Up In Smoke. Burn the past.

I've thought a lot this year about where photography is headed and why. At first I thought the changes were scary and bad. Now I understand the inevitable push to change that comes with a vibrant culture. I understand it but of course that doesn't mean I have to like it.

It's good to get a grip on what's happening so you can plan for the future but it's best to figure out what has already changed so you can live in today.

We are witnessing the demise of print in commercial communication. Magazines are giving way to websites. Newspapers are yielding to blogs and news sites on the web. Even core advertising is moving relentlessly to video, television and webvertising. In some areas the moves are gradual but in most areas the moves sit around building momentum until they reach a tipping point and then change seems sudden and wrenching---even though the atmosphere was filling with gas fumes day by day we are still surprised by the explosion.

But here's the thing that causes photographers to be rooted in the past. Most of us grew up when print was in ascendency and we learned to use tools that stretched out to fill the most demanding parameters: tight, four color printing on gloss stock at high lpi's. We needed all the detail we could get out of cameras in order to satisfy the demanding nature of high quality printing. Especially so for double truck ads.

And in the 1980's and 1990's the paper manufacturers pulled out all the stops and provided offset printing papers that could suck up ink and return luxurious detail and depth. We needed our Hasselblads. And it is no wonder that the number of megapixels became the holy grail.

But we've lost 35% of the total number of magazines in the market in the past 36 months and the ones with the best printing quality and finest papers seem destined to be the first to savor extinction. Titles like Gourmet, which help define the high end of the printer's art.

As one medium subsides another rises. And now we have the web. A big file isn't measured in inches and lpi but in pixels and, because of bandwidth considerations, small is the imperative goal. If logic prevalis we'll see a downsizing of pixel densities and an increase in parameters that will make the files better web content. Maybe richer color or files pre-optimized for web representation. But one thing is for sure, the need for higher and higher res is slipping away. Magazine by magazine, glossy brochure by glossy brochure.

I've talked to trade show experts recently in doing research of future photography trends. Here's what you need to know: Trade show booths used to be prime display space for large prints. The kind of large prints you could walk up to and put your nose against. But a 30 by 40 color print, printed on a durable stock and mounted on heavy duty Gatorfoam, shipped across the country was a costly investment that usually had a shelf life of one or two show. And a ticket price of between $400 and $500.

Industry experts let me know that clients are quickly moving to plasma displays to take the place of last century, single image, printed graphics.

And why wouldn't they? The screens can be endlessly repurposed and can show graphics, still photographs, commercials and video programming interchangeably. Imagine you are a semiconductor manufacturer at an embedded systems trade show. Your booth faces the doors to an auditorium where breakout sessions are being conducted.

If you consult the schedule you'll know exactly what each breakout covers. You could fine tune the images on the video displays to match the interests of each audience over the course of the show. And there are study metrics that talk to the efficiency of this model. Average trade show attendees spent 17 seconds looking at a typical still photo display print but would linger for up to three minutes in front of a display with video and still programming mixed. And, purchased in any quantity the price of these almost infinitely re-usable screens is lower than the price of one static image.

You certainly don't need the resolution of a 5dmk2 or a Nikon D3x to fill any 1080p screen. You need between two and four megapixels, tops.

If our markets are moving to this paradigm, and if jobs are less plentiful and fees less juicy, then why in world are we dropping kilo-dollars into the ever escalating arms races of camera acquisition?

Pretty much the stuff we had last year would work just fine this year. It might even represent overkill.

Someone will mention fashion photography or product photography and the need for higher quality repro and you'll have me dead to rights there. But how many of us really do that versus how many of us do corporate headshots, products for the web, and lifestyle for web and lower quality print publications?

The gear anchors us emotionally to a past that is NEVER coming back. Even when the economy recovers we'll still face the reality that our media have shifted. That production has changed. Everything has progressed into a direction that is bearing less and less resemblance to the past.

WHAT TO DO??????

