[OverlordXenu]

Originally Posted by mbriant

As someone who shot 35mm and medium format film for many years, I tend to agree with much of this. When I used to shoot weddings with medium format, economics ( how much the couple spent for their photo package) would limit the number of shots I could take. So I learned to make every one count. And with experience, like you, I'd never wind up with many, if any, unusable shots. However, having been using digital for a few years now, I can see some real benefits....especially for pro shooters. For one thing, not having to worry about cost of film and developing, with action shots, you can rapid-fire multiple sequence shots whenever you want, which gives you several choices instead of just one for that perfect "basketball dunk" or "bride throwing the bouquet" picture. The same holds true for regular posed shooting as well. Take group shots for example. With film, I could only afford to take perhaps one "just in case" shot for each pose. Sometimes, especially in group shots, despite my best efforts, both shots would wind up with someone having their mouth wide open in mid-speech or eyes droopy or closed. With digital and few extra seconds, you can take several shots without financial penalty ... increasing the chances of getting a good one. This sort of thing is extremely advantageous with shoots like weddings and sports events, where you don't have a second chance to go back and re-shoot. Which leads to a related benefit of digital ... the opportunity to see what you've got on the spot. Finding out that something went wrong right away, when you can reshoot, is way, way, better than finding out when the proofs come back. Being able to take more than 12 or 24 shots without having to change film can be a big advantage as well. Also, with the financial restraints of film shooting, you're less likely to experiment, IMO.

Yes, I find it annoying when someone who really doesn't understand the technicalities of exposure, composition, depth of field, focus, etc., machine guns 500 digital frames, pulls out 2 or 3 that luckily turned out good, and thinks of themself as a great photographer. As you indicated, spending $20 to $35 on film and development, only to find out you have a pile of out of focus, heads chopped off, underexposed material for the recycle bin, is great incentive to learn the craft quicker and keeps your ego grounded. But just as with film, you can choose to study and learn from your mistakes, or simply throw them away and forget they ever happened. Since it's not really hurting anybody, and it gives everyone from newbie to pro a better chance at creating good photos, it's hard to not like digital.

I completely agree with every single last thing you said. If I were a pro (which I never honestly want to be...I think the stress would ruin the fun of photography for me), I would be mostly digital (eg. D3 for stuff in the field, digital Hasselblad back for the studio), but with some film (you really can't beat 4x5, 8x10, and ULF in some situations).

I am really proud that I learned with the same camera that my mother learned with, decades and decades ago. A Pentax K1000. It still works great, aside from the broken light meter.