2 January, 2006
My sister was a photojournalist for her high school paper and has indefinitely lent me her 35mm Nikon SLR. Yay! Now my new hobby is both time-consuming AND expensive!
I’m curious about just how digital compares with film. I’ve heard a few things like “more depth of field at an given stop” in digital, and so on, but I want to see it for myself. So I went around today with both, taking pics first with one and then the other, setting them the same as much as possible, and noting the film camera’s settings for each shot. (Did I mention that I’m a scientist? Yeah. I won’t even tell you about the 45 pictures I once took of my own foot on the Metro. Well, not right now anyway. Wait, I guess I just told you. Oops.)
Picture if you will a young bespectacled woman walking around, stopping every now and then with a thoughtful expression and staring at something, then pulling out a little camera, futzing with it (perhaps while crouching or hopping to and fro), then making a note on a pad, pulling out a BIG camera, futzing with IT, then making MORE notes, looking thoughtfully some more, perhaps doing another round of futzing, and eventually putting it all away and walking on nonchalantly. The cops were not happy with me. Yes, because someone with nefarious intent would be loitering in a white coat and carrying their nefarious stuff in a leopard-trimmed hot pink bag.
Can’t blame them though, because who was the dumbass who thought the PD garage would be a good place to compare her cameras’ depths of field? Yeah, that dumbass’d be me. (All comments about absentminded professors will be redirected to /dev/null.)