Well, Buddha would tell you to burn the past. Make a clean break with habit and precedence and move on to the next thing. I agree. When we hang on to outmoded routines we sabotage our ability to see and react to what's happening in the present.

I sold off all my Nikon cameras and lenses this Summer. I assume, in retrospect, that this was my attempt to make a break from the way I practiced photograph last year, last decade and last century.

You'll have to find your own way through the maze but I will tell you that the tools you'll need are curiosity and an ability to be underwhelmed by technology and focused on the content rather than the production aspects that once gave our craft succinct barriers to entry.

Here's the plan for Kirk Tuck Photography:

1. Focus like a laser on my core strength: Portraits. Understand that the camera is much less important than the rapport or the lighting.

2. Minimize my investment in stuff to maximize the creative process. Understand that gear will continue to be less important but connections and creative thinking will become primary.

3. Understand that multi-media is the new IP and clients will want a unified provider. Learn sound and video.

4. Become a true minimalist. Evolve my gear to be lighter, smaller, faster, cheaper. Put the profit in the bank, not back into the camera bag.

5. Burn the past so I never have to say, "This is how we did it in the old days." That's the kiss of death as AD's get younger and younger.

Ian Summers famously says, "Grow or Die".

I say don't let the past anchor you to the same old thing. Throw yourself your own revolution. Have a coup de grace with your last century equipment fixation. Show me how sharp your mind is, not your camera.


Nicolas said...

Thank you Kirk for this post. There is lot of things to think about after reading it. I'm wondering why you conclude that film cameras have to be thrown away, for the only thing you proove is that megapixels don't do anything. Becoming 'a true minimalist', like you said, should sound like going back to minimalist equipment, like Leica M2/M3, old Rolleiflex and Hasselblad, Nikon F... Those cameras without built-in lightmeter were perfect to understand that 'the camera is much less important than the rapport or the lighting', don't you think ?
Well thank you again, and sorry for my poor english.
Nicolas, from France

jefflynchdev said...

So true and I really like your new "plan".

Things are very different today. For example, a potential client emails me about a landscape image posted on my site (or Flickr). Wants a 16x20 print for his restaurant in South Carolina. Sent him a PayPal invoice via email. Payment arrives in my account from his credit card and I send the drop ship print order to my online lab via the web, paying them from the same PayPal account. Print is boutique packaged and dropped shipped including my business card from Ohio to South Carolina via FedX and arrives the next day. Another happy customer I've never met and probably never will.

I make a nice profit but nowhere near what it used to be 30 years ago. However, my "labor" costs are nil and I really don't miss doing my own printing, packaging and shipping. I get to spend more time behind the camera and with my other clients in Houston.

I remember a line from a SciFi book many years ago, "think of it as evolution in action".

Mark Olwick said...

Wholeheartedly agree about the equipment fixation. Well put, Kirk.

Anonymous said...

Great post! And weirdly timely for me. Not just 15 minutes ago I had decided to sell my Zeiss Ikon 35mm rangefinder and Mamiya 7ii rangefinder and break with film, both of which good as they are have caused me frustration and ongoing cost. I do not need them and I do not have the proper time that film deserves/requires. Stick to my DSLR and my digital compact, and focus on what I love to shoot. Stick to the art.

Sage words of yours in this post. Thanks for sharing and inspiring.

kirk tuck said...

Nicolas, I don't suggest you throw away your film cameras. I suggest that people no longer require super high resolution cameras to do the kind of commercial work that is currently being done and that the evolution in the field is so quick that it doesn't make sense to sink a lot of money into overkill equipment. Thanks for the comment though.

kirk tuck said...

If I could do all my work with a Canon G10 or an SX10 I certainly would. But the point is to identify where your work is going and make changes based on your current position, not nostalgia.

Jeffrey Chapman said...

Great post! Out with the old, and in with the new.

Janne Morén said...

