Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF Polls

View Poll Results: What % of your shots are digital?
Zero. I'm 100% faithful to film. 106 36.43%
1 to 30%. I'm getting into it. 62 21.31%
31 to 70%. I do both. 75 25.77%
71 to 99%. Mostly digital now. 36 12.37%
100%. No more film for me! 12 4.12%
Voters: 291. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Transition to digital ?
Old 10-28-2004   #1
JohnL
Very confused
 
JohnL's Avatar
 
JohnL is offline
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 720
Transition to digital ?

I know there are few real digital RFs as yet, but there are many digital viewfinder "prosumer" cameras, and many, perhaps most, of those who haunt the RF forum also shoot other types of camera. I was wondering how far the transition to digital has gone among us ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #2
digitalox
RF Extraordinaire
 
digitalox's Avatar
 
digitalox is offline
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Age: 45
Posts: 379
My only digital is broke, so I have no choice. film only. wasn't a great cam anyway. I'll try to wait until the price comes down and the quality goes up before i buy another.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=381'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #3
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
 
Pherdinand's Avatar
 
Pherdinand is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: by the river called the Gender
Age: 42
Posts: 7,823
well, something like 1 to 2 % but it's not really a matter of faithfulness to film. (To me.)
__________________
Happy New Year, Happy New Continent!
eye contact eye
My RFF Foolery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #4
Kin Lau
Registered User
 
Kin Lau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,680
My poll answer is a little misleading. I'm mostly an SLR shooter to begin with, and since getting the dslr, and the fact that there are very few keepers when shooting birds, means most of my shots are digital.

I'll go out at times and just shoot with the RF's, but it's bird migration session right now, so I'm burning thru a lot of shots w/ the dreb.
__________________
Of course I have a photographic memory: over exposed, under developed, grainy and out of focus

<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=583'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #5
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
I went from 100% film decades ago to NOTHING for the past twenty years to 100% digital about five years ago and now back to 100% film. Nothing against digital, just lost my digital camera and not happy with the replacement and now I wait and save for a digital SLR to take my M42 and Canon FD lenses. But having gotten back 'into' film, I doubt I'll ever abandon it again. Hey, I like both!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #6
Designer
Keven
 
Designer is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 51
Posts: 459
For taking photos w/. my baby daughter, I always shoot digital. Otherwise, almost all using film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #7
lars
Registered User
 
lars is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 136
Another tired post from me, saying how I have embraced digital, although I still shoot film every now and then just 'cuz I don't (YET) have a digital camera with the same handling / performance qualities as my rangefinder and film SLR.

I'm going on a 4-day trip down to the Oregon coast and am torn btwn bringing my film SLR or my digital prosumer (Minolta A1). A big consideration (literally) is our 25 lb, 14 mos. old son whom I will be hauling on my back on hikes along the beach. The A1 is very small but capable where as my Maxxum 7 produces gorgeous results with Reala 100...but the 70-210/4 lens is heavy. And my wife is small, so getting her to carry the baby or my film gear is going to be a painful experience for me. The A1 might be the right choice, and the Max 7 a few years from now when he can walk on his own.

I suppose I could also bring my Bessa R and take a couple of film shots.

Larry
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #8
rover
Moderator
 
rover's Avatar
 
rover is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Connecticut
Age: 53
Posts: 13,923
Just for the stuff I am selling.
__________________
Dad with a Camera

Millennium M6TTL with Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton

rover's world at flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #9
Rich Silfver
Batteries Not Included
 
Rich Silfver is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 2,687
My answer was 1-30% (closer to 1 than 30..) but I'm not 'getting into it' as the poll answer states but rather quite happy with just using it for quick snaps of stuff once in a while.

Love film.
__________________
My favorite RF cameras right now:
Leica III (F), Leica M3 and Contax IIIa



.........................
Blog.........................Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #10
MP Guy
Just another face in the crowd
 
MP Guy's Avatar
 
MP Guy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,466
I'm in the market for a digital contax N. However, as always, looking for the best deal.
__________________
-- JT

www.leicaimages.com
www.ZeissImages.com
www.l-mountimages.com

Developer of the RFF gallery Software and some other cool stuff.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #11
GeneW
Registered User
 
GeneW's Avatar
 
GeneW is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Port Credit, Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 3,223
I shoot both. Rather than do an image count, I voted on the basis of how often I take out one or the other. It's about 50-50, but the digital results in a higher number of images.

