulo ... and yeah ... I agree.
 
I am having issues converting to video from the film camera, despite the obvious ability that it is much easier now and it was prohibitive then ... for some reason, I have not enjoyed editing things on the computer screen as I did manually in the old days, It was cool to count the frames and match the music, or soundtrack ... even if it took longer than it does now.
 
Today, you can sync all three cameras, or however many you want, and while this makes things easier for filming, in the end, there are some fine moments that only something out of sync will give you! And many of the directors in the 60's and 70's in film? ... yep ... they took advantage of those moments to create odd responses and details, and was one of the oldest tricks in the books for horror films ... sound out of sync has a way of scaring people, or distract them, and you can POP something else at them!
 
The photography side was interesting for me. My boss was a professional photographer, and he had no talent whatsoever for "moments" in time. He did portrait all the way, regardless of school, sports or whatever. Consistently good, though I have to admit. 9 years there and we lost maybe one or two rolls of 35mm film that got eaten up somewhere!
 
Coming from "film" I always found and could get the "moments" that make a picture special. For me, "arts", "literature" and "music" have always been about these "highlights" which makes us remember them forever ... so I set out as a kid to look for those moments ... and guess what I find ...  a movie camera ... because I can see those moments and grab them ... and for me it's the same thing in music, with the exception that the majority of musicians are too self-conscious and afraid of rehearsal, with a director, so they can "get out" of their minds enough to look at the possibilities. I have never had issues with this with a camera in my hands, film or otherwise, except once ... I was doing a nude shoot for a lady, and I don't know if I was intimidated, or it simply did not work, or the ideas and poses she had just did not match what was in front of us. In general, that is one of the hardest types of shoots. It is easier on film than still photography, btw!

Good point re quality v quanitity Rain. One of the downsides of the digital age for sure is the utter crap that people seem to think worthy of being posted to FB and the likes and it never ceases to amaze me. I think that it has a lot to do with people's seeming perception these days that their every thought / action is somehow worthy of worldwide publication, when it is in fact generally quite the opposite. I'm not sure where this came from - chicken or egg ? Has the digital world produced all these deluded, ego-centric beings or were they always there just lying in wait for the appropriate means with which to inflict their narcissim on the rest of the world ?

You know, one of my favorite bands was Nine Inch Nails. However, it struck me recently that half of their catalogue was, imho, fairly poor.

Over the course of their first 10 years, NIN put out 4 albums. Then, in a matter of 4 years, they released just as many.

Looking back, the first 4 albums were released at a time where Reznor didn't have absolute control over the projects. He had people programming drums, people creating sample libraries, and digital audio was still pretty much in it's early days. Analog tape, SSL boards and all the rest were still involved, even though they were using the latest gadgets.

But from the moment he went on to record With Teeth and onward, where the line between creation and the recording process began to blur, the music began to suck pretty badly. I guess it seemed a good thing to him not to have to compromise and to have absolute creative control, but as a listener, the results were sometimes terrifyingly boring.

Most of that stuff would have ended up on remix albums and b-sides back in the days. And that's something I used to dig - those precious little oddities. It was like being given access to the creative process, yet, somehow, it was a totally distinct experience.

But for the second half of NIN's career, it's almost as if anything he recorded was released. Talk about 2 hours of ominous atmospheric piano... About as exciting as an old pair of socks.

So Steve... are you OK with it now that is done? I know you are... digital is so much easier. I am all for easier. I have a roll of 35mm film I found that was taken sometime in the last 10 years... I cannot wait to see what is on it, grand children I am sure.

J

Digital reduces the cost of a photograph. I take many, many more than I did with film, but probably end up with same number of good ones and many more rejects. Its certainly useful to be able to bracket exposures and take rapid succession shots when photographing people or action without worrying about the cost of film.

If you are serious, shooting RAW images is the way to go. I have a Canon EOS 450 and use Adobe Lightroom to process the RAW images. I keep thinking I should add something like Photoshop Elements for extra capabilities but Lightroom meets most of my needs and covers a lot of ground that is missing in Elements.

