Is photography going downhill with digital?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by eNo, Oct 31, 2009.

  1. eNo

    Chris H Guest

    His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's
    in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are
    more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S

    However you do have a point about weight and size.
    Now many would say that the quality of your shots was poorer because you
    were "machine gunning". However the professionals used to do something
    similar with film to get the one good shot. People forget professionals
    used motor drives and high capacity backs.
    Also film is not happy in hot environments... it goes off. The storage
    and use temperature range for digital "film" is much higher if less
    waterproof :)
    The power is the one place where film had the advantage. Though with
    solar power for recharging the digital disadvantage is minimal
    True if you think you need a lot of storage for digital prints the
    physical side is nothing compared to the slides, negatives and prints
    from film.
    I agree... however as most photographers are men they *NEED* a new
    camera with the latest gizmos every 2 years... it is a fact of nature
    :))))) Even though digital cameras will last years and out perform film
    for quality.
    Chris H, Nov 4, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. eNo

    Data Point Guest

    No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use, or what
    you have learned from only reading reports about cameras. Military
    photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their
    term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography
    on an entry test. So that's what role they might assign to them, whether
    they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the
    military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem
    too bright anyway. (My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".)
    The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell.
    There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same
    model of camera. The only thing that happened to it was a small hairline
    crack formed by one of the case's mounting screws. They were also using
    them in Iraq by many of the combat personal because this particular model
    was so rugged and dust-proof, since you seem to be concerned on what the
    military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using
    being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even
    saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being
    carried by the men.

    DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly
    never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms. The main
    DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have
    to stop to clean the sensor. Been there, did that, sold them all.
    Condensation on mirrors, focusing-screens, and sensors in cold and damp
    environments. Been there, did that, sold them all. A little condensation on
    the mirror and shutter mechanism as the temperature of the camera drops
    below freezing and the whole thing is useless until you can thaw it out and
    dry it again. Been there, did that, sold them all. The lubricants used in
    DSLR zoom lenses has to be viscous enough to hold their chosen setting in
    position if you change the angle of the lens. Those lubricants turn into
    cement in cold temperatures. Been there, did that, sold them all. No, DSLRs
    are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion
    and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.

    I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature
    photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near
    cameras. I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many
    keepers. An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when
    I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment. In
    particularly interesting habitats up to 1,000 individual photos a day is
    not uncommon. The month I spent documenting some of the rarest orchid
    species in the world (including *the* rarest specimen in the world) where
    few, if no, humans have ever traveled before netted even more shots than
    that per day. When I'm working an interesting habitat I can shoot 24 hours
    around the clock. Many species only appear at certain hours of the day. You
    have to be up when they are. The chance of that location, that hour, that
    day, that weather, that season, and that species may never coincide again
    during your travels. Get 'em when you can, and get 'em good. Making sure
    that you have a camera that can put up with anything in any situation,
    including IR night photography and IR video modes in your P&S camera for
    those nocturnal species.

    I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right
    for the job. Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
    Data Point, Nov 4, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. eNo

    van dark Guest

    Hallo Data point,
    please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
    for your job. My job is similar one.

    Data Point napsal(a):
    van dark, Nov 4, 2009
  4. eNo

    Chris H Guest

    Your comments were on environments camera were used in. The military use
    them in harsh environments with often hard treatment and require them to
    Who said it was in reports? I have used cameras in deserts, rather damp
    wooded environments, cold snowy places and urban areas.
    May be where you are but not where I am... where are you as an anonymous
    person with a fake email address you have no credibility until you
    identify yourself.
    It depends whose' military.... Some are not as bright as others.
    Min too :)
    So it is not one of the normal high street ones then... but a specialist
    Rugged P&S are always useful as they are small and light
    I have with both types.
    Yes and no. It is one of the main drawbacks with DSLR's or SLR's in
    any event. The answer is not to chance the lens any more than yo have
    to. It all depends on what you are doing, where and why.
    But then again I do read that has lots of
    experience. With a fake name and email you have ZERO experience untill
    you identify yourself. There are very many deluded kooks onthe internet
    making out they are experts.
    Only for the last 30 years... in hostile environments as much as comfy
    It depends on what you are shooting where and why.
    So you say

    But has no experience so any experience I have is
    greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem
    identifying yourself.
    Chris H, Nov 4, 2009
  5. eNo

    Chris H Guest

    I suspected as much. If he has done half as much as he claims he would
    be able to point us to a web site full of his work.
    Chris H, Nov 4, 2009
  6. eNo

