Thursday, January 12, 2006

Nikon's Decision

I don't feel like linkwhoring, so google news for yourself: Nikon UK announced a discontinuation of all their film SLRs (and possibly point and shoots) with the exception of the FM10 and F6 (?), the manual and pro-grade cameras, respectively.

This makes me sad, but not for any obvious reasons.

The present and future states of camera
Canon and Pentax are likely to follow suit. Their departure from the film SLR realm means that everyone else is likely to agree that catering to the 135 crowd is a waste of effort. Pentax has already shown signs of an unhealthy disrespect for its existing customers; two of their three current film cameras don't support the simulator coupling, so old manual lenses either flat out can't be used (ZX-60) or won't expose properly unless you know what you're doing (*ist). With the film *ist, that's especially amusing, because the digital *ists will meter when you use depth of field; evidently the feature isn't that hard to implement. I also know that Pentax isn't keen on selling the MZ-S, their pro camera, here in the United States. Given that I already have both a ZX-L and the classic MX, I can't say that the discontinuation of the lines means that much to me immediately. There are two implications, however: when the ZX-L dies, I'll need a replacement for it, and if everyone drops their cameras, I won't be able to buy film as easily as I can now.

Why I'm an analog kind of guy
People have said that I'll never 'go digital.' I think they're right, mostly. I take a lot of pictures, but there's a difference between the pictures I take now and the pictures I would take digitally. With a film camera, I'm forced to contemplate prior to pushing that silver button that immortalizes (or at least allows to age) the scene I've selected in my viewfinder. I have to consider first of all whether or not the composition in my viewfinder is even remotely worth the film and processing costs. more on this later... Second, I know that the film and printing are going to leave certain characteristics on my image. This is exactly the sort of thing that doesn't translate to digital. I won't speculate as to the superiority of one format or the other, but there are things happening every time I open that film up to the outside world that I depend on in order to produce the image I think I want to. Do I take a lot of failures? You bet. Are they expensive? Of course. Do they take up space? Each print and the space on negative, yes. Something important happens each time I screw up an exposure, though: I learn a lesson. The lesson may not be very comprehensive, and it may not even be one that would bother most other people, but I learn it. With a digital SLR, I would take more pictures, but instead of being able to evaluate them later, I would glance at it on the spot and throw it away. I can see two reprecussions here: first, even some (most?) of my questionable images are worth keeping around if only as taped up snapshots at the office; and second, I wouldn't be able to really see on the spot what I had done wrong and would stop getting better at photography. I realize that's a bit presumptive for me to say, but I really think that if I were to use only digital cameras, I would fail to realize my potential. Remarks about how easy it is to be a photographer aside.

Why I still want a digital camera
All that said, I do see some advantages to taking pictures with a digital camera. First, I have taken a few rolls recently that would have been much better suited to digital photography than film. With my birds, I will blow through 50 shots in an hour with no second thought. Maybe seven or eight frames end up as "worth it." I don't stop to care because when the subject is in motion, I don't have the time to stop and care. In this situation, taking the shots digitally and having prints made of the results would be more worthwhile.

Then there is the processing.

The expense of developing and printing film doesn't offend me one bit. If it did, I wouldn't blow through film like I do. The problem comes in the value of having people develop and print the film for me. I've narrowed down the problem: the people handling my film either don't care about pictures or are incapable of doing the work right. Almost every roll of film I have had processed since March (when I first started inspecting negatives thanks to the availability of a scanner) has had at least half of the keepsake shots scratched beyond use. This is not my camera, as many of the frames don't have linear scratches on them, and they tend to be in one place varying by roll even if they are linear. Sometimes it is aberration at the cutoff edge, where strips of four are split for fit into the sleeves. What it amounts to is that the people handling my film at the store throw my film about in a manner inconsistent with the notion of caring about pictures, be they yours or someone elses. At least at the Ritz representative in Utah that I had processing done at, real live people looked at my pictures and even admired them. That meant a lot to me. What didn't was having the frame of a chickadee on the picture CD show up with a scratch in the print. Unacceptable. With a digital camera, I wouldn't have that problem. I have another choice: setting up and maintaining color processing chemicals so if there are any scratches in the negatives, they're my fault. That is, however, a lot of money. I can chalk that up to better knowing the process and function of film, but boy is it ever a tall mountain to look at.

Summations
So at the end of the day, am I sad to see the film cameras go? Of course. Is there a time and a place for digital? Of course. Is it for me? Well, I am, to the best of my knowledge, everything that requires film. I like to think about my compositions, I like to see the results, and I like to have them. There are aspects to digital that I would greatly appreciate: instant on when it comes to the internet, guiltless waste of frame with action/wildlife shots, potential for one device for color high and low sensitivity and black and white without needing a million 12 exposure rolls. The real problems are that I don't feel like spending three thousand dollars to replace my primes, and I don't feel like buying macro lenses to duplicate the reverse functionality I have with my current lenses. Will I buy a digital SLR? When there's a good Pentax one available. Will it ever be the format for me?

I'll die before I surrender my boxes of prints and negatives. Long live the past.

No comments:

Post a Comment