Sounds like an apug question
Sounds like an apug question
i photographed a 96lb calzone a few days ago, and
while i probably could have done it with a speed graphic, or
a graflex slr ( or LF-whatever ... ), or a smaller format (film) camera, i used a digital camera
because it was what i thought would be the best tool for the job, and it worked fine.
i didn't chimp my views and used the camera like i would have used a film camera ..
Anyone doing anything besides daguerrotypes or wet plate collodion negatives (and processing their plates in a genuine horse-drawn wagon darkroom), who claims to be happy, is lying.
Tried capturing that lioness chasing the wildebeest with my 4x5. Let me tell you, it was not easy!
So, I picked up the dSLR and was much happier with the result; here we are a year later and I am still gratified each time I look at that photo and many others that are just impossible to capture from a bouncing vehicle!
I enjoy using any camera equipment, no matter when it was made or what process it uses to make the image.
Kent in SD
Gud blessi Island!
I know very little about digital, and am still learning about film. However, without a doubt, this little Encore camera that I was given when I was ten years old provided the most gratifying moments of my life in photography.
It set the stage for non-instant gratification, while I awaited the postal delivery of my next pre-loaded camera, and the prints from my previous one. The experience taught me patience in the photographic process. Over the ensuing sixty years not much has changed, except the choice of superior optics and an upgrade from the cardboard camera.
Any lovin's good lovin'
See my photographs
-Major crops (cropping out only a tiny section of the image)
With digital, one doesn't think about composition when the exposure is made since there's have more cropping leeway in post process on a computer.
-Apply all sorts of filters so the image looks however they want it to look
With digital, one doesn't need to worry about film selection, GND, CC filters since their effects can be simulated in post processing on the computer.
-Stitch multiple shots together+alter the look so it looks like it was done with an MF/LF digital back.
I'm not sure why there's less photography skill/knowledge involved in stitching vs single exposure, can you elaborate? Is this an extension of your first point?
-Too much to list with all that a digital camera w/a computer can do.
With digital, one doesn't think about things like critical focus, exposure, color temperature at the time of exposure since they can be easily corrected in post process on a computer.
Is this a fair summary of your position? With digital, one applies photography skills during post process on a computer rather than at the time of exposure. Because it's much easier, digital denies the satisfaction of getting good results from in the field skill and hard work.