My “advanced compact” camera is getting on in this digital age (six years old) and I’ve been looking at what I will replace it with. Features wise it stands up well against current cameras but the sensor is noisy and the processing is slow. So while comparing the features of the current cameras I started to think about what the equivalent costs would be if I just used film and some of my older cameras. So lets say I choose Kodak Ektar at $7.50 per 36 exposures and pay $3.50 for developing (I do my own scanning) that’s $11.00/36 = 0.30 per image. So if I were to shoot 15 images a week for 52 weeks that’s 780 images times $0.30 is…… drum-roll…… $240 per year. With the current cameras I’ve been looking at costing twice that much I think that it’s actually economical in the short term to continue and even increase my film use. The bonus for me is of course the pleasure I get from using the older cameras.
Of course when I want to do something where getting the image is critical I will still use my DSLR which is gratifying as well.
A quick sketch I did, I took pictures every minute or so and then put them together as a video. Just a fun exercise as I haven’t used pastels for some time.
I have no idea who this is, or more acurately who this painting of a photographic representation of a person depicts. Yah I just typed that. I find it interesting how some of us cling to memories and others just let them go. This is actually the first of these paintings that I have finished from photo’s I have found I’m sure that things will evolve as I continue.
Some more images created with the Sony DSC-V3 and an infrared filter. The available light was very low so really I should have removed the neutral density filter that I use with this combination but I didn’t and so the image sharpness suffered for it as I ended up with shutter speeds in the 1/4 second range while handholding the camera. There is no excuse for laziness, at least that’s how I think the saying goes but you can always claim that that was the look you wanted.
