"much easier to just take the shots and look at them afterwards"

Indeed. Even more useful on a non-SLR.

is very beautiful! fantastic and exentric!

That indeed is the fun of digital! Very nice picture (as always)
the colors are great! keep up the good stuff and i keep chromasia as starting webpage. it's really inspiring me, thnx marcel

Oh, and in case nobody else notices: the reason I like this photograph is that if you trace the lines (beyond the 'F217' in the foreground) they seem to wander their way to the small, barely visible structure on the horizon. But don't ask me to explain why that pleases me, because I don't know.

The only thing that I am wondering rigth now is what thi f 217 means. Nice perspective.

Adriana: I think it's something to do with distance as there were a few of these. All with F's, but a different number.

One of the most amazing thing about your photos is not how you photograph them (although you do that very well too) but how you find and imagine them :)

I note your comment about how many shots you took.

This is one of my pet subjects. I am 95% digital now (well, not personally but my photography is!). I am not sure whether digital makes up better photographers or not or whether it just makes us better judges of which photo out af a bunch of a zillion we just took is the best.

I can really see the benefits of digital. I love the freedom it gives to press that shutter without worrying about the cost. However, I am not convinced we are better photographers for it. Sure, it gives us more chance to practise but is that everything.

Before I "went digital" I would hesitate before pressing that button. Is everything right? Composition? Exposure? Depth of field? Lighting? etc etc. Now I often get most things right and think "aww hang it" press the button and try several dfferent compositions, speeds, apertures etc etc.

Does this make me a better photographer?

I am not convinced. I think the fact that pressing the button used to cost me a little money just concentrated the mind that teeeny bit more...

Adrian

I have to say you have hit upon a pet gripe of mine. The DoF preview. My 300D has one. You press it and there is an ever so slight change, in that the image looks a little more grey. As for the actual images depth of field... none-the-wiser. So the only way around this is the digital option of multiple shots. This always bemuses girlfriends who cannot help but comment "haven't you got enough of that?" and most of the time, even after multiple shots (and a bored lady) the answer is still generally, not quite.

As for 35mm, yeah, I used the same "multiple shot" method on that format and it cost me a small fortune in development and provided me with wasteful "paper images" that had to be thrown away in reams. Miss that format? Nah!

Not sure about this image David, doesn't really do all that much for me.I must admit, a number of your recent shots have left me wondering if a larger depth of field may have helped? The focal point of a random code in the foreground doesn't reach out and I cannot use my imagination to paint a potential story in my mind. An exampe (of many, I've just picked one of yours) was the commission you did of the couple (they were miniscule and central against the pier). I wasn't sure about it but it certainly roused some reaction in your visitors and I could write a number of stories in my imagination with it (plus beautiful clouds). Just my two peenies worth.

I've got the Nikon D70 and I haven't found that dof preview button to be of any use. I too just mess and shoot and shoot and delete and delete! I like this shot and your inability to explain why you like it doesn't matter...the point is you like it! :) oh, and I like it too.

Nice shot. You must have been pretty close to your subject to still get quite a lot of bluring at f/11. The majority of the photograph is in focus, and your eye is drawn to the bright yellow, so I think it's fne.

As for digital/film, I find I spend quite a bit less time actually composing the shot because I can just take tons and sort through them later. Well, not only does this make you think less about the picture, but it takes up so much time later sorting through them on the computer; this is also best done with JPEG's as RAW's are much bigger. Now that I am shooting in RAW, I find myself paying a lot more attention to the photograph the first time; I end up taking several shots anyways, but not as many, and they are better to begin with.

If digital was the best thing to happen to photography, RAW is the best thing to happen to digital. It almost brings back some of the film characteristics of photograph. After all, RAW is considered the "digital negative". It also makes you stop and think before taking a bunch of mindless shots. Both of which are good, in my opinion.

Suffice it to say that there are pros and cons to film and digital. The cost of film makes you a more considerate photographer. The (almost) instant feedback of digital can make you an even better photographer by speeding your learning in quantum steps, and it gives you greater chances of getting the shot you really wanted.

Digital doesn't have the dynamic range (zones) of some color films and not even close to b&w. Intentional enhancement of digital is worlds easier than film and there are no chemical smells (well, there doesn't need to be). Digital doesn't come close to large format camera detail (yet).

I think it really depends on your goals and discipline. I would ask, "How close can you get to the shot you want, proper exposure and lighting, composition, and managing your subject in one shot?" Ansel Adams thought he could always get the shot he wanted with one negative and he usually did. Few people could get one Adams-type shot with 10 million tries and their choice of equipment.

(And I find this shot interesting, more so with your explanation.)

Wow, so much about whether digital makes you a good or bad photographer. In my opinion, you've got the freedom to experiment so sure, go trigger happy...

...and make sure you have a large enough CF card on your person always!

Oh BTW Dave, this looks a lot like mile-markers on Indian highways. They're usually painted on stone and the elements of nature fade them out just like in this picture. If it had said anything other than F217 (e.g. NH-4 instead), I'd sure have thought it was taken somewhere in India.

You definitely manage to put a new perspective to usually mundane objects :-)

I like this shot, the composition and textures are really nice and the yellow colour of the paint on the wall really stands out.

As for the DOF preview button on SLR's it is only of limited use as when you get to apertures small enough to get the background in focus the viewfinder goes so dark you cant see anything anyway.

Just reread my comment, I've got alot of peenies, anyone got a fiivty they can change for them?

RAW. I use it as a priority now. It is a pain to review as you have to use photoshop (not my usual and I find larger and quicker "windows picture and fax viewer".) Which means that when shooting these shots I do consider somewhat more the composition etc and tend to delete obviously bad ones straight off the camera as they take an age to download.

I feel RAW will benefit me mainly once I get the hang of CS which I still find frustrating, especially as Dave is so good with it and always leaves me wondering.

Dhwanit I agree with, I have three CF cards (2x256 and a 1x 128) and I am condsidering getting a gig.

One thing I find annoying about my 300D is that even once set, the size of the image can change, i.e. RAW setting when taken off the creative modes will immediately go down sizes. I hate it when technology dictates to me. Like computers that don't tuen off straight away "no, wait, I have more pressing matters". I find it a bit Big Brother.

Apparently David hit on a big topic with everyone... I've never seen such long comments here. I don't use the DoF on my D70 either.

I like the pop of yellow on the otherwise gloomy background. : )

~gimmie contrast...constructively I'd suggest pumping up the contrast level here...~

Adrian: you may be right, perhaps having things easier does mean that the same concentration isn't there. I don't know.

tobias: I guess I'm going through a blurry phase ;-) As for shooting RAW: it's always worth it, at least in my opinion.

Sharla: my one gripe with digital (well, one gripe of a few) is that you just can't get the same dynamic range as you can with film, at least not in the way that Ansel Adams did.

btezra: I did up the contrast on this one. Any more and I ended up losing detail in the stonework and the background – which would be ok, but wasn't what I was after.