Well, I know we are going more and more digital, however I imagne that I will be one of those people who will always hang on to film camera.

I mean, sure, digital is alot better in many ways, but I think that film keeps the "elite" sense to photography. I'll use digital for the ease of use, but if I'm going somplace I know I can get some really good pictures, and have access to a darkroom, I'll always bring my film cameras.

But what do you think? Digital good for ease of use? Never got into film?

I love digital photography. It's so useful to be able to look at a picture directly after and delete it if it turns out badly. And all of the features that come with higher-end digital cameras make for great artistic possibilities. Add in Photoshop and the fact that film is bloody expensive, and digital cameras = win.

Constantly seeing people's photos somtimes makes me, as maddox would say, yearn for the day it wasn't so bloody easy to do.

For gosh sake, if your picture of a sunset isn't totally awesome, don't show me. They start to look the same after you've seen 400 hundred from everyone who thinks they are mildly good at photography.

Film still has an advantage. There are things that can be done during development that can alter the picture appearance(s). Multiple-exposures is also something that you won't get on digital cameras. Portrait photo studios will likely continue to use film, since they already have a high degree of quality and large investments in the equipment. Plus they can always move those photos to digital for editing/e-mailing.

If a person wants to be spontaneous, I'd say go with film. If they have time to do multiple shots with no worry of the subject timing, then digital is fine. If a person will be around water or the kids are using it, the disposable film ones are tops.

Minolta came out with a digital version of the SLR a long time ago. Back then, it was round 5 grand. Oooo, how I salivated. I'm sure Canon has a digital SLR now too.

Cannon has a whole bunch of digital SLRs now, and if I ever get a nice digital (I have a crappy one for when I don't feel like taking good pictures :rolleyes: ) I'll probably get a cannon.

Despite how Cannon is with film SLRs, its alright with digital.

Wow, kinda down on Canon?

I'd bought a used Canon Rebel G or X, can't remember which, from a pawn shop. It later needed about $60 worth of shutter work. So the cost investment was about par. The beauty of that camera was that the spool of film was wound out completely. Then as the photographer took pics, the exposed frames would be wound back into the camera. VERY NICE engineering motivation, if you ask me.

If I did professional, I'd probably chose Canon over Nikon. The latter seems to be a bit pricier on the bodies and Canon has a very wide range of their own lenses available. By the way, the red rings on the lenses indicate the professional series.

I'd owned a Minolta FG (first SLR), Nikon FG, FM and FM2, the Canon mentioned above and the one by Pentax that was fully manual that came out in the late 90's (can't remember the model).

Past dreams used to revolve around the Canon AE-1 and Nikon F5. Even dreamt of owning a Leica a time or two. :) Seemed like different sorts of guns was "more chic" during those times. Plus, it's a lot easier to get your money back out of guns. :)

Ever notice how all of the lens for Cannon are custom made for cannon only, and are more expensive? Yeah, because they are abnormal, which leads to needing special fitlers and the like.

I have a Nikon N-75 along with a Nikon- FM10 and a Pentax-DS (I think for model, I use it alot but don't know the model) along with other point and shoot ones. I'd take a Pentax over most anything (except for those mad expen$ive German models). For just shooting for fun, I suppose anything works out, and Cannon may be better as it is cheaper, for the inital body with a 30-90 lens or the like. But beyond that, the money really starts to add up.

Oh yeah, I noticed that some camera companys are keen on proprietary mounts/lenses. Nice choice on the Nikon model.

My Dad bought a $500 digital camera today (12x zoom I think).

It was cool I guess. He has been going to other countries like Dominica with nice landspaces and views. He took some pictures, but the film was ruined when they sent it through luggage (he gave it to the person standing there, and after he went through they just laid it on the luggage track) which I guess messed up the film. He didn't really give too much detail, but it was ruined. I'm not sure how digital cameras would do better...

For photography classes and things I still see people using as many film cameras as they do digital.

I want to start getting into photography, but I don't have a place where I could develop film in a darkroom or anything like that. And as someone who travels constantly, a digital camera just made more sense to me.

However, I'd eventually like to get into film.

Would we be able to open up a thread where people could post their photography (say one picture a post)?

Yeah, if someone wants to. As I don't have a scanner and most of my pictures aren't digital, I doubt I'd have many pictures, but if someone does, start up a post.

There are lots of resources on the web to show off examples of our picture-taking. There are some that will store just images while there are free-webhosting options out there to use as well. Heck, even some of the blogs now allow for uploads, I think.

Sounds like he got a good one if he spent $500.

I use photobucket for uploads, actually. I have an account there, and most forum images are through there (except the banner, which Blizzard did on imageshack for some unknown reason :rolleyes: )

But I'd still have to get it on the comptuer. For people with digital pictures though, it should be easy enough to do.

I love garage sales. Did I mention I'd gotten an HP flat-bed for $5.00? :)

Oh, they can be quite good. I picked up an old Kodak Browine at a tag sale once, it was worth the 99 cents to cost me. It just a classic.

{laughing} There's a Brownie around here somewhere... or two of them. Remember when Mom used to actually use one. Also, bought a 1964 model Canon 35mm once, in non-working condition and traded it for a really nice point-and-shoot zoom that was working... felt really good about that one.

01/30/2009
Bought a Kodak C813 digital camera (used). I paid $60, which was high since it seems Wal-Mart sells the new C913 for 79.xx or so. I'm very happy with it though. Spent $6 for rechargeable batteries and $15 for a 2Gb SD card. Instead of 16 pictures, I can take like 2,600! Or instead of a 15 or 16 second clip of video, can shoot over 40 minutes.

In this past week of having it, probably took almost 100 pictures. Usually leave it on Auto, but will start trying to play around with more of the manual features.

And yeah, a specific picture thread here might be a good idea.