There will be people needing high resolution cameras. Many landscape photographers have never stopped using ther LF view cameras, for instance, and changes in the magazine or corporate markets don't really affect them. That said, I agree that it's going to be a niche market. And from that point of view I suspect that the likes of Leica, Leaf (and Pentax when/if they release their digital MF) may be in as good a position as Canon, Nikon and Sony. They have bet big on high-resolution 35mm digital to become a professional mass market, while the MF manufacturers have ben planning for a niche market from the start.

I don't think 5mp really is enough, though. For live display, try 8-10mp. High-resolution, high-end laptop screens are going to reach around 2500*2000, and high-end display monitors will eventually follow suit (those display booths will be among the first to take advantage of such gear). And we're going to see one more step up in resolution for television and projection too not too many years hence. That means 5-6mp, allow for a bit of cropping then add the inevitable "slow zoom in on the still image as a speaker drones on"-effect and you'll need about 8-10mp total.

Which is coincidentally the minimum you'd need for a decent poster-sized printed image too. As much as you belabour a trade show with screns you're going to cover some areas with decent-sized slogans, banners and stuff that use imagery among their graphical elements.

With that said, I'm getting more and more hooked on MF film, and film in general. Completely backwards, I realize that, and I certainly don't need the resolution it offers. The results just look more pleasing to me, and I have more fun using it.

John Ricard said...

I agree with you. I've always purchased the gear I wanted -not the gear I needed. In 2009 I need only a Nikon D2x to shoot studio images. However, I wanted a Nikon D3, so that is what I bought. Where you feel more comfortable with a smaller, lighter camera, I actually enjoy using a large heavy Nikon. Because this is the tool I like, it is the tool that helps me create to the best of my abilities.

I could never do my job on the Olympus cameras you like, Kirk. And it has nothing to do with the specs of those cameras. It is merely a matter of asthetics. It's like the Mac vs PC debates. Neither is better or worse at this point in time. It's a matter of which computer fits your personality.

Mel said...

Just had a class today on video as part of photography school. The instructor said he isn't trying to convert us to film school but needs us to realize clients are going to want photographers to do double and triple duty - stills, video clips, animations, etc. - and we need to be prepared to say 'yes' confidently when the opportunity arises.

Personally, I very happy with my Olympus E-3 and E-510, along with my Mamiya 6 MF and Olympus OM-1. I see it as the best of both worlds for the outdoor photography I love.

Keep rockin'

Anonymous said...

I will sell all my my Canon gear shortly after I get my Panasonic GF-1 next week. I like the 4/3 apsect ratio better for what I do and no mirror slap and cdaf focusing makes lens align obsolete. A new lighter photo experience :-)

tokyobling said...

The future is scary. I don't know how much money I have spent on photography since I first picked up that old Olympus Trip 35 back when I was 15.

But I do know the ratio of my income between Web (i.e. future photography) versus my income from Paper (i.e. old photography) magazines and journals:

Future: 0%
Paper: 100%

Just last month some of my photos broke the 1000 website circulation (they are now on over 1000 sites and servers): total income 0. But I did sell one photo to a UK publication. Lots of money.

I don't make my money from photography, but I see why people are scared about it.

The Photophile said...

I put a link to this article on my blog here:


Hope that's ok with you Kirk. Let me know.

Juha Ylitalo said...

One thing that fascinates, puzzles and at the same time makes me bit sad is that most interesting photographers (based on blogs, books, etc) are mainly photographing people in one form or another.
Reason why I am feeling puzzled, etc. about it, is that regardless what I learn from all these great photographers, I usually end up taking photographs about nature (landscapes, plants, birds and lately some self-portraits for experimenting things). Many of the tricks about people photography can be adapted without any problems to other forms of photography, while others might not apply. Yet, I find myself wondering whether it would make sense (as hobbyist) to forget the past, sign in to Model Mayhem, etc. and see if that would be as much fun as nature photography.

