Film cameras vs. digital

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Film cameras vs. digital

Postby EMSC » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:31 am

First TR with a nontraditional camera.


While I recall your dislike of digital cameras; I forget why exactly it is that you don't like them? You can always buy used film cameras off Craigslist... and at pretty good prices no less, if that's your desire. Admittedly the transition can be a bit rough at first, but I suspect you'll end up plenty happy with your new DSLR once you give it a chance.

As to skiing on 'broken dishes' ........ YIKES! :shock:
User avatar
EMSC
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:54 pm
Location: Front Range of Colorado

Re: Cascades QC : January 28, 2012 – skiing on broken dishes

Postby Patrick » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:00 am

EMSC wrote:
First TR with a nontraditional camera.


While I recall your dislike of digital cameras; I forget why exactly it is that you don't like them?


Risk of losing a ton of pictures at once (either on the card, CD or harddrive)
Files manipulation for copies, backups, etc.
Durability of a camera. Film camera are mechanical, not electronic involved.

EMSC wrote:You can always buy used film cameras off Craigslist... and at pretty good prices no less, if that's your desire. Admittedly the transition can be a bit rough at first, but I suspect you'll end up plenty happy with your new DSLR once you give it a chance.


I buy a used camera last year. Took 25 rolls with in SA in 2010. 1,500 pictures this Summer in Europe. :shock:

EMSC wrote:As to skiing on 'broken dishes' ........ YIKES! :shock:


It got better the next day.

http://madpatski.wordpress.com/2012/02/ ... powder-gs/

And the following Wednesday night...

http://madpatski.wordpress.com/2012/02/ ... ot-racing/
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4729
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Re: Cascades QC : January 28, 2012 – skiing on broken di

Postby Admin » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:15 pm

Patrick wrote:Risk of losing a ton of pictures at once (either on the card, CD or harddrive)


You've never lost a roll of film from the camera back opening inadvertently or some other cause?

Patrick wrote: Files manipulation for copies, backups, etc.


Which is far quicker and easier with digital files.

Patrick wrote: Durability of a camera. Film camera are mechanical, not electronic involved.


And those mechanical parts, especially the shutter, can easily freeze while skiing.


Sent from my HP TouchPad running Android 4.0
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9976
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Cascades QC : January 28, 2012 – skiing on broken dishes

Postby Tony Crocker » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:50 pm

Just to follow up on admin. My digital pics are on a home desktop, laptop and backup hard drive, easy reference at home or on the road. As opposed to rummaging through photo albums or boxes of prints.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9819
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Cascades QC : January 28, 2012 – skiing on broken dishes

Postby socal » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:24 pm

Don't forget you can upload to a site like picasa or drop box so you have a backup and access from anywhere.
socal
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: LA

Re: Cascades QC : January 28, 2012 – skiing on broken dishes

Postby Patrick » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:42 pm

Admin wrote:
Patrick wrote:Risk of losing a ton of pictures at once (either on the card, CD or harddrive)


You've never lost a roll of film from the camera back opening inadvertently or some other cause?


A whole roll (24 pics), once...and it was my wife that loaded it in Norquay and lost an entire of pictures at Fortress. It never happened again, because I never let her change the pics again. :evil:

Inadvertently opened the camera? the most I would lose it 2-3 pics and it rarely happened. Film broke in SA in 2008, might have lost 2-3 pics. So over in 25 years (same camera), I might have lost 20 pics for that reason + badly loaded camera. I would say at the most about 10 pics in 25 years. To place things in context, I've taken over 1500 pics (film) this summer. Imagine over the course of 25 years. Where are taking 0.0001%. If you card fries, you can lose how many?

The lost of all my pics from SA in 2009 - wasn't a film issue as it was thief. Digital would have been different.

Admin wrote:
Patrick wrote: Files manipulation for copies, backups, etc.


Which is far quicker and easier with digital files.


