>> > If you want to limit yourself to 36 unreviewed shots, you can do that with digital too.
> I’m not sure that’s true. At least, not nearly as hard-constrained as with film.
Just grab your camera of choice, look at the average file size, multiply it by 36, and format a partition on your memory card of that size. Bonus points if your camera uses adaptive compression, so maybe you'll get a bit fewer or a bit more photos per card depending on what you shot! Isn't that even more interesting than film? You know exactly how many exposures you get up front with a roll, now you'll have to wait and find out!
> Digital is not a free lunch. You do lose something somewhere.
Right. But I bet that, just like the OP, most people will outsource development and scanning of their film rolls, meaning they don't control the process. That's just digital with extra steps.
> And paying for a monthly subscription is probably overkill for most casual photographers.
But film (the actual roll + development + scan) is very expensive, at least in my parts. Sure, you may mean "casual" as in "maybe shoots a roll a film a year", in which case I guess it's quite cheaper than an Adobe LR subscription. But if you shoot a roll a month or more? Then Adobe wins hands down (I'm talking the photography plan here, not the whole thing).
The cheapest stock I could find is a C-41 negative, b&w Agfa APX 400 iso, 36 pictures for 7.90 €. Color C-41 starts at 11 € with a 24 picture Kodak Ultra Max, bought as a set of 3 rolls. Developing and scanning costs 12 € for 2000x3000 px or 20 € for 4500x6700 px. That's 19.90 €, or the price of the base Adobe Photography plan.
Yes, financially doesn't make much sense to go from digital to film. Film costs, absolutely. But you end up shooting less, thinking more, waiting for the right shot and so on. You also move sliders/tweak less and mistakes teach you lessons that you quickly learn from. Sometimes there are happy accidents as well. Taking a shot becomes a deliberate action since you don't have unlimited frames. It's a different experience. Yes, the Adobe light room seems cheap in comparison to film but, that's the wrong comparison IMO. There are other tools out there that are much cheaper than Adobe's offerings if not completely free. Digital has made photography available to the masses, everybody's got a camera nowadays. However, it did kill something and what it killed is what these folk are looking for (that something that got lost in the process).
I'm not into photography anymore and will stick to cheap digital photography for convenience (smart phone) but I could see how this works out for these folks and I believe it's not just a fad or signaling. Similarly, for music, analog instruments could be replicated and enhanced digitally/electronically and yet they're what you're after sometimes.
> Taking a shot becomes a deliberate action since you don't have unlimited frames. It's a different experience.
It’s a very different experience. Whether you enjoy that depends a lot on why you are engaging in photography. Do you prize the ritual, the act of taking photographs in the moment? Then you might love film. Might also love working in a dark room and doing your own development and prints.
Personally I don’t care about any of that. I care about the resulting photo. I’ll take upwards of 800 photos when I’m shooting one of my kids’ soccer games. I’ll get 100 photos max that are worth keeping, and a much smaller number I’m really happy with. Some will miss focus. Some will miss the moment. But I’ll have a few great photos for the trouble.
There’s nothing wrong with enjoying the ritual. Also nothing wrong with just enjoying the product.
I'm also a LR classic user. I think it's pretty terrible by certain aspects, but I haven't found anything better. No idea why the UI lags on a pretty high-end machine, even with test catalogs. And I'm talking about scrolling, or showing and hiding panels. Plus, the worst offender is making me use Windows (on this point, only Darktable is better – no, I won't buy a mac, it's way too expensive for my needs).
Price-wise, it's kinda expensive, but the buy-it-for-life alternatives aren't exactly cheap, either. You should hold off updating for multiple years to save money compared to the LR subscription.
Now, I haven't used the alternatives for more than just a short test-drive, but the recent improvements in LRc would have made me upgrade anyway. I'm thinking specifically about the noise reduction you mentioned, but there's also all the object detection in masking which saves a ton of time, and the ai object removal which is pretty great when I need it – saves time compared to fiddling with the old healing brush.
I think the alternatives have also gained similar features recently, which would have likely required a new (expensive!) purchase. But, I guess if you figure we've reached some kind of plateau and don't expect to have a new camera in the next 3-4 years, going for Capture One or similar may be a better bang for your buck.
Run locally on macs, much easier to install/use, and designed to be "portable" meaning you can package a VM to preserve statefulness and run it somewhere else.
worked in AWS and specifically with firecracker in the container space for 4 years - we had a very long onboarding doc to dev on firecracker for containers... So I made sure to focus on ease of use here.