P.S. In case someone is interested, photographers in the first paragraph was reference to people like Kirk Tuck, Zack Arias, David Hobby, Chase Jarvis and Joe McNally.

Gordon said...

Kirk, I think, if you take a short-term view of the web technologies, you are right about the decrease in resolution requirements. Typical print needs are 300-600 dpi resolution, typical web is more like 72-100ish dpi.

However, all the recent research in e-ink type paper replacements are pushing back up to that 300+dpi level. Mainly because the quality is so much better. I expect in a few years we will be back to needing images at the 8x10@300 to 600 dpi level (I.e., 8Mp or higher) for general print usage.

Except now it will be for e-readers, colour replacements for kindle DX type devices and so on.

The main driver for ever smaller images on the web was the available bandwidth (and still is for many parts of the world - we live in an oddly fast bubble, particularly here in Austin, where many people have high speed cable) More are accessing the web still through dial-up or slow 3G mobile sorts of speeds.

More bandwdith, means access to higher resolution images in a reasonable time. Improvements in display technologies will mean the ability to display higher resolution and so bring a requirement for it.

HD TV is still pretty low resolution - try reading your email on an HDTV for any length of time and you'll realise the advantage of much higher resolution screens (like a typical LCD monitor) LCD dot pitch has been slowly drifting upwards (again limited by current technology and also computer to screen bandwidth limitations)

As these various limitations are improved upon, we'll quite quickly see a need for higher resolution images for online usage.

I think it is a temporary blip, not a long term trend, just based on the technologies I've been working with over the last 5 or 10 years.

Anonymous said...

I am in the commercial printing industry and this article is so accurate about what is going on in the graphics communication world ( commercial printers and photographers ) You hit a home run on this one


Von Thomas RED Camera Tech said...

Kirk I enjoyed your information, it is spot on. I blogged about this yesterday in my piece called The Future of Print Advertising...."The Sky is Falling",http://reddigitalmotionandstill.blogspot.com/2009/10/future-of-print-advertising.html.

I've worked as a digital tech from the very beginning of the film to digital wave, and I see another wave coming, like a tsunami, but this time I think it will at people by surprise, and they will be swept off their feet before they realize what has happened. As you stated, people are rooted in the past, it feels warm and cozy.

Even at schools like Art Center Pasadena, they are preparing the newer crop of photographers to understand the landscape, and to work with that. Motion is on the plate, along with still, but as we all see a sift, we need to adjust, and quickly.

I'm still surprised that the digital back makers are still cranking out big mp backs that only shoot stills, we don't need them, we need better motion gear. The RED Digital Cinema company is on the verge of releasing the types of cameras we as professionals will use in the future, the DSMC cameras. That stands for Digital Still Motion Camera. They have plans for cameras from 2/3" chip all the way to 6X17", and well surpassing the 100MP mark. This is the future, this is Star Wars type photography. So learn Final Cut Pro, get a working knowledge motion cameras, and when the tsunami hits, you'll not only have something to cling to, you'll also have a life boat to keep you afloat.

Von Thomas

kellymooneyminutes said...


My advice is don't define who you are by your tool - define yourself by your unique vision - regardless of which tool you may choose to use.

Gail Mooney


I think your comments and observations are generally valid but more specifically quite valid for you and your personal experience with photography; past, present and what you see as the future. While chasing MP's is not my obsession, quality certainly is. I routinely make prints on the Epson Stylus Pro 9900, which is a 44" printer.
My experience with prints this size had led me to conclude that bigger to a certain degree is better. It all depends on what your level of expectation is. I make prints for commercial clients and for private collectors.
So in the context of my business at present and what I see as the near future I stand 180 degrees from your position. Which doesn't imply that either of us is right or wrong. Just that their are many paths available and one just has to decide which path with it's attendant requirements is right for you. In the end it's all about the images you make and what technology is required to present them to your world.

Douglas Dubler

kirk tuck said...

