Re: Digital Sucks - on topic (politics)

OK, I’ll take the bait (seems I can’t resist worms of this flavor).

You’re upset that a gizmo failed you; therefore you are amazed that
people on the alt-photo list use digital devices. That’s something of a
leap, Greg.

I’ve used a Coolpix 5000 for 4.5 years now. It was something of a
landmark camera in Dec. of 2001 when 5MP was high-res and an auxiliary
lens took the wide end to 19mm (35mm equiv.). I traveled to Europe and
the South Pacific with that camera and it never hiccupped once. I even
wrote a review of the Coolpix for a magazine. Sorry to hear that yours
has crapped out; it’s never fun to be disappointed by hardware. But
let's be honest, even Leicas and Hasselblads fail now and then.

In all fairness, the tiny 5000 sees little service these days. I’ve
moved to a digital SLR that is providing 6 x 4.5 image quality yet
affords the lens selection associated with 35mm. That is, WAY more focal
length options than medium or large format. To me, that’s a good reason
to “embrase things with chips.” [sic]

But the best thing about digital capture is purely photographic: we can
do things digitally that we could never have done with film. The High
Dynamic Range work that is so exciting me now is more fun than sex
(well, not quite). By jumping through extreme chemical hoops we could
handle wide scene brightness ranges on black and white film (though not
approaching digital) but with color there is no game whatsoever. Did you
ever try to overexpose-and-under-develop with color film? Not much fun
and not much in results either.

So this morning I’m looking over the 20” x 30”inkjet prints that I
sprayed with a heavy varnish last evening, making sure the coating is
even and thick. (If nothing else, maybe this varnish application makes
the work “alt.”) It’s thrilling to see the depth of color and detail
that modern chips, lenses, papers, pigments and varnish can achieve.

Sidebar: if anyone is interested in the varnish specifics (auto paint
sprayer, compressor, Varnish brand, dilution, technique), I’m happy to
post that too.

Then I see your post about how your old pro-grade film gear still works
just fine but your consumer-grade digital camera has broken. Greg, if
you don’t like digital you shouldn’t use it. Similarly, if you want
pro-gear robustness, don’t buy amateur cameras. But try to understand
that you need not be “amazed” that some of us are having a great time
and making good photographs with (and because of) digital.

By the way, I’m judging a photo competition and teaching a couple
workshops in Anchorage this summer. Guess I shouldn’t count on seeing
you in the audience since I won’t be using or discussing film. ;^)

And yes Greg, no doubt I’ll still be using the “old” compressor and
spray gun long after I’ve moved on to another digital camera. Like they
say, “The pioneer get the arrows and the settlers get the land.” With
your Coolpix drama, you’ve now achieved “Pioneer” status. Congratulations!

Dan

-- 
see Dan's new series at http://www.danburkholder.com/shadows/
www.DanBurkholder.com
www.TinyTutorials.com
Greg Schmitz wrote on 5/25/06, 6:02 AM:
 > Well, my 3 year old $800+ Nikon Coolpix 5000 crapped out yesterday.  It
 > worked fine 3 days ago but it's useless today and, at least here in
 > Alaska, now is PRIME TIME!   My 30 year old Leica works fine as does
 > my 30
 > year old Hasselblad and my 50 year old Linhoff.  Like I said digital
 > sucks.  I'm always amazed that folks on the Alt-Photo list will embrase
 > things with chips (you're getting screwed big time.)  Ho Hum.