Re: benefit of digital camera

I'm definitely not implying this is the same for you
but in my case: I started photography with a
then-state-of-the-art 3mp digital camera (Casio QV3000
- the first 3mp digital camera in the market, this
fact reveals my very short interest on photography)
and had shoot thousands of photos (or snapshots if you
like) until I realised that I was doing good
quantitatively but NOT qualitatively! Putting
technical problems (such as I couldn't use selective
focus, or shoot in extreme contrast) aside, most
importantly I wasn't paying much attention to what I
was doing because it was (or it seemed) very easy to
fix it later in post-processing and/or because I could
check/proof instantly using the LCD screen and
reshoot. As nothing was urging / putting pressure on
me to do better, I wasn't able to advance to the next
level and looking back now I can see I was stuck to
some kind of "mediocrity" (not saying that I'm far
better now)... maybe because it was too easy to get
something "acceptable" and I wasn't "paying" (or
loosing money) for each frame. Then I sold my digital
camera and purchased a meterless, cheap russian
rangefinder (a main battle tank actually) and a cheap
meter, stuff that forced me to "slow down" (in
quotation marks). With the Russian camera, I had to
think more about the exposure, composition, subject
matter ect. because I was "burning money" with every
frame and also as it was clumsy to use, I felt I was
having more time to evaluate the place and subject I
was about to photograph... therefore establishing a
better connection with the place/subject and
evaluating better the photographic opportunities.
Cutting the "bla bla" part short: I feel I'm more
productive now just because I'm using more clumsy
tools and PIA printing methods - in others words, all
the necessary stuff to force me to think and think and
think again before pressing the shutter release
button. And that's good because I believe that a good
photograph starts between your ears. All I can say is
that in my case I have more "keepers" with my clumsy,
costly to use film camera then with my state of the
art free-to-use digital camera (maybe this is also
related to the fact that I was a rookie when using the
digital camera too)... So, I'm not saying digital is
bad; just making my point that productivity does not
only depends on tools but also to the people using
them. Probably you will not be making a mistake by
buying a digital camera, so I second the "go for it"
anyway. But keep in mind that there's no perfect tool
/ method for everyone and a clumsy / slow to use
manual mechanical camera is perhaps better for
starters.

Regards,
Loris.

--- "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> Good morning, all,
> As usual I sit here avoiding writing outlines
> and papers...I decided
> instead to clean and organize all my digital images
> I have taken since July
> when I bought my first digital camera.
> I decided to add up how many images I have
> taken and compute how much
> money I have saved in film and developing costs.
> Mind you, this is just
> acounting for the ones I have *saved*, and therefore
> does not include the
> myriad images I have deleted. In 9 months I have
> paid for my camera twice
> over, in savings. That is an incredibly
> conservative estimate. My advice
> as far as buying or not buying a digital camera?
> "Just do it".
> Chris
Received on Tue Apr 13 14:43:57 2004