Should a person without a computer go digital?

lifesdisciple

The reason I ask is because my father, who is 67 and technically challenged, recently got into photography. He picked up a rebel ti and a 28-200 f4.0-5.6 lens. He is learing and at a fast pace. Although he is getting annoyed, like we all did in the early days of learning the basics. A lot of his pics that don't come out are either under exposed or blurred. He likes to shoot photos of his grandchildren doing their sports. Mostly indoors where flash is prohibited. He goes through tremendous amounts of film and processing costs. He asked if he should upgrade to digital or buy a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. I didn't know what to say. Although the lens will definitely help the lighting issues and probably the blurring issues since he will be able to shoot at a faster shutter speed, it's not going to cut the processing and film costs. His concern though is not owning a computer. Do you really need one, especially now that almost anywhere you develope film has a little computer thing you can insert your memory card into and crop and do basic editing on. Any advice for my dad? I'm not sure what to tell him and he is as impatient as I am when waiting for an answer. :help
Thanks. Michael

System

well, yeah, you could go to cvs or walgreen's or whatever every time your card filled up and wait to use the picture thingy while you go through 50 or 100 or whatever pics and enjoy standing there with your gout or athritis or cold etc.-

I can't imagine it getting any better than that-



or--



since your capable of using a dslr and looking to get a kick--- lens for it you bite the bullet and buy yourself a halfway decent computer that, yeah, you might think that the cd drive tray is to hold your coffee cup, but you've got a dear son who has the patience of job and will teach you how to use it (or, your son pays your computer-literate grandchild to teach you)-


anyway, freakin' go for it-

lifesdisciple

I have told him to get a machine. He can pick up a decent enough computer to basic editing and viewing for like 300 bucks now a days and although it seems like a rather big investment, ie the computer, the dslr, and the lens. Down the road he will save a fortune on time and money well spent. My father is very stuborn though and just recently figured out how to change the tape speed on his VCR from LP to EP to record longer. He is also one of those older people that think death is right around the coner even with me trying to convince him he has another 20 or 30 years left in him.

System

if he's 67 now 30 more years might be pushing it, but it's amazing how people are easily hitting their eighties now-

hey, let him stand at walgreen's every so often for a couple months-
he'll figure it out-

who knows; maybe someone else will suggest a better alternative-

anyway, good luck-

pathfinder

If someone knows nothing about using computers, they will find stepping into digital editing a large undertaking. Learning to handle files, storing and retrieving, and understanding color spaces will take a while. But is can be an exciting, invigorating journey if you are patient and willing to make the effort. If one thinks it is a five minute education, they will get frustrated quickly.

Having said that, shooting digital photography without doing your own editing, is like shooting film and sending it off to the drugstore. If you are happy with drugstore images, you probably will be happier with drug store digital images.

Most of the better images seen here on dgrin have been edited by their owners to bring out their best appearance. For example, I post no images here that are straight out of the camera jpgs, unless I am doing it to demonstrate a point.

The use of Photoshop or some digital editing program is inherent in the creation of first class images today - just my opinion of course. Modern digital SLRs can create images comparable to the best of film straight out of the camea sometimes. Digital editing helps make them even better.

As for his age, there are lots of us around here that are near that vintage. That should not be an issue.

Digital photography is NOT cheaper than film in the long run. But it is much more satifying to be able to create in an image, what we saw in our mind's eye, when we hit the shutter.

ziggy53

Michael,

If your father wants to shoot indoor sports, and achieve results like Sports Illustrated, he would have to invest in equipment and software and experience, because that is what it takes to get those images. There is no simple or inexpensive way to achieve those results.

I have the Canon 1D MKII, and the 70-200mm, f2,8L, and I think that would make a great indoor sports combination. It worked well for both daytime and night football.

At very least, a Canon or Nikon that can shoot ISO 800-3200 and a fast lens from either the manufacturer (f2 - f2.8 constant aperture, Canon or Nikkor, respectively) or possibly Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8EX. The Canon 1D series and the Nikon D2 series also have much faster focussing, especially with the faster lenses, and especially in the lower light of indoor and night sports.

The primary advantages of digital are its amortized cost per shot (you pay more in up-front costs with digital, but the more you shoot, the more you save), and greatly reduced visible grain versus equivalent high ISO film.

There is still going to be some post=processing involved, so if you can't do it for him, then yes, he will need to get a computer and learn about software image processing.

He will also need to invest some serious personal time to gain experience with the entire system.

Tell him, "If it was easy, anybody could do it." ... and then duck of course.

ziggy53

Jeffro

lifesdisciple wrote:

I have told him to get a machine. He can pick up a decent enough computer to basic editing and viewing for like 300 bucks now a days and although it seems like a rather big investment, ie the computer, the dslr, and the lens. Down the road he will save a fortune on time and money well spent. My father is very stuborn though and just recently figured out how to change the tape speed on his VCR from LP to EP to record longer. He is also one of those older people that think death is right around the coner even with me trying to convince him he has another 20 or 30 years left in him.

He sounds like my parents....electronics wise. My parents would probably give up on the PC, and never get any pictures anyway.

Film is still good. A better lens, and higher ISO film may be all he needs to get the shots he wants. Just going to digital wont solve all the problems. You have to understand the limits of your equipment, no matter if it's a slr or d-slr. There are up front cost for both film and digital, but the d-slr bodies are generally much more than similar film bodies.

If your dad doesn't have the patients to sit down and learn the PC, and then spend the time to learnd how to load his photos on it, then learn how to adjust them in PS, I wouldn't waist my time and money going digital.

Buy a better lens, use higher ISO. Make sure the shutter speed is high enough for the situation he's shooting. And lastly have him come to terms with the fact that no matter how he shoots not every shot is perfect.

lifesdisciple

Well, I think with reading all your responses and knowing my father and his ways, digital is probably not the answer for him right now. Down the road maybe. What I suggested to him the other day was a better lens, such as the 70-200mm f2.8 and going somewhere reputable to have his film processed. Staying away from the walmarts and drug stores since they don't fix images or color corrections. I think he is learning that this is an expensive hobby and if you want to get the results you have in your head onto film you need to have the right equipment and pay the price. Now it is up to him whether or not he wants to make the investment. You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. Life is full of choices and it's time for him to make one. Thanks for all your help and advice. It is greatly appreciated. Michael