Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,570   Posts: 1,545,477   Online: 1204
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by EdGreene
    1.Failing eyesight
    2. Dim lighting.
    3. Fast moving subjects.
    4. Squirmy, figety children.
    5. Squirming-figety pets.
    6. Photojournalism.
    7. A moving Wedding couple.
    Why do I say this?
    Unlike digital, film is unforgiving and you need to capture the moment in the moment, in particular if you're getting paid.

    One can be as "artsy" as they choose on their own time, but getting paid means using what works and autofocus works.
    Um...

    I have both autofocus and manual cameras and I'd say that my M-series Leicas can handle any of those 7 problems at least as well as, and usually better than, any autofocus I have ever used (and bear in mind I review cameras for the press). That is with 56-year-old eyes.

    What is more, in poor light I can focus fast and accurately without projecting spots of red light onto the subject. According to a friend in the Press Corps, THAT caused some real fun with the Presidential bodyguard when it first appeared.

    Consider how many great photos were made before the invention of auto-anything, and clearly autofocus isn't essential. More than once, in particular, I have been amazed by 4x5 inch boxing pictures from the 40s and 50s.

    Sure, I lose some pictures if I use the Leicas or indeed my old Nikon Fs; but I lose others, for different reasons, if I use autofocus. A lot of it comes down to how you work; what you're comfortable with; and where the pictures are going. A big advantage of digital for press work is that the pic can be on the editor's desk in seconds, but press work isn't the whole of photojournalism.

    Also -- please don't take this as a personal attack -- when you're being paid, one of the things you're being paid for is knowing how to use the camera. In case this sounds like an amateur fantasizing, I am not a stranger to being paid for pictures, having first worked professionally some 30 years ago. I've had a lot of books published and yes, I do have (and use) digital cameras; but neither digital nor automation are necessary for many kinds of photography, even professional.

    Cheers,

    Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

  2. #32
    DBP
    DBP is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,883
    Images
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by EdGreene
    1.Failing eyesight
    2. Dim lighting.
    3. Fast moving subjects.
    4. Squirmy, figety children.
    5. Squirming-figety pets.
    6. Photojournalism.
    7. A moving Wedding couple.
    Why do I say this?
    Unlike digital, film is unforgiving and you need to capture the moment in the moment, in particular if you're getting paid.

    One can be as "artsy" as they choose on their own time, but getting paid means using what works and autofocus works.
    I'm with Roger on this one. My eyes are going fast, which is not surprising considering my dad has been wearing trifocals for a decade or more. And while a good autfocus camera can handle those problems, most rangefinders can do it at least well, and sometimes better. I have yet to find a place where I couldn't focus a reasonably good rangefinder, and that includes the Kalart on my Speed Graphic in dim restaurants. I use autofocus in only a few conditions; dim light when I want a zoom lens, places where I am likely to hand my camera to someone else, places where I can't use both hands (e.g. sailing), and when I am feeling lazy (which often coincides with one of the other conditions).

    If I were shooting something fast moving in fairly low light and needed a long lens, autofocus would be the best answer. And I would want a better autofocus camera than my N50. But I have shot some pretty decent pics of the Blue Angels with a Nikkormat and 90-230 Vivitar, and many great sports pictures were taken with Speed Graphics and even Big Bertha. So autofocus is no more required than an automatic transmission on a car.

  3. #33
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    It's amazing how good you can get at guesstimating distances with a little guess-focus practice.

    Most camera lenses have a distance scale. Sometimes it might be useful to remember what it's for. For that matter - many of them have DOF scales as well!
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith
    The problem I see with most people who use digital compacts for family/holiday snapshots is that they don't tend to print them out any more so they only exist on a computer or a CD.

    The advantage of proper pictures in an album is that you can look at it at any time. Another scenario would perhaps be clearing out the house of a deceased relative - not a nice thing to do in any circumstance but if you find an old album, you will usually have a look through it and recall some happy memories.

    If you find a CD, you are unlikely to spend time putting it into a computer to have a look. These images will probably be lost forever.


    Steve.
    I agree with this.
    I cringe when I see someone shooting with a digi cam and I know they have no intentions on getting physical prints. What happens when that hard drive crashes and all must be wiped off it? Or when that burned CD just won't read anymore? Those pictures are history.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by hammy
    I agree with this.
    I cringe when I see someone shooting with a digi cam and I know they have no intentions on getting physical prints. What happens when that hard drive crashes and all must be wiped off it? Or when that burned CD just won't read anymore? Those pictures are history.
    Personally I just can't see the family going into whatever room the computer is in and standing around it to view the family vacation and holiday photos. You can pass around albums or photos; everyone can remain comfortable seated and no one has to jockey for a good position in order to view the photos.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Brentwood, Contra Costa County, California, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin
    I'm the same with modern 35mm film camera's...I usually have to ask the person how to turn on their camera. My 35mm for family colour snap-shots is a Pentax K1000 who's battery ran out 2 years ago, and I haven't bothered to put in a fresh one. I just take a wild guess on exposure based on the f16 rule or use a manual flash indoors.

    Low tech rarely fails

    Murray
    I'm with you! I use my Nikon FM2 the same way. I don't even bother to focus--just set the lens for hyperfocal distance. There's nothing faster or easier than a manual SLR once you understand how to use it. (Just call me old fashioned, I guess.
    Pat

  7. #37
    Brac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by hammy
    I agree with this.
    I cringe when I see someone shooting with a digi cam and I know they have no intentions on getting physical prints. What happens when that hard drive crashes and all must be wiped off it? Or when that burned CD just won't read anymore? Those pictures are history.
    In the novelty of digital cameras and all those exciting buttons & menus to play with and the "instant" results, the aspect of archival stability is not even considered. So as you rightly say, these pictures will be history. But it will be a few more years before the penny begins to drop with increasing numbers of people. There are going to be lots of disappointed and angry people who sadly find that their treasured family photos have totally disappeared beyond recall. it's already happened to me (when I briefly dallied with digital 3 years ago and a hard disc fatally crashed - now I just use for ebay) and to the friend who figures at the start of this thread - some precious pictures of his daughter were on a memory card which became corrupt.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    I've just auctioned off Kodak Retinette 1a and am pretty happy. It's a lovely-looking, very simple and compact camera, which I want to use in streets sometimes. Hopefully that will help me take snap shots easier.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by anyte
    Personally I just can't see the family going into whatever room the computer is in and standing around it to view the family vacation and holiday photos. You can pass around albums or photos; everyone can remain comfortable seated and no one has to jockey for a good position in order to view the photos.

    I think that's where all the new TVs come in. Many manufacturers want you to use the TV screens for whatever you do.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by firecracker
    I think that's where all the new TVs come in. Many manufacturers want you to use the TV screens for whatever you do.
    Parties for my grandparents birthdays and anniversaries were held at a local community center because of the large number of people that would attend. I can't imagine what kind of set up would have been required for everyone to view photos on TV's rather than picking through the albums, lined up on tables, to be viewed at your leisure.

    Viewing photos on a screen just seems limiting, restricting, and not nearly as social as leafing through photo albums.

    I guess I'm just too old-fashioned for all these technological advancements.

    **edit**

    or perhaps that's too sentimental.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin