Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
Don't get me wrong, digital is GREAT. But there is something to be said for taking the time and effort to get a good shot, and not just blindly shooting off a few dozen shots and hoping for a fluke.
I'm an art director at a magazine, and hire photographers as part of my job. There is no doubt about it in my mind...virtually always, the photographers who use film cameras have consistently better results than those who use digital. Even good photographers who switch to digital, Ive noticed a drop in their quality. It's almost too easy...
|
You're speaking from the point of view of a professional looking for professional quality results. In your shoes, I understand the point.
However, film is NOT a cheap venue for the duffer building his knowledge base and experimenting.
There's no doubt that digital is the way to go for that particular person, a format where he/she might generate tens of thousands of images - all of them "carefully contemplated" if one wishes - at a cost of virtually zero in comparison.
In that situation, the duffer can both "take the time" to set up a good shot or blindly blaze away - and there's nothing wrong with that either in the spot news area - as part of his/her experimentation. One should learn his/her equipment sufficiently to think quickly so a crucial moment doesn't pass unrecorded.
Sorry, for a duffer, I'd have to disagree with going the film route. I would only agree that film, because of its cost, does force you be judicious before you push the button. But that qualification could also be considered debilitating to the overall accumulation of experience.
After all, most SLR digitals these days record all of the information - apertature, etc - of each shot, letting the duffer go back to see what worked and didn't work with various situations.
And yes, I do have a 25 year-old Nikon film SLR I haul out every so often.
My two cents.
Cowperson