Camera Obscura
For the past year and a half, I have repeatedly refused offers of a new digital camera, partly because of the hefty sum and partly because I have no clue as to what exactly it is I want. Eversince the popularization and development of the digital camera, it has become increasingly difficult to decide if digital is truly better. My brother and mother abhors digital, mostly because my father had bought a pricey 5 megapixel fuji camera when it was first launched and the prints it produced were blur and flat. Till today, both of them still use the traditional point and shoot film cameras that shop owners now hide away on the back shelves of their shops.
As they say, a carpenter should never blame his skills on his tools. My brother managed to capture the essence of venice and turkey with a less than $300 point and shoot olympus that I gave him for his birthday. The pictures were beautiful, colours vibrant, angles interesting. His nifty exploitation of the device produced prints that could rival any expensive SLR.
I currently have a LOMO LCA, which I have not fully exploited yet, an olympus APS point and shoot film camera that my parents gave me before I left for Australia, and... that's it really, well, that's if you count the very useful inbuilt motorola 1.3 megapixel camera, with which most photos for gardenparty are taken with. I'm still of two minds about film and digital, although I am leaning towards the latter because, the sky's the limit really, you can take 1000 shots and never have to worry about wasting or running out of film. But yet, I still enjoy having physical prints and consumer digital print quality always looks flat and... digital. None of that richness film has.
What to do?
I don't think I'll ever be able to resolve this and finally decide on a camera, but like I said, if one's tools do not define one's ability to craft, then I should be able to make do with what I have, not that I have an exeptional eye to begin with anyway.
For the past year and a half, I have repeatedly refused offers of a new digital camera, partly because of the hefty sum and partly because I have no clue as to what exactly it is I want. Eversince the popularization and development of the digital camera, it has become increasingly difficult to decide if digital is truly better. My brother and mother abhors digital, mostly because my father had bought a pricey 5 megapixel fuji camera when it was first launched and the prints it produced were blur and flat. Till today, both of them still use the traditional point and shoot film cameras that shop owners now hide away on the back shelves of their shops.
As they say, a carpenter should never blame his skills on his tools. My brother managed to capture the essence of venice and turkey with a less than $300 point and shoot olympus that I gave him for his birthday. The pictures were beautiful, colours vibrant, angles interesting. His nifty exploitation of the device produced prints that could rival any expensive SLR.
I currently have a LOMO LCA, which I have not fully exploited yet, an olympus APS point and shoot film camera that my parents gave me before I left for Australia, and... that's it really, well, that's if you count the very useful inbuilt motorola 1.3 megapixel camera, with which most photos for gardenparty are taken with. I'm still of two minds about film and digital, although I am leaning towards the latter because, the sky's the limit really, you can take 1000 shots and never have to worry about wasting or running out of film. But yet, I still enjoy having physical prints and consumer digital print quality always looks flat and... digital. None of that richness film has.
What to do?
I don't think I'll ever be able to resolve this and finally decide on a camera, but like I said, if one's tools do not define one's ability to craft, then I should be able to make do with what I have, not that I have an exeptional eye to begin with anyway.
Me do not agree, me thinks you have a very good eye indeed, he thinks so too. Hmmph
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:11 pm
Hey, aren't you supposed to be off somewhere enjoying your post exam break? I don't read blogs very regularly, but chanced across your post on digital cameras, and I must say that I think a SLR camera can make such a world of difference! Sure, technical skill and aesthetic sense play a role in the composition of a great picture, but compact cameras are just unpredictable and may not reflect space and lighting accurately. With the SLR camera, what you see is what you get. Better yet if it's digital so you can preview all your images. I own a film SLR camera, but I'm currently using the compact digital camera that I nicked from Boonie cos I don't want to spend money processing film (it's actually his birthday present from me some years ago, but guess who uses it more! Haha..)
I think digital prints these days are as good, if not better than film prints, as the inks that are used have improved vastly, and are said to have better archival properties than film prints. It can probably be debated, but I think the strength in film is when you shoot in classic black and white, and get the prints developed by a professional in the darkroom. Unfortunately, this is really costly as most darkrooms are phased out, and a similar (though inferior) effect can be achieved by applying a Photoshop gradient.
I've been thinking of investing in a Nikon D70, but SIGH, it's just such a luxury! Especially since it's not really the camera body, but the quality of the lens that makes a significant difference to the photos, and good lenses are just so expensive!
Well if you're keen on getting a digital SLR, let me know yah. If we each buy one, maybe we can get a bulk discount from the retailer.
/ Cheers! Shu-Yin
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:04 am
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Posted by
sideshowjo |
10:46 am
That's interesting! I never knew that digital prints had better archival properties than film prints! I guess my fear is that digital has a higher risk of being lost. Let's say you store all your precious shots in a designated thumbdrive, so in essence, that's like your role of film. It just takes one stupid move or in this case, click of the mouse, and they can be deleted forever. Call me old school, but I would love to have something a little more tangible. With film, they last for years and years, I know my parents' negatives from yesteryear are still in pretty good shape, though I haven't actually developed any of them, so it's a baseless claim. I'm sure studies have been done to test the self life of film, though I do not know the actual figures. Having said that, I suppose if you erase digital prints by mistake there is always software to help recover the lost files. Heh Dezzo has always wondered it there is a way to convert digital to film negatives :p
Hmm...at this point, I am leaning towards a digital SLR, let me know when you decide to get yours! I have to save and probably can only afford one next year :p
Posted by
sideshowjo |
10:48 am
camera obscura is a really nice indie band to catch on. go listen...
http://www.camera-obscura.net/
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:51 pm