Love my RF's, Love my DSLR ...

Gene
__________________
genewilburn.com
Gone digital: Olympus E-P7, Sony RX-100 II
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #12
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,018
Looks like I'm in the same position as Rich. Very low digital use, and content with that. I got the digital mostly to document property-manangement issues and also for quick snaps to illustrate some point in online discussions.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #13
sfaust
Registered User
 
sfaust's Avatar
 
sfaust is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 509
I shot a little digital, but was very unhappy with the focus, shutter lag, and blown highlights and bad exposures. So I shot mostly film. Then my clients (editorial/Corporate) starting asking for digital, so I got a high quality digital SLR. I immediately starting shooting more and more digital as all the issues I had with digital were now gone. Very fast AF, no shutter lag, excellent optics, highlights well under control. And printing 11x14's that were indistinguishable from film, I swithed all most all of my work to digital. The last year, I started shooting more and more black and white film, and am now about 80% digital and 20% film. But I do see that changing even more toward digital as time goes on. Especially with the high quality MF digitals that blow away 35mm, but the price has to come down first.
__________________
Stephen
www.StephenFaust.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #14
lars
Registered User
 
lars is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 136
sfaust made the exact point I was about to post. It looks to me like a lot of digital dissatisfaction is the result of a bad experience with a low end or jurassic-era digital camera. Once you move up into the expensive stuff with real dials, knobs, and dedicated buttons, and better AF and reduced lag, you enjoy digital much, much more.

I started with an Epson 850Z and I *KNEW* it would suck greatly compared to a film camera of half the price. But that didn't stop me from buying an A1 a few years later. The 850Z is still used for its original purpose (taking static pics for web content) where as the A1 was bought for my photography hobby and therefore it had to have performance and an interface similar to what I'm used to using.

Larry
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #15
wierdcollector
Keeper of The Horde
 
wierdcollector's Avatar
 
wierdcollector is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: northern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 368
I have a foolishly cheap Vivitar digital but no idea if it even works as my 'puter won't recognise it. I didn't buy it, my wife got it with points from a credit card. I'm still so computer challenged I can't figure my scanner out, so it's gathered dust for over a year. No great interest on my part I'm afraid. When I need a photo to post, I have Walmart put my shots on disk. I enjoy viewing others' work, but most of mine isn't worth judging or posting.
__________________
The ten second rule is a little different at my house. When there are ten seconds left in an auction, it's time to fire off a bid.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #16
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
 
SolaresLarrave's Avatar
 
SolaresLarrave is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: DeKalb, IL, USA
Age: 59
Posts: 7,476
I don't even have a cheap digital... So, I'm all for film use!
__________________
-Francisco
Check out
My Leica M4-2 Blog and/or
My Nikon D700 Neophyte's Guide
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #17
hinius
Registered User
 
hinius is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 42
I would literally sell my soul for a digital Konica Hexar/Canonet/Yashica Electro. The technology is definitely available for a digital fixed-lens rangefinder with classic handling and super low-light performance.

Unfortunately, it would appear that it is only the law of supply and demand that prevents such a camera from existence. As a result, I am bypassing capitalism and appealing directly to the higher (or lower) divine powers! I repeat, I will sell my soul.
__________________
<a href="http://www.hinius.net">[email protected]</a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hinius">[email protected]</a>
  Reply With Quote

More digital shots because...
Old 10-28-2004   #18
vladhed
R.I.P. 1997-2006
 
vladhed's Avatar
 
vladhed is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Perth, Canada
Age: 51
Posts: 310
More digital shots because...

it doesn't cost anything, so I tend to just shoot shoot shoot. But I usually get crap, crap, crap. So in terms of "good" shots, it is about 50 - 50 digital to analog.
__________________
- Dominic Richens
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2004   #19
LionFlyer
Registered User
 