Still relying on manipulation on the computer plus risk of losing them. I didn't have that hassle with film (mind you, my physical pics are well organized, they occupy more than one bookcase. One of the advantages (I concede), is to share it online.

Admin wrote:
Patrick wrote: Durability of a camera. Film camera are mechanical, not electronic involved.


And those mechanical parts, especially the shutter, can easily freeze while skiing.


Yes, it happened 'twice' over the course of 25 years. Once it was on the day before flying to France for 1 month in March 2003. It was -30c outside and I decided to take a few pics. It wasn't a major issue.

The camera lasted 25 years. The wide angle lens fell (how much vertical Tony) at Big Sky/MB in 2006. The camera feel off tables from Ottawa to the Lake Louise cafeteria. No issue. In contrast, our camcorder that we got for Christmas 99 lasted maybe 5 years before experiencing some serious issues.


Sent from my HP TouchPad running Android 4.0[/quote]
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4729
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Re: Cascades QC : January 28, 2012 – skiing on broken di

Postby Admin » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:14 pm

Patrick wrote:If you card fries, you can lose how many?


Assuming you adopt as a best practice offloading your images nightly as I do, at worst the loss is just what you shot that day. I've had a card fail in my camera precisely once, and I was able to recover nearly all of the images on the card using forensic drive recovery software.

Patrick wrote: Still relying on manipulation on the computer plus risk of losing them. I didn't have that hassle with film (mind you, my physical pics are well organized, they occupy more than one bookcase. One of the advantages (I concede), is to share it online.


Not to mention adding free square footage to your home, apparently. :wink: As Tony points out, you merely store multiple copies in different locations on different drives. Problem solved. No more risk of loss. Two or three hard drives aren't all going to crap out at once and they don't need several bookshelves to hold them.

Upon further thought, however, I guess there's one more thing you're missing: that wonderful anticipation of going home from your trip probably a number of days later, driving to the lab, dropping off your film, driving back to the lab hours or days later, spending a small fortune, and excitedly opening the envelope only to discover that you missed that "shot of a lifetime" completely. :roll:

Sent from my HP TouchPad running Android 4.0
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9976
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Cascades QC : January 28, 2012 – skiing on broken dishes

Postby Patrick » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:41 pm

Admin wrote:
Patrick wrote:If you card fries, you can lose how many?


Assuming you adopt as a best practice offloading your images nightly as I do, at worst the loss is just what you shot that day. I've had a card fail in my camera precisely once, and I was able to recover nearly all of the images on the card using forensic drive recovery software.


Some days in Europe, I was taking 4 rolls (100 pics) a day. Losing the day we were in Chamonix and when to the top of l'Aiguille du Midi or the day we drove from Gap to La Grave and when up the gondola at La Meije. I've still sad at all the powder pics I lost at Fortress ... and don't even talk about my SA trip. That last one rips me apart and I would pay over $1000 just to get those rolls.

Admin wrote:Not to mention adding free square footage to your home, apparently. :wink: As Tony points out, you merely store multiple copies in different locations on different drives. Problem solved. No more risk of loss. Two or three hard drives aren't all going to crap out at once and they don't need several bookshelves to hold them.


The problem is that I'm not printing the digital pics that I've been accumulating since 2005. I like physical pictures like Music CD or vinyl. Books, Magazines. etc.

Admin wrote:Upon further thought, however, I guess there's one more thing you're missing: that wonderful anticipation of going home from your trip probably a number of days later, driving to the lab, dropping off your film, driving back to the lab hours or days later, spending a small fortune, and excitedly opening the envelope only to discover that you missed that "shot of a lifetime" completely. :roll:


You underestimate me, I don't miss my shots of a lifetime. :stir: Only when I have a digital camera and ride the chair lift with the racer's kid dad (see the pics from this TR). :lol:

No need to drive, I don't live in the suburbs. The camera shop (that I've been going since 2003) is in the same building I work (my job, by coincidence moved in that building in 2006 or 2007). I prefer that option than the one of the couple looking at their pictures on their trip while riding the train from Interlaken to Wengen - live the present and look outside at one of the most spectacular place on Earth. ](*,) I was so discourage by it. #-o

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERqnwjXkg-0[/youtube]
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4729
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Cascades QC : January 28, 2012 – skiing on broken dishes

Postby Marc_C » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:15 am

Patrick wrote:
Admin wrote:
Patrick wrote:If you card fries, you can lose how many?


