Have to admit, this post was super long concerning the topic at hand and as a result, I’ve not read it in its entirety. Suffice to say i’ll add a few things.

1 - I love my non-digital Minolta. I enjoy creating a composition and setting shots to create mood and artsy stuff. When we do upgrade to a digital camera, i’m going to get one of the big mofos akin to an actual hand held professional camera, not an $80 over the counter jobber from the local superstore. That’s gonna take some time. Till then, I’m super happy framing and shooting with the film camera I own now. Love it!

2 - I seriously doubt, I’m causing more of an eco-disaster in developing 22 rolls of film, than the bulk of humaity is by driving their cars to work each morning. While developing chemicals are hazardous, they aren’t contributing to greenhouse gas build-up and smog and various other forms of fossil fuel pollution. At least, it isn’t on the scale that cars are.

Word. Good to see you and your new little boy at Cade’s wedding my friend. Cheers!

i can’t escape the feeling that you are calling james (whether intentionally or not) a hypocrite. and you should know as well as any of us, that that is simply not the case.

gas consumption and film processing have NO correlation as far as effect on the earth no matter how hard you try to connect them. 150 years of photo developing haven’t done a fraction of the damage that 10 years of auto-pollution has. financially speaking, a hobby that someone enjoys and chooses to partake in simply cannot be compared to something in which none of us have a choice.

the biodiesel comment was completely uncalled for.

i love you man, but this was a complete waste of time. both mine and yours.

still laughing about the ministry of silly dances reference i didn’t get the first time.

anyway, i shoot weddings, and events and have sold some prints. i should point out that my favorite camera, after my 100 year old brownie ($2 plus film) is my $200 point and shoot digital that has all the controls (for the most part mind you) as my expensive DSLR i use for weddings and events. i almost never use the DSLR unless I am shooting portraits or a wedding. Mostly cause people won’t pay me to shoot with a point and shoot. But if I wanted to i could get pretty much the same results with the point and shoot digital as i do with the big DSLR.

For me, the only thing the DSLR has over the Digital point and shoot is the multiple lenses and a bit more exposure control. But i have found that the computer on the camera has a better eye for exposure than i do and i shoot on the street with a 50 year old and 100 year old film cameras with out meters and sometimes with chrome with little latitude. and still think the point and shoot guesses better than me.

all that is to say that you shouldn’t think that to take great photos you need a DSLR or any specific kind of camera. good photographers make good photos, the camera is just a tool.

and i love film btw. i only went digital for convenience, i still shoot way more film than digital. i like the process, i like the results, i like that i can use a $12 plastic camera with a $3 roll of outdated 120 film and get better photos than the gadget hound and his expensive DSLR.

james nailed it, it is about the framing and seeing the shot. one thing i have found is that while i might take more photos with digital, i take more bad photos because i am not forced to think about every shot.

i think digital teaches us to be lazy in our composition because each photo is cheaper. when i know that i only have 12 shots in my medium format cameras i don’t fool around and i make every shot count. i get 10 out of 12 excellent photos from my brownie or rollie and would be shocked if i get 10 for every 100 shots i “snap off” on my digital cameras.

anyway, just some food for thought.

As far as my suggesting James sell some biodiesel to pay for a camera (I think that’s the one you’re referring to, cade): I truly don’t see how that was uncalled for. I’ll be more than happy to disavow the statement if you can explain how it’s offensive. The only thing I can think of that might offend is mentioning the legalities of such a sale…well, the sale of fuel is pretty strictly regulated, what with taxes and EPA regulations and what-not. So it follows that I may have been suggesting a course of action that is illegal (or at least prohibitively wrought with red-tape). My ignorance in that side of things is why I even brought it up. Perhaps you misunderstood me to mean that homemade biodiesel is illegal? I know it’s legal: I’ve read as much of James’ posts on the subject, as well as done some independent research about the feasibility for me to do it myself, and never has there been a question in my mind of the legality of making it yourself. Once again, I was only referring to the possible legal or regulatory issues surrounding the sale of homemade fuel to others.

As far as the discussion in general, the purpose of my bringing it up had more to do with the digital-vs-film situation than anything to do with automobiles. In hindsight, I shouldn’t have made even the insinuation of a comparison.