LionFlyer's Avatar
 
LionFlyer is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 53
I mostly shoot with film. I have 1 Nikon MF body and 2 Nikon AF bodies and a modest collection of Nikkor glass plus 4 Range Finder cameras. I also have an Olympus 2020 and a Sony S75 for digital. The olympus is used mostly for IR images or for photos I plan to only need for the computer. The S75 is a snap shot camera. When I want the images to be around for a long time I put them on film. Real life story about film. My brother found some negatives at our Mom's place going back to when I was a kid. He asked me what the words Safety Film on the negatives ment. He has been scanning them and emailing them to me. After 40 years the images on the film are still usuable and all that was done was to put their enevelopes in a box. My floppies from 1982 are so long obsolete I don't think they can be read today by any working computer. If the data on them is even still viable. So I use film when ever it matters. Digital when it does not.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=358'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2004   #20
matu
Pablo Maturana
 
matu's Avatar
 
matu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chile, South America
Age: 49
Posts: 230
I don´t like the way the Digital Images are made.
Cheap lenses, Digital Zoom? Auto exposure.... are far away of the romantic, heavy and old trash I´m used to carry.
I think it´s not the format what does it matter, It is the way you shoot the photo, I like to see the speed, the F-stop, play with the wheels, knobs, with the light meter....
Maybe when I´m Old I´ll buy a Leica Digulux 2 on flea market.
__________________
M6 Titanium Classic
Leica M3 SS
Leica IIIb
Canon P

Summicron 35/2 IV
Summitar 50/2
Elmar 9cm
Elmar 3,5cm
Canon 50/1.2
CV Color Heliar 75/2.5
Industar 50 Collapsable.
Black Jupiter 9 and
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2004   #21
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,533
Hi!

Happy Holidays!

I never thought digital would catch my fancy. It has. I made my first purchase in May as recommended by my friend Monte Zucker.

It has been a wonderful experience for me. I simply love using digital photography for the work. I primarily operate my camera in manual mode because of the way I want to paint images of people with light.

For me, the transition has been quick because of the fact that I took pictures a long time ago with primarily transperancy (slide) film. Slide film has many of the same requirements for exposure as digital.

I just purchased a Canon 20D and a EF "L" 24-70 f2,8 lens. I'm going to use it at my last wedding for the year on December 18. I'm really looking forward to it!

Cheers!
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2004   #22
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 2,532
I've broken three digital cameras since 1999. There wasn't much romantic appeal for me either until I discovered the macro mode on pro-sumer digicams.

Those small CCD sensors and 7mm focal lengths really are good for some things, especially if they are small and you want to get really, really close in.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus an Oly 35RD and a Voigtlander Vito II
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2004   #23
peter_n
~
 
peter_n's Avatar
 
peter_n is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,772
Hi Bill and welcome to the forum!!

I have had a Casio digital camera for many years but never use it, so I voted 0%. I think the combo of film camera and scanner works pretty well.
__________________
_
~Peter

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2004   #24
GeneW
Registered User
 
GeneW's Avatar
 
GeneW is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Port Credit, Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 3,223
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Clark
Hi!

Happy Holidays!

I never thought digital would catch my fancy. It has. I made my first purchase in May as recommended by my friend Monte Zucker.

It has been a wonderful experience for me. I simply love using digital photography for the work. I primarily operate my camera in manual mode because of the way I want to paint images of people with light.

For me, the transition has been quick because of the fact that I took pictures a long time ago with primarily transperancy (slide) film. Slide film has many of the same requirements for exposure as digital.

I just purchased a Canon 20D and a EF "L" 24-70 f2,8 lens. I'm going to use it at my last wedding for the year on December 18. I'm really looking forward to it!

Cheers!
Sweet camera and lens, Bill! I have a Digital Rebel and love it. My main walkabout lens is the EF 28-135mm IS. Image Stabilization is great stuff.

Enjoy the 20D!

Gene
__________________
genewilburn.com
Gone digital: Olympus E-P7, Sony RX-100 II
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #25
berci
Photographer Level: ****
 
berci's Avatar
 
berci is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Age: 43
Posts: 280
Hi Rangefinders!

I'll stick to film (or the film will stick to me), because it's easy to archive it. It will be very hard to store digital images on any medium for decades.

berci
__________________
"I'll start from scratch."
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #26
chenick
Nick's my name!
 
chenick's Avatar
 
chenick is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 294
I voted "1 to 30%. I'm getting into it."

Should really read "I'm getting out of it!"

From 2000 to early 2004 I was completely digital, but never happy with shutter lag or resolution etc...

