[Sussex] Flickr Accounts...

[Phil Slade]

I have some "snaps" here http://www.flickr.com/photos/33293284@N00/

regards Phil Slade

On 30/01/2008, Vicky Lamburn <vicky.lamburn at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Richie,
>
> Impressive shots on your Flickr page too, much more grander in scale than my
> subject matter which veers on industrial grit, realism, candid street
> photography and of course you may have noticed I have a penchant for black
> and white!
>
> Great shots all the same. Look forward to seeing more in the months to come.
>
> As to the whole digital vs. film issue; well even looking at it purely from
> a DSLR and 35mm SLR perspective; there are many reasons why I'm not even
> tempted in the slightest to move to digital. That said, I hate pitching
> digital vs. film/analogue -- they don't have to be the either/or polar
> opposites they have been mostly pitched at being -- they can work together
> largely.
>
> The three big reasons for me are:
>
> 1. I like film because it's not digital - I do enjoy getting away from a
> computer and doing something that doesn't involve one a great deal. Change
> of scenery if you like.
>  2. Cost in one respect. Getting an equivalent spec DSLR to what my EOS 3
> (and to a good extent the EOS 5QD I had before) can do would cost me more
> than I could afford for a long time to come. And in fact I actually use the
> things the EOS 3 has over say the 5D that many might use as bragging rights,
> I like the fact it is waterproofed to a good extent, I like the EOS 1 series
> style interface, I thrive on multi spot metering for hard to expose
> correctly shots, and the 45 spot AF system with eye controlled focus for me
> is a dream... Ok I'm gushing. That's not to say DSLRs are bad, not at all.
> It's just the equivalent DSLR to my EOS 3 would leave me pretty destitute
> even if I had the money! :)
>  3. Ability to develop and print my own films - I actually enjoy this and
> its related to point 1. Also black and white (apart from C41 process print
> film like Ilford XP2, Kodak BW400CN etc.) is well, dare I say it, captured
> as black and white - not as RGB converted to greyscale. I think there is a
> difference on many typical black and white digital photos that haven't had
> some post-editing work done - once that is done, the difference is minimal
> if non existent.
>
> (4. Would be Velvia. Velvia 50. Say no more. :o)) )
>
> There's many other reasons, Unfortunately most people assume that as soon as
> I state the reasons why I'm sticking with 35mm that I am telling them that I
> think digital is crap. Not the case in the slightest but that's some people
> assuming that if you're in one camp you must automatically hate the other.
> Not so :)
>
> Anyway, just to keep this on topic: Linux.
>
> :o)
>
> I've explained the above points in greater, tedious, arduous, time
> consuming, life sapping and demoralising detail on my blog:
> http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/canon-eos-3-review-part-iii/
>
> As to how long I intend to remain a 'purist' -- at the moment I don't see
> myself needing to go digital for a very long time, read: a good few years if
> not a lot longer.
>
> Vicky (not a Luddite despite appearances!)
>
> __
> Sussex mailing list
> Sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
> E-mail Address: sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Sussex LUG Website: http://www.sussex.lug.org.uk/
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/sussex
>