As I said in my comment about to James, it’s about choices. I suppose I did hint at him being a hypocrite, and I’m sorry for that. James is as far from hypocrisy as anyone I know. The insinuation was more based on the idea I had in my mind that he would go to all this extra work to collect the used vegetable oil, and process it, but then not spend a random 80 bucks on a digital camera that would save a lot of money and waste. This was the way I interpreted things, not having to do with anything James said. I was jumping to the wrong conclusions and ran with it. Again, I’m sorry for that.

To sum up, the main reason for this post was to discuss the cost savings of a digital camera vs film, and I threw in some environmental conservation points as well, to drive home the point that I think it’s a good choice overall. Obviously I missed the mark by insinuating hypocrisy in James where there is none to be found, and by comparing the relatively small amount of environmental benefits of going digital to the larger benefits of going biodiesel.

Are we all still friends?

It probably doesn’t help that I favor point-and-shoots. The amount of time that I have spent with SLRs taught me what you said above: that each exposure has to count, and the slightest change can have a big impact on the final product. I think that the digital process can produce similar quality photos due to the ease of post-production (especially with programs like Photoshop). But while the output can be comparable, the processes themselves are like night and day between film & digital, so to each his own there, I suppose. And it goes back to learning to make every exposure count, and it’s tough to learn that when exposures are practically free. I think it’s still possible to teach yourself that if you have a perspective of the scarcity of time instead of supply…that is, you may only have time or opportunity to get that one great shot, so make it count. Once you learn to make every shot count, though, I think that’s the time to open up the digital world and go to town. I may shoot 100 shots and only have 10 keepers now, but part of that is I’m taking a lot more shots so that I don’t miss an opportunity. If I only had 24 shots on a roll, I would have a lot of missed opportunities with baby photos, because I would be trying to wait for just the right expression on the young one’s face, or whatever. So I still net more keepers with digital than with film.

The digital camera I have has a surprising number of options for $80 (a big part of the low price was that it was soon to be replaced by a newer model), only a few of which I have yet explored. Part of this is that I have only had it since April, part is that is was purchased for baby photos and has been used nearly exclusively for baby photos, and part of it is I haven’t taken the extra time to go on a shoot (even around the house). The biggest choice I’ve had to make with baby photos is flash or no flash (no flash=generally better) and macro setting vs normal (macro obviously good for baby closeups). I’ve been more concerned about lighting for the baby because the flash isn’t the best choice (for various reasons) and in interior light the shutter speed is so slow that motion blur is a big problem. So I turn up an extra lamp, or open up a window blind to let more light into the room when I can, and the camera will increase the shutter speed as a result.

For a long time I’ve wanted to pair my limited photography skills with my less limited Photoshop skills to create some artistic images of my own. Maybe I’ll make a point of doing so on one of my days home with the little one. Of course I’d post them here to share.

That, and I need to scan in a bunch of my Germany photos and upload them, as well as get them scrapbooked or at least in an album. I need to do that before they get put away in storage again.

you are right about the biodeisel comment. i DID misinterpret that and I am sorry for jumping on it.

bottom line: i was in a weird mood last night and for whatever reason your post caught me wrong. i rarely dump comments like my last one…but when i do…look out!

anyway, to the subject at hand: i have a very simple opinion on it. photography and taking pictures are not the same thing. one is an art form, the other is a way for the masses to communicate. both are good. both have their place in society. some choose one. some choose the other. some like to dabble in both. with the popularity of digital, the lines have become even grayer. issues such as ‘cost’ and ‘format’ come down to personal preference. and again, in these areas, we can choose what we spend our money on.

our choices when it comes to gas are(north shore, boston; as of 6/20/08) “do i want to pay $4.07 or $4.09 a gallon?”

it’s just not the same issue.

…and I totally understand being in a weird mood. No worries.

as far as baby photos and flash, see if you can’t step the flash exposure down a step for portraits of the baby and you will be stoked with the results. if you can’t adjust it on the camera take some thin tissue and tape it over the flash and that will step it down about a stop. try it and you will see.