photorama

How can people still have this debate?

Someone on a forum said that the 3 in the Nikon D3 should stand for 3rd generation of digital photography.

“1st Generation - the introduction of the digital workflow - making the dark-room obsolete

2nd Generation - outperforming film in quality - making film obsolete

3rd Generation - Changing the paradigm of light in photography, removing the need for flash photography and even unnatural studio lighting; making the flash dead and perhaps the tripod too?”

Okay, I can *sort of* agree with the 1st generation.. maybe in that it made it less of a necessity to get into photography. Then again, I’m probably one of the few who actually likes the smell of photo chemicals. But this person’s 2nd generation definition… really? Digital has nothing on film. I’m surprised that in 2008 more people don’t realize that.. or maybe they don’t care. Which if that’s the case, good. It’s one of those things you shouldn’t waste your time thinking about. (Note: this is not taking into account medium or large format film. game over, period)

I think this is what pushed me back to shooting film.. I got tired of hearing people whine about dynamic range, the photosite width, bayer interpolation. I’ve got better things to do, you know? I guess you could say, why even listen to those people? Good question. I think because I’m a more technical person, I tend to get upset more easily about those types of issues than people who don’t.

Film rules, digital drools.

No, I’m playing.. I think both are fine, just depends what you really want out of it.