5 Aug
2005
5 Aug
'05
9:30 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Jules Richardson once stated:
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 11:32 +0200, Jochen Kunz wrote:
I found the opposite. I recently took a trip to Las Vegas and over five
days took 426 photos. Assuming I used 36-picture rolls of 35mm film, that
would have been 12 canisters, and again assuming I spent $10 total for each
canister (film + developing) I would have spent $120---instead I spent about
$10 for a package of AA batteries (since I didn't want to have to worry
about rechargables during the trip).
I did have my laptop and once or twice a day I would dump the pictures
The question is not analog vs. digital
photography. The question is when
to use what of those two mediums. They are entirely different mediums,
each with its special strengths and weakneses.
One thing I found when travelling is that it's much nicer to have a
conventional analogue film camera vs. digital. It's easy to get hold of
film (and batteries if needed) pretty much anywhere, but with digital
you have to worry about being able to recharge the camera batteries,
finding somewhere to download data off the camera every so often (or
take enough CF cards with you to cover the amount of photos you're
likely to take) etc. from the camera. Just this year alone I've taken
enough pictures (over
1100) to justify the price of the camera (which I got two
years ago).
However, I would *still* love to use my 35mm SLR, but compared to my
digital, it's not really cost effective anymore (at least, at my level of
ability, and besides, the digital camera I can fit into my pocket and take
everywhere with me---I really can't do with with my SLR).
-spc (In fact, I think I've taken more photographs in the last two months
than I did in two semesters of photography in college ... )