Assuming you adopt as a best practice offloading your images nightly as I do, at worst the loss is just what you shot that day. I've had a card fail in my camera precisely once, and I was able to recover nearly all of the images on the card using forensic drive recovery software.


Some days in Europe, I was taking 4 rolls (100 pics) a day. Losing the day we were in Chamonix and when to the top of l'Aiguille du Midi or the day we drove from Gap to La Grave and when up the gondola at La Meije. I've still sad at all the powder pics I lost at Fortress ... and don't even talk about my SA trip. That last one rips me apart and I would pay over $1000 just to get those rolls.

Both media types are subject to loss or damage, but a digital card is far more robust. Can a roll of exposed film handle an accidental immersion in water? While it does sometimes happen, the fear of digital media suddenly frying is overblown. If it's that much of a concern for a days worth of pictures, take along several cards - they're cheap enough and far more compact than 35mm canisters.

Patrick wrote:
Admin wrote:Not to mention adding free square footage to your home, apparently. :wink: As Tony points out, you merely store multiple copies in different locations on different drives. Problem solved. No more risk of loss. Two or three hard drives aren't all going to crap out at once and they don't need several bookshelves to hold them.


The problem is that I'm not printing the digital pics that I've been accumulating since 2005. I like physical pictures like Music CD or vinyl. Books, Magazines. etc.

Do you really print every photo you shoot? Do you really haul them out regularly and look at them? Is every single film shot really worthy of keeping? With digital you can burn several hundred to a DVD in a slideshow format and display them on your TV monitor. Far more convenient IMO.

Patrick wrote:
Admin wrote:Upon further thought, however, I guess there's one more thing you're missing: that wonderful anticipation of going home from your trip probably a number of days later, driving to the lab, dropping off your film, driving back to the lab hours or days later, spending a small fortune, and excitedly opening the envelope only to discover that you missed that "shot of a lifetime" completely. :roll:


You underestimate me, I don't miss my shots of a lifetime. :stir: Only when I have a digital camera and ride the chair lift with the racer's kid dad (see the pics from this TR). :lol:

No need to drive, I don't live in the suburbs. The camera shop (that I've been going since 2003) is in the same building I work (my job, by coincidence moved in that building in 2006 or 2007).

We haven't even touched on the cumulatively considerable costs of wet processing film compared to digital. Also, how many film shots do you miss because you're concerned about "wasting" a frame or you only have x more exposures on that roll? Does using film ever stop you from taking continuous shots? 3-5 frames/second rapid-fire sequences chews through a 24 exposure roll pretty damned fast. IOW, it's far more likely to miss a lot of action shots shooting film (assuming you're not a professional with all the professional toys - like 150 exposure speed packs).

Patrick wrote:I prefer that option than the one of the couple looking at their pictures on their trip while riding the train from Interlaken to Wengen - live the present and look outside at one of the most spectacular place on Earth. ](*,) I was so discourage by it.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. Just like no one is forcing anyone to be a moron and try to text a message while driving.
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Cascades QC : January 28, 2012 – skiing on broken dishes

Postby Admin » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:28 am

Marc_C wrote:Does using film ever stop you from taking continuous shots? 3-5 frames/second rapid-fire sequences chews through a 24 exposure roll pretty damned fast.


I didn't even get into that, but FYI during a normal action scene that I shoot on any given weekend day I'll shoot 150-200 frames just in a single scene. I'll come home and I may have only taken my camera out of the backpack 3-4 times, but I'll have shot 500-700 photos that day. Try that with film.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9976
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Film cameras vs. digital

Postby EMSC » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:01 pm

Admin wrote:150-200 frames just in a single scene.


