What's been gained in the analog age?

[Steve Smith]

though here in the US we'd probably have been
the last holdout against the metric system anyway.

We are half metric and half Imperial in the UK. All road signs are in yards and miles, clothing is measured in inches and people above a certain age would rather use feet and inches than metres.

As a design engineer, I work in millimetres but if I am doing carpentry or building work, it's all in Imperial.


Steve.

[Drew Wiley]

What's a millimetre??? Do you spell everything wrong over there? I gave up on all this trouble. I use graduates that have
mililiters (millilitres?), as well as US fluid oz marks, and English fluid ounces (ignored). My Mitutoyo caliper has a handy little button to switch from metric to English readings (presumably the same as American in this case, and hopefully not in decimel
cubits). For all the Starrett equip I sell here I have optional metric blades. And in fact I have quite a European clientele which
prefers metric. The new Festool saws that just arrived have optional "Imperial" depth scales. ... I don't know why. We got rid of the British Empire for a reason. Seems like if we had to choose an Emperor, at least Napoleon had a sensible measuring system.

[John Kasaian]

I still have a set of Whitworth wrenches in the garage.
Just in case.
You know, Zombie Apocalypse and all that lol!

[Nathan Potter]

The logic here escapes me. Does digital require someone to not be patient and not make it right in-camera? Seems to me you can be patient and get it right in-camera with either analog or digital. Or not be patient and not get it right in-camera with either analog or digital. Just because you can do other things with digital (lin an editor such as Photoshop) doesn't change that. Or are we comparing skilled analog photographers unskilled digital photographers?

Greg, I think the confusion comes from the way the DSLR is used. Almost always the DSLR is a snapshot camera whether in the hands of a beginner, a klutz, a LF shooter or a pro. There is IME little to no difference between the dslr and LF when doing serious work. I rarely work differently than LF when using my dslr for serious art work. The discipline I have developed over the years using various LF cameras infuses my dslr methodology. The necessity of getting the image right at the beginning makes no distinction between film or sensor.

Those who have learned film and all analogue processes have the advantage of that kind of discipline they can apply to digital capture and processing.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Steve Smith]

Do you spell everything wrong over there?

Is a question I could ask you. The clue is in the name... English!!!

We got rid of the British Empire for a reason.

That's what we wanted you to think!


Steve.

[Greg Miller]

Greg, I think the confusion comes from the way the DSLR is used. Almost always the DSLR is a snapshot camera whether in the hands of a beginner, a klutz, a LF shooter or a pro. There is IME little to no difference between the dslr and LF when doing serious work. I rarely work differently than LF when using my dslr for serious art work. The discipline I have developed over the years using various LF cameras infuses my dslr methodology. The necessity of getting the image right at the beginning makes no distinction between film or sensor.

Those who have learned film and all analogue processes have the advantage of that kind of discipline they can apply to digital capture and processing.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

I mostly agree. But my experience is that the serious photographers that I see all are pretty disciplined regardless of what format they use or learned on.

I know there are a lot of people out there who pretend to be serious and make lots of crappy photos - but I saw that with 35mm film too. And my experience is the general public is actually pretty quick to note the difference between over-manipulated crap and a well made photo. And I see plenty of LF photographers who are very deliberate and think their photos are good just because they are LF - they just make fewer crappy photos due to volume. DSLRs didn't create the phenomenon - it has always existed, If anything, it is the internet to be blamed for making it easier to broadcast crap. And the internet photo sharing sites for making photo critiques a popularity contest.

But at the end of the day I don't see the reason for the fuss. There's no real harm done. Some people get inflated egos. Most people can see the difference. And some of the crappy photographers eventually learn. Maybe they never would have become good without the crappy volume phase.

[paulr]

When I use a dslr on a tripod, it's about as time consuming as using a 4x5. Some things are quicker, like focussing. Live view is just more accurate and positive than the ground glass. Other things are slower, partly because the controls on the small camera are fussier. Metering, oddly enough, is slower. The meters and histograms don't provide accurate information for the raw files (just for the jpeg interpretation, which is a poor approximation). So even after looking at the meter reading and historgram, I often end up making a test exposure and adjusting.