[at-l] re:a real thru-hiker review on digital vs film, etc

[Victor Hoyt" <VHOYT@attbi.com (Victor Hoyt)]

[Delurking after recently rejoining the list]

Hello all, and Happy Thanksgiving,

After all the political, and other more tragic discussion, this is a nice
subject to sink one's teeth into. It's one that I have been giving a lot of
thought lately. Film or digital?

I've used both extensively, and have a large collection of equipment of both
types. I have carried both on long and short hikes. As I am preparing for a
long hike sometime next year, I've been trying to decide which camera to
bring, and have finally settled on film.

Two years ago I carried a very nice little Canon S100 for four weeks on the
AT. If you want digital on a long hike it is almost the perfect camera. It's
light, takes Compact Flash, has a tiny little recharger (and takes tiny
little batteries), and takes excellent pictures. It's 2.1 mp (the newer
models are up to 3.3), so you won't get great 8 x 10s, but who cares? It's a
point-and-shoot.

The trouble with picking digital, besides logistical concerns like
downloading pictures, and charging batteries, is exactly what was quoted in
the originating post. There are several fallacies there. The first is that
digital will make you better because you can shoot more. This never
works.What makes you better is learning how to judge light, composition, and
exposure. With a camera like a Nikon 775 or a Canon S100, you have very
little control over those things anyway. With more advanced cameras your
results will vary according to your skill, and practise, not your medium.

Another fallacy is that film is really expensive versus digital. I can buy,
shoot, and process a 36 roll of Fuji Velvia or Provia (pro slide films, and
super for outdoor photos) for under ten bucks if I take the time to get good
buys. Now, I don't know about the person who said he often shoots 1000
pictures a day (that's 2 pics a minute for eight hours straight!!), but I
rarely shoot more than one or two 36 rolls a day (or under a hundred digital
pics), and I've been doing photography since I was 10 (35 years.)

But there's more to digital than just shooting, right? You still need to
process the photos. If you want to do it well you need a good printer, good
software, good paper, etc. If you're happy with output straight from the
camera (similar to going to Ritz one-hour-photo), or if you shoot low-res
for the web only, you're ok. But if you want consistent results you need to
spend some bucks. I've spent the money on  good software, a calibrated
system, good printer, and good scanner, but I hate darkroom work, and I want
to print my slides. How many people really want to spend that kind of money?

The bottom line is that anyone can spend a few hundred on a really nice 35mm
film camera, and shoot 200 rolls of tack-sharp, awesome color slides, before
thay come close to having spent the money on a digital system that will
rival the quality. I can rival that quality now, with a Canon D30, and the
"digital darkroom" I have, but it took a lot of time, learning and money.
And really, the learning has just begun. I go back to film often.

I'd love to hear what other photographers on this forum think about all
this. I'm currently trying to pick among a few rugged 35mm rangefinder
cameras for use on long hikes, and would love to hear others' experiences.

Anyone interested in the subject might want to check out The Luminous
Landscape to see what a really good outdoor photographer does with a digital
system. Also, this month's issue of Outdoor Photographer has two good
articles on digital.

Vic