Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorViking
Wow, that's a steal!
I recently downloaded all my phone's photos into the free amazon photo cloud. Picking 100 photos and completing the order for $1 took maybe 4 minutes.
|
Congratulations! That is/was a great deal.
Digital photography definitely is great. And when or where could you have had 100 analog photos developed for $1! Never.
It occurs to me, though, that there are times when digital is not necessarily better than analog.
People take photos on their digital camera. Then, when they're through, they take the little card out and put it in their computer (or download the photos via cable). From their computer, they send the digital info to Amazon or somewhere else, or take the chip to their local Walgreens or CVS for turning the digital information into physical prints.
In the analog days, they took their photos. Then they took the roll of film somewhere to be developed, and picked up the prints, usually within 2 or 3 days (or, if they were impatient, some places could do developing in-house, for a substantially higher price).
And, I don't know what the situation is now, but at one time you could get superior photo quality with an analog camera, dollar-for-dollar.
Tell me, which is superior? (Rhetorical question).
Yes, I'm well aware of the advantages of digital photography. To me, the greatest is that you can endlessly preview shots until you get one like you want it. If you decide that the photo is still not quite right, you can fix a lot, after the fact, with photo software.
If my father was still living, you could ask him about the advantage of being able to preview shots. He and Mom took a 2-week tour to Israel, Egypt, and Italy, about 30-35 years ago. Dad took along his 35 mm analog camera, which had served him well for years, and snapped photos left and right. When he got home and tried to have them developed, there was . . . nothing! Come to find out the shutter was sticking or something.
In retrospect, he should have tested the camera to make absolutely sure that the camera worked, for this once-in-a-lifetime trip, by taking a roll of film and trying to have it developed before he left. Hindsight is 20/20. (The good news--a fellow that I know, who had also gone on this same trip, took a huge number of photos. He was going to cull out the ones that he didn't want and keep an album of just what he considered the best shots. Long story short--I got in contact with him and he sent me all of the culls. They looked fine, for the most part. An important part of the trip was salvaged).
Speaking of hindsight. I didn't anticipate the move to digital photography. Or, at least, that things would change so quickly. In the late 90's, after having been wanting a 35 mm camera for quite some time, I bought a new (analog) Canon EOS Rebel 35 mm camera. It was pretty expensive. Of course, it became almost obsolete soon after that, when digital cameras flooded the market. I didn't have the money to turn around and buy a digital camera then that would produce quality equal to the analog 35 mm that I had just bought. Despite the advantages that I see with analog, if I had foreseen how pervasive digital photography was about to become, the particular advantages of it, etc. I would have waited and gone digital.
I took the analog camera with me to the Philippines on a couple of trips in 2000, and got some shots that really turned out great. A year or two later, I bought an inexpensive Kodak (they don't even make cameras anymore), and the quality of the photos is fine for my purposes now.