Its an interesting debate going on here, not sure where its going though, people have strong views in either direction.
I have just read a quote in a paper this morning from Bailey. When asked if digital photography is producing a generation of lazy photographers he said, quote its not much diffrence from when the box browny camera came out in 1900, they said then that it was the end of photography and they were wrong.
Digital cameras make photography easier but they also make it less good becouse you dont have to think, I dont know if people are getting lazyer-real photographers cant be lazy-but its great for the average person that photography is more accessible.

"Digital cameras make photography easier but they also make it less good becouse you dont have to think"

Sebastion, I'm assuming you're referring to DSLR's, which I should remind you are basically film camera bodies outfitted with CCD's and extra components. Once you download the image to your computer, you still have to think about what to do to it to make it look like film [as I've already stated]. Hence the term "Digital Darkroom".

Digital is equally as complicated as film, just different. I don't know where people get the idea that it's easier. There's a whole culture of photographers out there who use Contax and Yashica point and shoots and they're considered "real" photographers... yaargh!

Maybe what I am saying is, next time you do a shoot Sebastion, spend the money you would on film, processing and materials and go to your local rental house and ask for a digital back for the system you use. Get a tutorial, hire an assistant with digital experience. Then you can come back here and let us know if you had to think less or more.

But get a digital back, medium or large format equivalent. not a DSLR.

And here we rejoin the 'size matters' point of view, don't we? There's nothing wrong with DSLR in the hands of a good photographer. Pinhole can also be good, if you like that kind of thing. You choose the implement best suited to the result you want to achieve.

Hammers don't bang in nails by themselves. The tool maketh not the man.

F:lux, this has nothing to do with size. I gathered Sebastion referred to DSLR's as they use light, exposure and focus calculating mechanisms which makes it "easier". Using a digital back means you're sitll using your own system, but without the need for film. So if you've got a system like his, you're still doing most ofthe work. Nothing about size, just simple technical differences.

Please get off my ass and read things thoroughly.

I'm not 'on your ass' eucinpyos. But I'm not kissing it either. Get over it, so we can both take part in discussions like this without either of us taking it personally when points of view don't perfectly align.

The point I was trying to make was neither size-ist nor anti-digital. Some people in this thread think there's a for-or-against-digital thing to debate. Others think the whole technical/hardware discussion a side issue. If Santa brings me a digi back for medium format, as requested, I won't send it back. If achieving a particular result for a specific project means hiring/buying a piece of equipment worth the price of a mid-range car, OK - but it's the result that will be worth any excitement, not the hardware. This puts me squarely in the side issue camp.

Your advice to Sebastion is good actually - and I did read it! I'm just coming at this discussion from a different angle, which you'd have realised if you'd been less jumpy and taken the time to consider what I was trying to say?

Oh fuck it! I'm ignoring you anyway.

Hope you get your Christmas present, Haslblad digital Flux, and thanks for the great chat in the last year, have a great year ahead with your new digital haslblad, with luck Chris.Peace love and Respect?