This is funny. I have an HP PC that has an option in the BIOS to "prepare for RAID" or some such. I wondered what that was, so I turned it on. I had Linux on it at the time, and nothing happened. I shrugged and just forgot about it.
Fast forward a few months later, when I gave this PC to my dad. He installed Windows on it, then started thinking the PC was somehow borked: "the installer sees the drive, installs, reboots, then it fails to boot". I was shocked, that PC worked perfectly.
Then I remembered about that setting, told him to untick the box in the BIOS, and he was off to the races.
But it misses the killer feature that both macs and Linux have and makes this glorious: allow lifting the finger for a short time without letting go of the selection.
I don't daily drive a mac anymore, but I seem to remember that it allowed you to hold the selection with one or more fingers, and move another finger on touchpad for the actual moving part. You could lift this last finger without letting go of the selection.
Why do you find this better? I find it awkward to have to contort my hand to hold the button down when dragging around. This was already the case with older trackpads with the buttons below, but now all trackpads with physical buttons I've seen have them above (probably intended for the trackpoint).
I really hate the hinge-style trackpads, but even on macs, I always enable tap to click and double-tap-drap to hold. On mac os and linux you can enable a "persistent hold for a short while" which allows to lift your finger briefly without losing the hold. Never found a similar setting on windows, which drives me crazy whenever I absolutely have to use that os.
> This was already the case with older trackpads with the buttons below, but now all trackpads with physical buttons I've seen have them above (probably intended for the trackpoint).
I think they're officially intended for the trackpoint, yes. But I find buttons-above convenient, because if I rest my arm/hand in a relaxed fashion on the laptop palm rest, I can use my pointer or middle finger for precise movement, and click with my middle or ring finger.
That said, I'd take buttons-below over no buttons. With buttons-below, I'm using my middle finger to mouse and my pointer finger to click, and that's still reasonably comfortable.
In both cases, I find it better because: clicking the button requires a deliberate action that won't happen by accident while using the touchpad; there's no delay required to confirm if touching the touchpad is a click something else, it's never a click; there's nothing timing-based at all, motion is motion and clicking is clicking; right-click and middle-click have dedicated buttons (I probably use middle-click many times more often than right-click on any given day, to open links in tabs and to close tabs).
This isn't something that could be solved with a better touchpad or better software.
> if I rest my arm/hand in a relaxed fashion on the laptop palm rest, I can use my pointer or middle finger for precise movement, and click with my middle or ring finger.
Huh, interesting. I just tried this, and it's indeed quite comfortable to use the index finger to operate the trackpad and the middle finger on the buttons. Middle + ring feels awkward to me, probably because of the size difference between my fingers. I suppose it never occurred to me to try it this way because I usually use my middle finger on the trackpad.
I have HASS running on a dedicated VLAN, IoT junk on its own, separate VLAN without internet access, through a managed switch. OPNsense sits in between and does the routing. Didn't have to mess around with anything, just ran the "vm appliance" or whatever it's called for hass and I was off to the races. Wireguard on the firewall gives me access from outside the house.
Actually, both OPNsense and Hass are VMs on the same machine, with the latter's network not even connected to any physical port outside the box. I'm not even running Proxmox or anything fancy, just libvirt on Arch. The only "fancy" thing is a 2nd hand Mellanox NIC I got off eBay for 30 €, which presents virtualized interfaces to the VMs, but HASS doesn't actually use those.
There's also no need to manually screw around with any reverse proxy for TLS; HASS does it with the Let's Encrypt add-on. The only missing piece when I set this up a while ago was something to regularly renew the cert (the add-on would only get started at boot-up).
Do computers come with such jacks? I can't seem to recall having seen one. However, all my pcs understand vol up/dn play pause/prev/next from my BT headphones.
> I’m not sure that’s true. At least, not nearly as hard-constrained as with film.
Just grab your camera of choice, look at the average file size, multiply it by 36, and format a partition on your memory card of that size. Bonus points if your camera uses adaptive compression, so maybe you'll get a bit fewer or a bit more photos per card depending on what you shot! Isn't that even more interesting than film? You know exactly how many exposures you get up front with a roll, now you'll have to wait and find out!
> Digital is not a free lunch. You do lose something somewhere.
Right. But I bet that, just like the OP, most people will outsource development and scanning of their film rolls, meaning they don't control the process. That's just digital with extra steps.
reply