Now digital seems to have reached an acceptable quality/usability level; however this is in very expensive high end cameras... and I have since discovered the joys of of old RFs, and the look of film, which I much prefer!

So no new digital cameras for me (unless they're gifts!)

-Nick
__________________
My RFF Gallery
My flickr Gallery
My deviantART Gallery


Stuff I use:
Bessa R3A & 50mm Nokton, 75mm Heliar | Olympus 35 SP | Olympus XA | Yashica Electro 35 GTN | Pentax ME Super, Samsung GX-1S
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #27
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,905
Quote:
Originally posted by Honu-Hugger
Digital was invented for our "Camera and Coffee" thread.

D2
LOL, works for me. I voted >31% but that is probably too high unless you count scanning. And perhaps we should. I get a kick out of seeing people in forums stating they are film only and yet post photos which they have scanned and tweaked digitally. I guess they don't see it that way, but to me, that is using digital. Not a digital camera of course, but still digital use.

Currently my only digital camera is a Toshiba 4300 which has everything I want except interchangable lenses, and in camera b/w mode. I have been experimenting with it a lot lately and taking a lot of snap shots with it. It is a fun camera to use.

I'm with Bill on wanting to be able to use my screw mount lenses (especially the Fujinons) and I think I read there is an adapter for one or more of the Canon cameras to do so. What is holding me back besides a love of film's look and capabilities is cost.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #28
Biber
Registered User
 
Biber's Avatar
 
Biber is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 184
100% film. I used to have a digital camera but I got rid of it a while ago since I never used it for anything beyond snapshots.
__________________
I am a shaman, magician!

http://biber.ath.cx
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #29
sfaust
Registered User
 
sfaust's Avatar
 
sfaust is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally posted by chenick Now digital seems to have reached an acceptable quality/usability level; however this is in very expensive high end cameras...
Thats the key right there. Unless you purchase one of the high end digital SLR's, you have to put up with all the compromises they make to keep the consumer cameras reasonably priced.

I would compare the consumer vs professional digitals like I would an advanced P&S film camera to a professional level film SLR.

But once you get into the professional level DSLR's, the whole world changes and those issues just go away. But the expense stays

Quote:
Originally posted by BersiIt will be very hard to store digital images on any medium for decades.
I find the archival end of digital head and shoulders above film. I have boxes full of binders with 35mm slides and negatives in them. Most even organized and labeled. But I'll be damned if I could find those shots I took in 1987 with that blonde model I remember so well. I'd have to go through quite a few binders to find it. Then again, it could have been 1988, in which case its a couple more binders to search. Oh shoot, what if it was 1986? Damn...

With the last few years worth of digitally archived images, I can find anything I want within a matter of minutes. My image management software even tells me which disk its one, and I just go get it and plop it in. Searching is a dream, and you can drill down and down looking for obscure images easily. And browsing thousands of images looking for something interesting to play with in PS is a joy, where going through the binders is much more work. When I travel, I don't take my binders, but the image management software with all the thumbnails is always on my laptop. So I always have access to any image I've taken digitally and archived.

The media has never been an issue. I've got images (and text, documents, etc) on disk that were created on the original IBM PC-XT (what, 20 years now).! They just were copied every 5 years or so from one media to another as technology progressed. Going from 5.50 floppies to 3.25 floppies, later moved to a Zip Drive, then CD-ROM, and now reside on a fresh brand new DVD. The transition was effortless, cost very little, and now the images are just as good as they were 20 years ago, and sitting on fresh media good for much longer than it will take to move it onto new media as the technology changes. I don't see any issues with doing this for the next 200 years. Migrating to current technology is easy, costs very little, and secure for the long run. Also having multiples copies of them makes me feel better where as knowing if my house burns down I've lost all my film images At least I'll have my digital images on the dupes left at my mothers house!

Also consider that all the major newspapers, magazines, periodicals, corporate media departments, sports departments, etc, are all using digital imaging. With the importance of all those images, billions of images, and the dollar value they represent, the technology will always be there to access this media. We are not going to wake up one day and find that we can't read our images anymore. As technology moves on, the images get migrated to the new technology. They will be current, fresh, 100% as the original, and the older stuff becomes backups, probably still readable for many years and a couple migration cycles. I can still find a 5.25 floppy disk drive to read my images from 20 years ago if I wanted. But there is no need, since they are now on DVD, and will be on the next technology wave when it comes.
__________________
Stephen
www.StephenFaust.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #30
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 2,532
That's easy for you to say.

