Welcome to our still-photo world.

[Chris Hurd]

Once again, we bow to popular demand and offer this forum for discussing digital still cameras, the technology behind them and techniques for using them. Enjoy,

[Josh Frye]

Thanks Chris. Been looking forward to this....

[Frank Granovski]

I'm still using film for my stills. Ouch! I've got 5 rolls to take in on monday.

[Chris Hurd]

Sorry, Frank... that is one of the best things about digital... every shot is free.

[Zac Stein]

Every shot may be of minimal cost with digital, but it is not film :)

Long live my old crusty EOS-3

Zac

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

Yeah, Frank,

My $350 digital camera has paid for itself 15 times over in developing costs since I bought it a little over two years ago.

There are still many instances where film is appropriate, even preferable. But for point-and-shoot, nothing beats a little digital cam!

Please, any programmers out there take a look at my Canon SDK plea.

[Frank Granovski]

I know, I know. After buying a 6 meg cam, lenses, and all those other extras everything is free. Oops. Forgot the 'puter and printer. :)

I still prefer color and B&W film, but that color 25 ASA Kodachrome slide film I used to use---wow!

I'll never give up my Nikon FM2T. You gotta shoot me first.

[Paul Tauger]

Hey, what great timing! I just bought a Canon 10d.

For what its worth, one of the reasons I bought it is because I tend to do a lot of still photo montages in my videos, and it's just easier to stay with an all-digital format, than to have to have my negatives scanned.

The 10d is a terrific camera, by the way, and has temporarily replaced my VX2000 as the toy-du-jour.

[John Locke]

Zac, there are those that will disagree now. The new high resolution cameras, like the 10D and the 1Ds, are producing images that some say are indistinguishable from film.

[Ken Tanaka]

Hey Paul,
I, too, am a new 10D owner and am really enjoying doing some still photography after many years away from it. It is truly a remarkable camera, particularly for the price.

[Zac Stein]

John, yes but there are 100's of types of films, 100's of processes and still a hell of a lot more resolution to play with. I dunno about free, because it is cheaper for me to get 36 prints processed, than it is to print them off, or approx the same. (achieving a similar quality of output)

I think digital has it's total and cemented place in society and is 1000 times for preferable and logical in many situations, but i do photography purely as an artform and expression orientated outlet, so i like to get my hands stinking like vinager and to touch the film and see the grain and be there at every step of the process.

That is why i got myself an old 16mm and super-8mm camera, i am moving away from DV as i start to get small amounts of funding for my work.

Zac

[John Locke]

<< i am moving away from DV as i start to get small amounts of funding for my work>>

Shhhhhh. Better not say that outloud here at a DV forum. ;)

[Mike Butler]

Hee hee! Yeah, John!

Zac, as an art form, you are absolutely right, film is unsurpassed--especially for B/W, and the mere mention of the chemistry brings back memories of when I was a darkroom tech and all the smells etc. (vinegar is the stop bath, as i recall, the real funky one was the fixer.) And there is nothing like a big print pulled off a crisp neg.

However, if the job is going to a magazine or other press publication media, it is only going to be converted to a digital file anyway...most books and magazines are now100% digital, and many mags shoot all digital as well.

I won't really get into the cost comparison factor here, it is too much of an apples-oranges thing except to say that what is "free" is those pictures which you DON'T print after looking at them. In my case that's relevant, cuz I may take 20 shots of the same item, and pick one to photoedit and use. I guarantee the computer wasn't free, and Photoshop is not cheap. The main cost savings is that of time.

[Ozzie Alfonso]

Good move Chris! I didn't know about this forum and was just sent over here.

I just bought a D100 and have gotten back to "serious" photography - my original hobby - since I was 12. I got the D100 because I can use all my old Nikkor lenses.

Why digital stills for me? -- after stumbling over my old Bessler enlarger in storage for the last 20 years, I came to the conclusion I will never get back into the darkroom again. That, and the fact Kodak isn't working on new film stocks, and it costs more to have black and white prints made than color - all that, and the fact I've been fiddling with Photoshop for years - well, the switch wasn't hard to make.

I have found I have a lot to learn about "processing" digital pics. I'm shooting everything in RAW and mainly in manual - I really miss having full control over the results. In fact I seldom use the LCD to check how it came out. Hard to get used to the easy way. I've had a Coolpix 950 for years - long enough to hate fully automated pics I can't blow up more than 8x10.

So I look forward to seeing what others are talking about in this forum.

As I said Chris - good move on your part.

(BTW - your TV notes are safe and I'll be returning them soon.)

[Ken Tanaka]

Happy New Year, Ozzie!
Like you, I've begun spending more time with still photography. In my case, with an EOS 10D.

If you've not already done so, run, don't walk, to get Photoshop CS. It makes working with RAW images, and 16 bit processing, a breeze!