Douglas Dubler,

You could not be more correct. Every market and every photographer builds his career in a different way. I've known your work for years and, given the large prints displays you do I couldn't imagine you would work with anything less than the largest digital formats.

What I write about is true for most regional commercial photographers who provide advertising images to regional and mid-tier agencies and corporate clients.

Jobs that require the kind of resolution and precision that yours do come along for us much less frequently. My solution is to rent the right tools for those jobs. It might be a Phase One camera or a Hasselblad digital camera but it is just as likely to be the old 4x5 Sinar P in the corner of the closet.....

Graham Mitchell said...

Although I agree with the trend away from high-resolution, that is not the whole story and not a reason to sell your 30MP camera for a 2MP model anytime soon. This seems like another case of an author trying to appear prophetic (although he is about 20 years too late in this case to be prophetic and too early for the article to apply in the real world).

Even if print used to comprise 90% of your work and by 2010 it will only comprise 20%, for example, you will still need the extra resolution for that 20%. You would not want to abandon high-resolution unless the cost of having more resolution exceeds how much you are making from it.

Personally I don't think print will die in our lifetime any more than TV killed off radio, although like radio I expect it will become a niche rather than the dominant medium.

Even if an image is targeted at the web, many clients would prefer that the image be produced at high-res to give them flexibility in future should they decide to go to print.

Even if e-paper does take off, and there's a good chance it will, I expect that it will have to be higher resolution than 72dpi, to make text really crisp. Same goes for computer monitors - how long will it be before we have smaller pixel pitches for sharper text and images? I can easily imagine extreme resolution screens taking off before too long. So the screens won't necessarily become much larger but the pixels will be a lot smaller. Instead of HD's 2 MP resolution, with half the pixel width and height they could be 8 MP screens, or with 300dpi rather than 72dpi (but same screen size), that would result in 34 MP.

Whatever resolution the medium will be, you will always be happy to have extra resolution to support multimedia zooming, or plain old cropping.

And with bayer filter arrays on our sensors, images always look more detailed when downsampled properly, so an 8 MP camera will give you a better 2 MP image than a native 2 MP camera, all else being equal.

So it seems there are good reasons for shooting in high res for some years to come, and if high-resolution screens take off soon enough, high-res will have a healthy future. Or perhaps, like cars which can do 250kph in countries with speed limits of 100kph, people will always get extra resolution for nothing more than the fun of it!

kirk tuck said...

I talked to the author. He wasn't trying to be prophetic. Really. Just establishing a dialog about the future. Thanks for the opposing view.

Dag said...

I think the point about the demand for high-resolution files going down is very interesting and important.

The important part is that it is a very good, rational argument against mostly unnecessary purchasing decisions by a large amount of photographers (and this has included myself), and it gives us a reason to reflect the next time we look for "gear".

Often criticism of the time/money spent on equipment is met with statements like "in genre X you DO need X amount of megapixels/fps", which might really be true, but only answers the hyperbolic statement that the "camera doesn't matter at all". With regard to the underlying point; that people have an overwhelming tendency to focus on camera equipment at the expense of analysing the content of their images, the "horses for courses" argument is really a red herring.

The interesting thing to me is to try to accept the fact that this tendency exists, and that it is WAY out of proportion with the time many people spend on improving their image-making (e.g. on one popular general photography forum I found the ratio between posts in the "image-making" and equipment forums was at least 1:20!). And while it might not STOP you from making better images over time, it will often be a hindrance.

My point isn't to simply complain about the state of matters, but I'll give a shot at how the proportions could be reversed.

My view is that people are sometimes/often dissatisfied with their own assessment of and/or the response to their pictures, and that this dissatisfaction causes stress. Stress is not necessarily a bad thing, but simply an uncomfortable feeling that leads us to action to try to reduce it. The default reaction for a large amount of photographers, including many good ones who want to become even better, is to read up on equipment and buy some stuff on the web. This doesn't necessarily have to be the latest and greatest Canon, but includes stuff like lens-babies, holgas, dianas, old film cameras and what have you...which at least it gives you the feeling that you are doing SOMETHING to improve your photography, and reduces stress until the next time you feel your images don't measure up.