I've been using a digital for 5 years. I find the migration from one generation to the next generation of computers or media to be a less than pleasant task. It's a chore.

I will say it is imperative to at least put your most important image files on a UNIX server and purchasing jewel cases for your CD-R files is money well spent.

I find it is commendable that you are able to find all your previous raw files, as well as your finished and manipulated files as easily as you say.

In regard to storing negs and prints with a Print-File system, it too is a chore, but once it's done it's done.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus an Oly 35RD and a Voigtlander Vito II
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #31
EsaS
Registered User
 
EsaS's Avatar
 
EsaS is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 34
Digital has been really a different experience. I bought my first digital in may. It was Nikon D70. I had a Nikon film system.

To me, main advantages of digital are speed of post processing when pictures are needed fast and immediate feedback, pure colors and "clean", grain-free results.
But I still use film. I regard also slides as a final product and nothing has yet come close to projected slides in digital world.
And B&W films, it is really relaxing to work with them.

Yet, I am eagerly waiting digital RF:s, after Epson did open the game.
Esa

Last edited by EsaS : 02-22-2005 at 11:00.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #32
Socke
Registered User
 
Socke is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,876
Quote:
Originally posted by berci
Hi Rangefinders!

I'll stick to film (or the film will stick to me), because it's easy to archive it. It will be very hard to store digital images on any medium for decades.

berci
This must be the reason why banks don't use computers
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #33
sfaust
Registered User
 
sfaust's Avatar
 
sfaust is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally posted by Solinar
>> I've been using a digital for 5 years. I find the migration from one

I'm surprised that you've migrated at all if you've only been shooting digital for 5 years. I've just finished a migration from my last one about 7 years ago. Yes, it is a chore, but only took a day. 1 day in 7 years isn't an issue for me. I could always farm it out for around $200. And $200 over 7 years again isn't that much in the long run.

>>> I will say it is imperative to at least put your most important image files on a UNIX server and purchasing jewel cases for your CD-R files is money well spent.

A server would be nice but overkill in my opinion. I keep all my important images also on a external 260GB disk for easier access. All the other images are only stored on the discs, and only access rarely. Almost as good as a server.

>>> I find it is commendable that you are able to find all your previous raw files, as well as your finished and manipulated files as easily as you say.

Its not that hard at all if you put it in your workflow. Files get batch renamed, written to disk, and I use IMatch as my image database. They get general categories and keywords assigned to them, and easily retrieved. I don't go nuts with keywords, but I can drill down enough to limit my search to say a couple pages of 50 images each. I can usually find that farily easily on screen in a few minutes.
It probably adds about 5 minutes to my workflow when archiving. A pittance considering the time it takes me to seach for images if I don't do that.

For example, I drill down by entering the following;
Model
Boston
Samantha M

I will get all the iamges I've taken of Samantha M done in boston and filed under model portfolios. Out of all the records, there are about 100 images all taken on two occasions.

Same with Aviation;

Aviation
In-Flight
Turbines
L39

And I get about 200 images. I can find the one I am looking for very easily since I've just eliminated all the other images in the database that are not L39 aircraft.

When I archive the images, I just select the group of images, which is almost always from the same shoot or generic category, and assign three or four keyworks, and I'm done. Burn the disk, file it, and move on. Not as hard as one might think.

It also automatically indexs all the EXIF information, so I can search by camera type, model, exposure, date taken, date modified, date filed, media id, file size, shutter speed, etc. Much of it useless, but none the less, another way to drill down to a smaller subset. T

It keeps all this data in a database, and attaches a 640x480 low res thumbnail to it. I have easy access to search the keywords and data, and it gives me a visual represenation of the image via the thumbnail.

>>> In regard to storing negs and prints with a Print-File system, it too is a chore, but once it's done it's done.

With Print-File system or Clear-File, Its easy to file the images, but extremely hard to find stuff in the future. I know this well since I am scanning a lot of my choice slides and negs now from all my binders. With the digtal archives, its a bit harder to file it, but easier to find it later, just the opposite. But with either system, once its done its done.