    Data Point Guest

    For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many
    more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used
    a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender. The best in any cameras and
    optics that I could find that year. They had no equals for durability,
    dependability, image quality, and the widest range of capabilities with its
    included macro, IR imaging, and higher EVF resolution than many present-day
    cameras. As well as the unique and extremely handy swiveling body that
    allows you to also use the EVF, not just the LCD, in awkward framing
    situations. I wish they'd make cameras like that again. Few cameras even
    today can beat the images from that model. Newer is not always better.
    5-megapixels is more than anyone needs for 11"x14" prints (and larger,
    subject dependent) if the optics and sensor are good. 3 megapixels was
    already shown to compete with the finest-grain 35mm films many years ago.
    Data Point, Nov 4, 2009
  7. And you're just a useless poorly snapshooting DSLR-Troll of one name(?)
    this year.

    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Nov 4, 2009
  8. eNo

    Data Point Guest

    Totally removed from the net about 4 years ago because useless trolls like
    you were stealing them. One of the 8 or so websites had over 500 images
    posted from only one of my yearly wilderness-treks. All gone, thanks to
    useless DSLR trolls like you.

    Boo hoo.

    Too bad.

    As if any self-respecting person on earth would ever want to enrich your
    basement-living trolls' life for free. LOL!
    Data Point, Nov 4, 2009
  9. eNo

    Chris H Guest

    Never stolen a photo in my life. Why would I want to?
    Then you will have no trouble giving your real name. Otherwise you are
    just another wanna be troll
    Chris H, Nov 5, 2009
  10. eNo

    Bob Larter Guest

    Don't hold your breath waiting for the P&S troll to point out any of his
    Bob Larter, Nov 5, 2009
  11. eNo

    Bob Larter Guest

    Gee, what a surprise.
    Bob Larter, Nov 5, 2009
  12. eNo

    Bob Larter Guest

    Bob Larter, Nov 5, 2009
  13. eNo

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I have a large number of excellent photographs I took with mine. I
    found it a very good camera.

    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Nov 5, 2009

  14. Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
    Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
    alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
    Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."


    "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
    Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up., Nov 5, 2009

  15. Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
    Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
    alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
    Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."


    "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
    Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up., Nov 5, 2009

  16. Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
    Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
    alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
    Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."


    "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
    Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up., Nov 5, 2009
  17. eNo

    John Turco Guest

    There's an important factor that you appear to be overlooking...which
    is the sentimental value of snapshots.

    Affordable digital photography enables countless people, many more
    chances to capture various moments within their lifetimes; conversely,
    the expenses and processing hassles of film tended to discourage such
    frequent picture-taking.
    John Turco, Nov 23, 2009
  18. eNo

    John Turco Guest

    Allen, why are you blasting the original poster ("eNo")? Whether
    you suspect he's spamming his Web site, eNo's messages are always
    on-topic and a relief from the irrelevant garbage posts, often
    littering this newsgroup.
    John Turco, Nov 23, 2009
  19. eNo

    John Turco Guest

    This was essentially Kodak's strategy, in the old days. The greater number
    of cheap cameras the company released to the public, they more film it could
    sell and process, also. Market penetration, baby!

    Polaroid had a similar idea, and took legal action when Kodak encroached on
    its exclusive domain, during the 1970's. It grew alarmed when Kodak began
    manufacturing and distributing its own proprietary instant film and cameras;
    Polaroid finally won its long court battle, in 1986. (Kodak was ruled to have
    infringed upon Polaroid's patents and therefore, forced to close down that
    segment of its business.)

    Ironically, Polaroid later became a casualty of the digital revolution.
    Unlike the industry giant (Kodak), it failed to adequately adapt to rapidly
    changing conditions in modern photography...and as a result, Polaroid has
    existed in name only, since 2001.

    Tragic, but true.
    John Turco, Nov 23, 2009
  20. Not just that, but the whole workflow has been much easier since the advent
    of digital. It's a lot easier to setup a digital darkroom, than a
    traditional wet darkroom. And you only need a generic PC and a generic photo
    printer! It's also a lot more efficient (including quantum efficiency of
    sensors) and cost effective, because you delete yourself the bad photos. And
    nobody else will see your personal phostos, I remember some of my friends in
    Kozani who were working in a photo lab showed me a photo of a girl in
    underwear, this photo was a part of a film they processed! I swore by then
    to have as little to do with commercial labs as possible.
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Nov 23, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.