I know results would improve if I used manual mode more, but most of the time my camera is in aperture priority mode and auto focus. And with image stabilizer lenses the tripod is used far less. There is nothing like using a tripod to make you really think about a shot.

I still have my old Nikon 35mm kicking around somewhere - can't remember the last time I used it.

Digital reduces the cost of a photograph.

 
You are right for sure. I sometimes use my Wife's camera. She has several, successful I might add, online shops so she needs good photos. When I use her camera I think nothing of setting it for continuous (or whatever the name is) and just clicking away. It is almost like a movie at several frames per second... of course you can also take a movie with most modern digital cameras and then pull a picture out of the movie if you want, crazy! I have a smaller pocket digital along with the Zi8. For most of my puropses the Zi8 is fine. Hers is a Canon Rebel EOS T3i, it has the regular lens and I bought her a nice macro lens that cost almost as much as the camera body.
I never studied photography but I do know that with my Mamiya 35mm I would be much more selective if time and circumstance allowed. I have no idea if I got better pictures that way or by just taking a whole bunch of them, I suspect the digital is better just from the sheer number of pictures you can take in a short time with no worry about the cost. More to your question, even though I never studied photography, I (using the 35mm) was certainly aware of film speed, apature, lens speed especially, and which lens I should probably use and I got some great pictures. Always aware of where the sun is with either camera. That said... I think that the Digital SLR gives the user such an edge over having to set everything manually (and think about cost) that it cannot help but give the user better pictures. As for a pro who uses a camera to make a living, I don't know. I would think that they would have and use both digital and film and make great pictures with both.
I have been in a recording studio, not to record but to be shown around (Capricorn, in Macon, GA). It was cool to see where the ABB stood and recorded their albums but I really didn't gain anything other than a great memory. I have been in a professional photography studio a LOT. My dad and my uncle were close. They built homes next to each other. My uncle was the town photographer back in the 40s through the 60s and into the 70s. He did everything, all the weddings, all the portriats, all the school pictures, he was the crime photographer, he was the only photographer and I went in his studio whenever I wanted to. He mostly used large format cameras, even at home on holidays. Then he also had the 35mm cameras. He gave the Mamiya to my dad and my dad passed it on to me... so I have been around a LOT of professional photography and I am absolutely sure that if he were still around he would be using a digital SLR. He would have the others too but loving the art the way he did... he would be using digital and getting both more and better pictures. The art is in the person and a good digital SLR will out perform a 35mm SLR. I think there is something to be said for having a good medium format camera, if you can afford one. I could never justify the expense but I would LOVE to have one.
Good memories... and as Glyn said... after the initial cost of the digital SLR the price of pictures is nothing compared to using a 35mm.
I remember that huge camera from the 50s with a big flash bulb for every picture... but we have good pictures from back then, if black&white... still good and priceless to me. Think, Jimmy in the old Superman shows. That was the kind of camera he mostly used.
 
Anyway... I think you have it figured out and in a short while your oly question will be, "What took me so long?"... Good luck with digital!!
 
Julien

RobertB

I agree with the general consensus that it's really the skillset, not the medium, that makes the difference.

I think I'd have to disagree with that. I have a mid-line Panasonic camera and I've taken some incredible photo's that I never could have dreamed of taking with older equipment.

I just set it to 'Auto', it sets itself, I hold the button down half way until it beeps and the crosshairs turn green on the display, I press it the rest of the way down and that's it. I can (and have on vacation) take 1,000's of photo's. I took over 4,000 on my 2 week trip to Yellowstone. The vast majority come out so so, but there is that slim percentage that comes out incredible that I never would have got with pre-digital.

Worrying about the cost of film and wasting it on bad shots and the 'learning' process, really pushed me away from photography back before digital came along.

I mainly take photo's of wildlife when on vacation and taking 30 ~ 40 shots of something running across a field 200 feet away doing 20MPH, trying to get a good shot, would get very expensive with an older camera for someone like me.

Well, anything I might have said has been covered, sooo... ya!