I spend more time looking at my images in the archives, than I do filing them. So I prefer to take the hit on time filing, then to take the hit every time I want to find an image, or just browse looking for images to use in photoshop creations.

Basically, I archinve and file every few weeks, and it takes about an hour of my time. but I use the archives about 20 minutes each day looking for materials for use in photoshop, on-line forums and gallerys, selecting and printing images, etc. So not having a digital database would cost me far more time in browsing in the long run.
If I didn't go back and access my files much, I'd just burn the disks and not worry about it. But I do, and it would be very time consuming by not having them organized in some fashion.

In my situation, it works for me. In others, it may not. But I am an active shooter, both personally and professionally, and I have a lot of images which I deal with daily. Organization actually saves me time in the long run, and digital is a godsend in that regard.

Even when I use use film, I get low res photo lab scans done for $2.99 a disk, and catalog the images and file the negatives. I even have a catageory called Rangefinders, since I don't get the EXIF info with the camera type
__________________
Stephen
www.StephenFaust.com
  Reply With Quote

scanned slides in ACDsee
Old 12-03-2004   #34
Socke
Registered User
 
Socke is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,876
scanned slides in ACDsee

Indexing and all.

This weekend I'll finish scanning and ACDsee creates photo discs and keeps thumnails and information in it's database so I can find the disk easyly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2004   #35
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,905
For Billl Clark and any others interested in using screw mount lenses and Olympus lenses, here is a thread on Popular Photography and Imaging that might be of interest.

http://www.popphoto.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=33129
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2004   #36
Marc Jutras
Exploring darkness
 
Marc Jutras's Avatar
 
Marc Jutras is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Montreal (Canada)
Posts: 305
At work, it's digital all the way and it's not really fun. At least, it gets me to work full time in PS salvaging every single shot. AF gone wild, way off exposure, unexplainable color cast and all those nice little things digital provides are my daily bread. BTW, we have almost all the top DSLRs from the last 4 years and it still doesn't cut it.

Note that we never shoot in controlled environments. We never have time to measure light color temperature and do a complete zone measuring. We shoot events and we do it in a "machine gun" way. So we're asking a bit much from digital. When I do the same work with film and my good old 283, every frame is dead on, no matter what the conditions.

For my personal work, I went back to film about 6 months ago (from a Canon 10D that got stolen). I also went for my first RF. WOW! What have I been doing without this all those years?

My next digital camera will have to be a M mount RF with a 36x24mm sensor and the consistency of film but without the price tag of a car. 'Till then, I'll be shooting film with my trusty R2.

So, at work it's 100% digital (with AF, TTL flash, zooms and everything that can ruin your shot) and on my own time: 100% film (fully manual RF with real glass).
__________________
Marc Jutras

Home to a Bessa R2 with CV 15/4.5, 35/1.7 and 75/2.5.


Last edited by Marc Jutras : 12-04-2004 at 05:35.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2004   #37
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,912
I use Digital or Polaroid for work, 35mm and Polaroid for home. I use a Kodak DC50 (circa 1996) for the camera and coffee thread and for posting "for sale" stuff. I have no intention of shooting for fun with digital. At work, I have used Digital since 1981.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2004   #38
Socke
Registered User
 
Socke is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,876
Marc, what is it I'm doing wrong?

Canon D60, Tamron 20-35/3.5-4.5, 420EX. All parameters +1, fine JPEG. No postprecessing except resizing
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2004   #39
Socke
Registered User
 
Socke is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,876
Or this, at a Techno Parade.
Again D60 this time with EF 28-70
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2004   #40
Socke
Registered User
 
Socke is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,876
And for events, again D60 with el cheapo 20-35
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Panasonic Introduces New 5-Megapixel Lumix Digital Still Camera With Leica Lens And F MP Guy Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film 22 07-03-2006 19:28
Forsaking all film for digital bmattock Rangefinder Photography Discussion 59 01-24-2006 12:13
Who Da Man? I'm Da Man... bmattock Rangefinder Photography Discussion 30 12-05-2005 15:50
Epson Launches the World's First Rangefinder Digital Camera MP Guy Rangefinder Photography Discussion 25 11-17-2004 07:16
Leica SLR digital camera MP Guy Rangefinder Photography Discussion 0 10-02-2003 14:26



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 20:26.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.