So where are your pictures?? Start a photoblog... :D

~L.

I worked in a camera store in college and bought all kinds of stuff, but always had the "cost per shot" factor in the back of my head when I used it. After a while it got too expensive as a hobby and I put most of it in the closet and forgot about it. When digital came along, I rediscovered the fun of taking pictures again, and the almost zero incremental cost and instant gratification of digital means my film gear will likely never come out of the bag again.

It's made me a little sloppy, because I can just blast away and ditch the rejects without paying for them, but so what?

Nature photographer CC Lockwood had his office near our store and would bring his Kodachrome to us for developing. He would take dozens of rolls at a time (per day) and to be honest, many of the shots were duds. The good ones, though, were really good. Being able to shoot lots of duds is part of getting the good shots.

Digital is the greatest thing to happen to photography ever - unless you have stock in Kodak maybe.

Oh, and one last thing: another nice thing about digital is that the technology lets you get those pictures from a smaller package. The best performing camera is the one you have with you when you need it. The latest small digital cameras can get the same shots as the bigger and fancier ones. My Casio is about the size of a cell phone and can clip to my belt, so I always have it with me ready to use. I could never say that about film.

DC

PS-Are all the posted photos on here yours? I would love to read a tidbit about each one (hint, hint.)
~L.

I used to do publicity work for a college, and there was one photographer I called on more than others, mainly because he was reliable (you have no idea how many "professional" photographers are total flakes) but also because he was damn good. When I got to talking with him about how he did his job, he told me this: A pro is not all that much different from a good amateur, except for two things. First, a pro is likely to know his equipment better, to know its powers and limitations. It helps to make 80% of his choices automatic. Second, professionals shoot 50 pictures for every one picture a hobbyist shoots. They blow through tons of film. If you've ever seen a photojournalist in action, you know why they have kit bags bursting with film. In most situations, they don't have time to "compose"; they trust their eye to automatically find something interesting (this is the true talent of photography - everything else can be learned) and they just snap away like mad.

Back in Alabama, I had an acquaintance who was a professional photographer and he said pretty much the same thing: "I don't necessarily take better pictures than you; I just take more."

People at work comment on the great photos of Fiona I have on my screen saver, not realizing that to get the 10 I love, there are 100 more that didn't make the cut sitting on a hard drive.

I couldn't agree more. Playing around with different manual settings and being able to immediately view the results is good practice for shooting film. It helps you to get it right, sooner. Hence fewer wasted shots.

I agree 100%. Everything I've read on photography says one of the keys is to take lots of pictures and be willing to throw away 80 - 90% of them. Digital photography makes this practical for us amateurs.

And, don't forget the editing you can do once you get back to your computer. I was disappointed with some pictures I took at the zoo recently, but once I zoomed, cropped, and adjusted, I was pleased with the results. Still threw out over half, but that's okay.

True true... I blew through 10 rolls of film to get 30 shots for a cousin's wedding.

When I was younger, I had the privledge of watching a professional nature photographer (Ron Naveen) at work in the Galapagos Islands. I vividly remember watching him mount a big honking lens on a motor-driven SLR and shoot 10 photos of bird in flight. The bird wasn't doing anything particularly interesting, just gliding along. Three seconds and *clickclickclickclick* ten shots. It was incredible.

I shot 30 rolls of film on that trip. Maybe two dozen were really good quality shots. I still have those photos.

May I suggest an alternative to better pictures involving less shooting, and doable with digital.

I use, and have always used, a Graflex 4x5--mostly in hand. Thus, I had to learn, as the old timers did, to wait for the shot. To wait for the "living" moment when the in-motion picture elements arrrive together at the story. And using the lens-shutter option, I can see that moment, unlike the SLR which blanks it out in the mirror swing.

For a while, I would use a rangefinder digital with the smallest memory I could find.

Just as soon as I work through my stockpile of circa 4600 flashbulbs.

Some good pictures. I am of mixed opinions about digital. I can see the validity of the points Steve mentioned, those are good arguments in favor of digital. But I also find that digital has some things that turn me off personally. I don't like auto cameras, I shoot either an old SLR with a great DOF preview that I use a lot, or medium format gear (Kiev60 or Rolleiflex TLR). I tend to shoot for shallow DOF a lot, and the smaller sensor area of digital seems to make it harder to get shallow DOF, at least on the cameras I've tried. Also, I just like the way older cameras handle better, they slow me down and make me think more. I am seriously considering a film scanner and B&W digital printer though to replace the darkroom.

But it's true about it photography being an expensive hobby. One friend at a photo store said one of his customers said "You didn't sell me a camera, you sold me an expensive charm bracelet!"

I just got my Canon 300d last week and it feels like freedom. Non-stop shooting and you can worry about the details later.

I agree with DC's comment about digital photogs becoming sloppier. I see that often.

One place where film still has the advantage is when you are out in the backcountry for a week or more, camping out, with no electricity or heat other than a fire. In this situation, without the ability to recharge your batteries, or a bag full of disposable batteries, depending on what your camera requires, you have a problem. I have winter camped with my SLR and it worked fine. Fresh batteries to start and a spare pair were sufficient. I haven't put the digital camera to that test yet so I can't say if it'll hold up. In a situation like that, despite my present infatuation with digital photography I will take my ancient & trusty Minolta XG-1 and the required accoutrements along with plenty of Fujichrome Provia along with the digital camera.

Sometimes sloppy can be good, though. You're not, after all, wasting a scarce resource. Rejected pics just go into the digital bit bucket.

Better to cast a wide net.

I'm still stuck in the non-SLR digital ghetto, myself, and still feeling the pain of those delays. But I'll be upgrading to proper equipment before my next big photographic opportunity arrives this fall. :)

Maybe you did this already, but I'd love to see a post on your digital camera and the process you used to decide on the camera you do have.