This is not only due to how people think for themselves, but a complex feedback loop between advertising, peer-pressure combined with own your own thinking, and it often seems VERY hard to escape.

My proposed "solution" is simply to be more concious of this feeling of "stress" when doing creative photography, and instead of reducing stress by procrastinating and buying things, use it as motivation to get actual work done; READ non-technical photography books, look at how other photographers have solved certain problems (e.g. the very different conceptual approaches one can have to something as "simple" as taking a portrait.), talk to other photographers, and set up/write down clear goals for what you want to do with your photography, and what you have to do to on the way to getting there. You won't get there immediately, but as long as you are successfully completing goals on the way, you'll escape the procrastination and reach for the next task instead.

Working in engineering you really understand how important the last bit is - if you don't have a plan, milestones to reach and clear set goals to measure against, you'll quickly end up with spiraling costs, and even using very impressive equipment that you really never needed. WITH a plan, individual people or an organization as a whole can be extremely effective at thinking "outside the box" and delivering creative solutions to given problems.

And with this in mind, I think you are on the right path with the goals you have set up...

Sorry for the long rant, my points seem rather obvious and/or I seem overly patronizing; sometimes I think it helps to spell it out, though. Often in these debates you only get "There is too much focus on equipment" with lots of technical rebuttals (not to mention I needed to get something off my chest, haha!)

James Bland said...

Good points. I have a few thoughts:

Why sell equipment that you have basically paid for and can easily do the job at hand? Are you being an equipment butterfly and just satisfying a different kind of camera lust? Files can always be compressed, downsized, but it's harder to invent information to up size. By selling your Nikon [digital?] gear, you've limited your options and taken a loss on a sunk cost / capital investment. Of course with digital cameras, the value depreciates faster so selling sooner and hopefully buying cheaper in the future for the same or less capability might make sense for the bodies... maybe not for the glass.

The HD video camera's that are web friendly are not much more expensive than a good backdrop. The big expense and cost are in the accessories to steady the camera and edit the footage, as well as the skill acquisition / experience.

I think it's a jump ball right now.

The equipment manufacturers are courting the pro-sumer and the video guys, who are already set up to handle it, are finding some new cheaper capability. They may also be canabalizing their own video departments which is an interesting dynamic to consider. The film / Video guys are excited about the 5DMk2.

I'm personally confused by the product management roadmaps that seem to be emerging [Talk about 1DsMk4 @ 15MP? can't sell at the $7K price tag of their full frame progenitors] and confusing/blurring the cost value paradigms. If Canon, Nikon, et al aren't careful, they will shoot themselves in the foot, just like print media or Kodak. But maybe the culture of good enough is sufficient.

For now I like being able to use the right tool for the right job and not limit my choices, from film to digital medium format. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. I don't think you can get the same coveted look from compact digital cameras that the big prime lenses can deliver. But I will stand ready to be corrected. I think the customers still like to see the big glass, and Hasselblad seems to be convinced that there is a market for huge, albeit cheaper medium format digital at 50MP and above.

Good luck. It is certainly interesting to watch. Meanwhile the retail wedding and portrait guys keep chugging along. Enjoy those new Olympus EP-1s or whatever you settle on.

Ellis Vener said...

it depends, but generally tools do indeed influence how we work. There is no one size fits all solution.
Today I finished a print editorial piece, it probably won't run large, so while the 22mp raw files I shot with won't be printed full frame and at maximum resolution the camera's other image quality aspects: among which are dynamic range, and as Arnold Newman showed years ago with his famous photo of Igor Stravinsky, ( http://www.tinyurl.com/Newman_Stravinsky ) the versatility of high resolution originals allows you to crop when necessary to the best image. (Newman's final version uses less than half of the original 4x5 negative.

