« My Apologies to Recent Commenters | Main | Upgrade Update »

January 09, 2012

Comments

"Forced upgrades" exist in the film world, every time a manufacturer ceases production of a particular film or, eventually, when a format becomes obsolete. See how many of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format are still in production.

Film also comes with issues of wear and tear, not just on the shutter, which leads to repair and potential forced upgrades as well.

There are still plenty of aspects of Adobe that can't be replicated elsewhere (including, particularly, its fairly slick UI to those that have the way of it); however, what I will say is that it *is* now possible to have a high-image-quality all-open-source photo-processing workflow.

I think Adobe just shot themselves in the foot, only it hasn't started to hurt yet.

cfw

Very nice post. I have recently brought my Pentax K1000 and ME Super out of retirement. I carried both of them with four lens on a short hike this weekend. I also carried my Nikon D90 and its two lenses. I found I enjoyed the manual focus, center needle metering, and slow moving workings of the K1000. I love the viewfinder in the ME Super.

The Nikon is nice, but is lacking something. The negatives were lovely. The digital files were nice, but missing something. Maybe I am simply waxing romantic; I am, afterall, a history teacher. I am beginning to second guess Nikon. Maybe I should look at the K-5. At least, with careful selection, I would only have to carry one set of lenses!

Gordon,
New softwares and hardware need not cause too much concern for an average photo enthusiast.
Any digital camera available now can give better results than the best film camera. So one need not upgrade a digital camera all that frequently. As for computers and softwares, if one can learn Linux there is whole new world out there where lunch is free all the time. It is not too difficult, just different. There are real good raw converters and fairly good photo editors out there, all free. Of course there is no snob value. I have tried them and compared them to some commercially available softwares and I am satisfied with the results. They are not a polished and slick as the commercial ones, but they work just as well. After all what really counts is the end result, that is the print. Linux and the world of free and open softwares is a tremendous resources that is being side tracked in the name of fashion and convention. Try them, you might like them. Cheers and freedom from commercial softwares. Ranjit Grover, India.

I see where Adobe has now backed off their "new" policy of no longer allowing PS update prices for 3 versions back. I guess that shot in the foot started to sting a bit.

cfw

This post hit a nerve as I've just read that Lightroom 4 will no longer work with Windows XP. I've already given up trying to bring my version of PS up to date. Photography as a hobby used to involve rationalizing the cost of another lens, or maybe a better tripod. Now, the photo hardware has to fight for disposable income with computer software - and hardware. I don't see going back to the Pentax MX or ME, but I am getting very resentful at Adobe.

My studio workflow is all digital. But my personal work is all film. For me film is about having fun. It's as if I had a favorite toy and a bigger, better, faster toy comes along. But I'm not done playing with this toy!! Giving up film would mean putting away all my favorite beautiful toys. I simply enjoy film. I enjoy all aspects of it. I enjoy fussing over which film to use. I even enjoy scanning my film.
I could mention some of the practical benefits for film for me but I wouldn't try to argue digital over film. I have the affore mentioned whiz-bang gear and computers and monitors - they have their place. I'll just say I enjoy film and all the surrounding aspects of it and I prefer it in the same way that some people prefer vintage cars.

As far as image quality goes I'll just say the two are different and vive la différence!

One last thing- film for me is more real. It's the reason I prefer the old Yoda to the new Yoda. The old Yoda at least existed in physical space - if only as foam and latex. The new Yoda exists only as a binary code and that to me is viscerally less real. My Canon 5D Mark II is fantastic but incomprehensible to me. My Nikon FE2 and my other analog cameras are such that I could take them apart and repair them if I needed to. That makes them seem to me more real because they are comprehensible.

I'm fine with this being nothing but my own subjective impressions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Thank you!

Tip Jar