Re: Photography: Still Shooting Film?
Nothing but digital. I shot film cameras until the Nikon D70 came out. Its considered a "prosumer" camera, as is my current D200, but both are very, very good cameras. I still use both and the D200 is my main "workhorse," because it has a number of improved features and a battery grip (two batteries, instead of one), with a shutter and command dials for shooting in portrait mode. I also use a Canon Powershot as a "carry around" camera.
The "analog v. digital" discussion will go on for awhile with cameras, just as it did with music recording, but the simple fact of the matter is that we will soon accept digital photos "completely" in very little time. While I am sure there are still a few folks hording old LPs and scrounging around for turntables to play them on, the vast majority of us haven't owned albums or turntables in 25 - 30 years. The same will happen with film & film cameras.
As for image quality, the line between film and digital has long since become very narrow. Some people claim that they can tell the difference, but I have found that to be mostly untrue in the general population. What I do find to be true about digital photos, is that there is a difference in images between those shot with a camera that has a CCD processor v. a CMOS processor. To me, the CMOS processors shoot a "warmer" image and I like the color rendition better. Its kind of like the difference between Kodachrome and Fuji Velvia slide films. My Nikons are both CCD and I am currently salivating for a pair of D300s, which are CMOS. Since a pair of bodies will put me out to the tune of about $4,800, after accessories and taxes, I may have to salivate a bit longer!
For those of you who are shooting DSLR (as opposed to "point & shoot") cameras, be aware that you can "tweak" your images before even shooting them. Most DSLR cameras having menu settings that let you do things like sharpen or soften photos, etc. Your menu is your friend - learn what is in it! Most of them will also let you choose between Adobe RGB and sRGB color space settings. Unless you know a lot about tweaking images for the print process, I recommend staying with sRGB.
For those of us that shoot quite a bit and publish, the main thing about digital, is ease of workflow. The publishing world is all digital now, so dealing with film, scanning, etc., just isn't something that is workable - it just takes too much time. Frankly, digital is just too easy to do anything else, anyway. I liken it to something that I just did, which was to pop open the "My Music" folder on my computer, to select an Anders Osborne "CD" to listen to. Anders is entertaining me at the moment, while the physical CD is sitting on a shelf, because I ripped it onto my hard disk last night.
On the matter of losing images on a hard disk - backup! Further, backup to an external HD and disconnect it from the computer every time you do so. Some of you may have read my recent ramblings about rebuilding an editing computer. I had to do that because my house was hit by lightening and the strike energized the entire electrical system in the house, "frying" a number of appliances in it. One of those was the editing computer and my external backup was destroyed too, via the USB cable. Fortunately, the internal HD survived, so I didn't lose several years worth of work.
BTW, some of the best protection that you can buy for your electronics, is an Acoustic Research power strip. I had my editing computer running through a $300 APC battery backup/surge protector. The rest (monitors, sound system, etc.) was running through a 5,100 joule, AR power strip, that cost me about $70. The computer "cooked," while the rest of my stuff was fine. To find one of these, don't go to the computer section of your local "bigbox" electronics store - they will be in the television section.
???