So even if I am not planning on printing really large, I think there are a very good arguments to be made for high resolution originals. It is our minds that need to stay flexible.

Selina Maitreya said...

I love your perspective .Embrace the new. Yes but selectively.
Be aware of changes and look to see how they fit into your biz plan or how your plan should shift.
In regards to magazines closing?There were an insane number of publications out there. No way to sustain them all. It reminded me of Benneton in Paris 25 years ago. There was a sweater store on every corner. I dont believe print is dead, shifting yes but lets not predict the demise of the print industry just quite yet:)

James Frederick Bland photography said...


A counter argument / observation on Medium Format Digital.

Russ Butner said...

I agree entirely that it's the photographer and not the camera that makes the image. When I used to give workshops, I always told the participants, "it's your vision that the customer is paying for, not your equipment." I'm still a film burner, and just have no desire to go digital. I'm not anti-digital at all. I just don't find it necessary for my personal or professional work. With high resolution scanning being so cheap, fast and convenient, I prefer film and my older and not so old film rigs and lenses. Not to mention that I have the original negs and slides for archiving purposes. Yes, it's easy to become a gear nerd and have it detract from our personal vision. Keep it simple, and just go shoot. :-)

Kiron Kid

Ed Buziak said...

A very interesting article, Kirk, as I always expect to read every time I visit here. Equally important too, for many I suspect, are the cogent responses you receive.

After almost falling in love with the smoldering beauty used to illustrate your article, I posted a link to your article on the Alamy image library forum site with the teaser, "Sobering thoughts on where it's going for many of us freelance snappers... 'up in smoke' being true words if we don't change when and where necessary!"

In a very unusual move the forum moderator immediately locked the thread so no-one could post their thoughts or even a reply! I hope the 480+ photographers who looked at my post there, during the past three days, clicked the link and arrived here to read and fully comprehend what has been a most interesting discussion.

Dan Fogel said...

I haven't sold a photo in over 20 years and those were silly frat party photos to earn beer money in college. I rediscovered my OM-1 this year thinking I would soon buy a DSLR. Instead, I have been experimenting with different films and developers and scanning my photos. I really like the look of film and find digital to be, well, digital.

That said, I am a geek of the highest order and really am smitten with the technology of the new cameras as gadgets. On paper, the Olympus DSLR's have features the others lack, and all the reviews say that, but then there is noise, etc. If I am not in a hurry, I prefer to shoot film now (again) and the results have been great. I doubt I could earn a living shooting film, but so far, I am not trying to.

Love what you are writing. What was the old slogan "image is everything."? I think that's the point.


Gregg Mack said...

I thought something was "not right" when I read that you had sold all of your Nikon equipment last summer. It wasn't until I had read through several of the comments that I realized that you must have reposted this 3 and a half year old blog post. With your recent announcement that you were going to be deleting all of your old posts and start over, you must have thought that this one was worthy of being put out there again. Since it took me so long to realize that it was such an old post, the subject matter must certainly be "timeless".

It certainly seems very timely to me right now, as for weeks I have been giving serious thought to selling all of my Canon equipment - while it is still worth something.... Maybe when the NEX 8 comes out....

Carlo Santin said...

Show me how sharp your mind is, not your camera.

Well, I couldn't agree more, but I do have one issue with you, and it is this: you buy a lot of gear Kirk, and you spend a lot of time talking about it on this blog. Not that I don't enjoy reading about your acquisitions, or your search for the perfect camera; I share the same torment. It is difficult to believe you however, when an article like this is followed by an article outlining your latest purchase. I've heard this mantra before, and I fully expect to read next week about how you've given in to temptation and bought the Olympus OM-D or a new Fuji or something or other.

Kirk Tuck said...

Breathlessly: "The new Samyang turbo flex 2014 is amazing..." Just kidding. For now.