That's what I'm trying to point.
We gain in many aspects but lost in many others too.
Look at this forum, 90% is about unstable softwares, gone colors profiles, lost datas, unsatisfaction with gear features, bad tethered, slow data transfer, unreliability of components, extreme cost of MF etc...
You say you can shoot more, truth but : How many hours, time and energy spent on internet simply looking for the right information, downloads, solve computer problems, etc...I'm sure that in fact, this amount of time is huge. Where is the shooting when we have to deal with those shit in front of our monitor ?
The problem is that all that is a perfect jungle: Want to calibrate my monitor? Well here starts the race: Need to find the software, looking reviews here, there, watching users experience, then make sure this has no issues with the computer, etc...just for that task, hours and hours spent in order to know what is the right tool for one task, then calibrate and the next day they just released a new software that put this one into the dinausor age. And it's like that in every aspect.
Still run my Photoshop CS3 !! Feel already like a strange guy.
I'm not saying that internet is not usefull, it is indeed.
But to my surprise, when I was a designer in an agency and had the oportunity to meet many pros and talk to them, many of them did not shoot more like crazy because of digital.
That's a point that always surprised me. I think that the pros have a better conscience of the equation income/outcome if I can say it that way.
They generally know what they do and don't shoot for shooting.
There are some niches like fashion, sport, where they shoot like crazy, but they where doing it in film age too.
To be back in this topic, the problem of backups is asked. Solutions? Diverse.
What's the best one? don't know. Cost? not that clear. Reliability? average.
The problem IMO is that digital has created a new race of behaviour very similar to antibiotics: fear.
I'm frighten not having enough frames: digisolution.
I'm frighten of loosing my backup: digipill
I'm frighten of not having enough DR: Nikon's injection
I'm frighten of not having enough compatibility: Canon's remedy
I'm frighten to be hill: antibiotics.
No! no! no! Fred,
For me, the digital age is wonderful. I'll just 'pick you up' on a few points you've made, if you don't mind.
How many hours, time and energy spent on internet simply looking for the right information, downloads, solve computer problems, etc...I'm sure that in fact, this amount of time is huge. Where is the shooting when we have to deal with those shit in front of our monitor ?
Can I answer this with a question? What sort of life is it to spend half one's time in a smelly, dark, room, breathing in chemical odors which will likely be harmful to one's health in the long run? I feel very privileged that I can sit in a nice environment in front of my computer. I can interupt my work at any time, listen to music, watch the telly during a long computation process (such as image stitching), or admire the view through the window of my studio as the wallabies hop by.
Whatever I'm processing on my computer at any given moment, if I see something interesting outside, through the window, such as a visit by a migratory bird that I haven't encountered before, I can interupt what I'm doing, pick up my camera, and grab a few shots. I'm not concerned about silly issues such as 'spray and pray'. I do whetever it takes, with the tool I have, to capture a pleasing image. Birds, at least of the feathered variety, do not have a habit of cooperating whilst one stuffs around with camera settings.
One of the most popular images from the great and famous Ansel Adams is Moonrise over Hernandez. Below is a brief (plagiarised) description of the processing of that shot.
Once the photograph is taken, is the development and printing a mechanical process?
No, it is not mechanical. Although there is a procedure, there is much judgment involved on the part of the artist. Ansel said that the negative for Moonrise was difficult to print. He tried many methods using different chemicals and times and papers. With the negative in the enlarger, he increased the light hitting certain areas (burning-in) which made the sky blacker and the clouds less bright so the moon would stand out more. With all these artistic adjustments, Adams said "it is safe to say that no two prints are precisely the same."
Technical Aspects
Camera: 8 X 10 view camera
Lens: Cooke triple convertible lens.
Light meter: lost!
Film: Speed: ASA 64
Filter: Wratten No. 15 (G) filter
Exposure: 1 second at f/32.
Development: dilute D-23 and ten developer to water sequences.
Years later - refixed, washed the negative, and treated the lower section with a dilute solution of Kodak IN-5 intensifier. But to my surprise, when I was a designer in an agency and had the oportunity to meet many pros and talk to them, many of them did not shoot more like crazy because of digital.
That's a point that always surprised me. I think that the pros have a better conscience of the equation income/outcome if I can say it that way.
They generally know what they do and don't shoot for shooting.
There are some niches like fashion, sport, where they shoot like crazy, but they where doing it in film age too.
I think the key point here is that 'they know what they do and don't shoot for shooting'. If I may add, they should also know what the client wants, even if they have to guess. That's the main purpose of their shooting. Presumably (correct me if I'm wrong), the professional photographer is working to a schedule. Time is money. A job has to be done. There's no time for experimenting with a whole lot of variations which may, or may not, produce a surprising and effective result.
As I've mentioned before, the amateur is in the privileged position of being his own client. He may not have taken any formal courses in Photography, but he will surely appreciate the learning 'feedback' opportunity of digital photography where EXIF information provides all the technical information required for the process of 'learning from one's mistakes'.
The problem IMO is that digital has created a new race of behaviour very similar to antibiotics: fear.
There's nothing to fear but fear itself
I'm frighten not having enough frames: digisolution.
No difference from the past. I made the decision not to travel into Tibet in 1964 because I had insufficient film frames to justify the risk..
I'm frighten of loosing my backup: digipill
People can be frightened of losing anything, whether Kodachrome slides, their house, their children, their job, whatever. Digitisation has not added to such fear. In fact, it's reduced it. Those in the business of preserving film images, whether still or moving, have an admirably effective solution with digitisation.
I'm frighten of not having enough DR: Nikon's injection
This was also a consideration with film. Generally, slide film had the worst DR. Negative color film was better, and B&W was the best of all. No need to be frightened. Just use the best film for the job. There's a tremendous advantage to DSLRs in respect of flexible ISO.
I'm frighten of not having enough compatibility: Canon's remedy
This is not a fear. It's merely a practical concern. I understand why Nikon and Canon do not manufacture lenses that are interchangeable between the two different brand of camera bodies. It's a pity, but there are third party lens manufacturers, such as Sigma, who try to fill this need.
I'm frighten to be hill: antibiotics.
One should never take antibiotics as a preventative. That's what immunisation is for.
You and Rob seem to be a couple of grumpy old men who are out of touch with modern developments. Get with it! .