I don't know Admin, that seems a bit like 'spray & pray' shooting. Even with your big crew it sounds like a lot of frames being shot hoping to get a few in focus at the right moment.

That said, Patrick should see a definite uptick in capability to get shots of racers for example. Fire a few frames (say 3-5) per racer in your club as they come by you on the race course and you have no need to change out film after just a couple racers. Just keep shooting.

Patrick wrote:Still relying on manipulation on the computer plus risk of losing them. I didn't have that hassle with film (mind you, my physical pics are well organized, they occupy more than one bookcase.


I guess I'm not sure on this one. You've indicated you use a local photo shop which seems to indicate that you never manipulated your images from film. While you certainly can manipulate each image from digital (and cropping, light levels and other simple touch ups can really improve images - even if you 'get it right in the camera') there is no requirement that you do so. There really shouldn't be any additional time involved if you don't want there to be...

Cheap back up hard drive = low to no risk of loss (unless there is a fire at home of course; but then your film pics are toast then too...).
User avatar
EMSC
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:54 pm
Location: Front Range of Colorado

Re: Film cameras vs. digital

Postby Admin » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:07 pm

EMSC wrote:
Admin wrote:150-200 frames just in a single scene.


I don't know Admin, that seems a bit like 'spray & pray' shooting. Even with your big crew it sounds like a lot of frames being shot hoping to get a few in focus at the right moment.


Absolutely, I don't dispute that for a moment. I'm shooting ~2.5 frames per second but can shoot nearly 10 frames per second if I so desire. Action shots in skiing are damned hard to capture well, not necessarily because of the photographer, but more because you're often capturing the subject in an awkward position, i.e. between turns, etc. "Spray and pray" nearly ensures that you'll capture something worthy of posting.

And keep in mind that the numbers I'm describing above are for a single scene, not a single shot. I'm defining a "scene" as where I set up to shoot a 15-second or so sequence each of four to five skiers.

EMSC wrote:Cheap back up hard drive = low to no risk of loss (unless there is a fire at home of course; but then your film pics are toast then too...).


Which is why it's also good practice to store the backup offsite, or use a cloud service. That means nearly zero risk.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9976
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Film cameras vs. digital

Postby Marc_C » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:15 pm

Admin wrote:Which is why it's also good practice to store the backup offsite, or use a cloud service. That means nearly zero risk.

Based on personal experience....
When you're awakened for an unknown reason at 1:30am, groggily stumble over to the window to investigate the abnormally bright light outside, and find the back of your neighbor's house 50 feet away consumed in 60 foot high flames, you rethink cloud backup real fast the next day! :shock:
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Film cameras vs. digital

Postby Marc_C » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:49 pm

Admin wrote:
EMSC wrote:I don't know Admin, that seems a bit like 'spray & pray' shooting. Even with your big crew it sounds like a lot of frames being shot hoping to get a few in focus at the right moment.


Absolutely, I don't dispute that for a moment. I'm shooting ~2.5 frames per second but can shoot nearly 10 frames per second if I so desire. Action shots in skiing are damned hard to capture well, not necessarily because of the photographer, but more because you're often capturing the subject in an awkward position, i.e. between turns, etc. "Spray and pray" nearly ensures that you'll capture something worthy of posting.

Also, while Admin's camera (a newer model of his old camera, which is also what I'm shooting) is very capable and offers many more creative control options than a P&S, it is still a fixed lens camera. It does not focus as quickly as a DSLR.
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Film cameras vs. digital

Postby Marc_C » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:52 pm

EMSC wrote:You've indicated you use a local photo shop which seems to indicate that you never manipulated your images from film. While you certainly can manipulate each image from digital (and cropping, light levels and other simple touch ups can really improve images - even if you 'get it right in the camera') there is no requirement that you do so.

And the "I'm feeling lucky" button in Picasa works surprisingly well a lot of the time; the other times it often sucks, but they have an undo command.
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use