Someone posted this question on what method people used to barbecue on another photography forum. I use propane with charcoal as a backup when the tank runs out. This strange question is NOT off topic.

Am I reading too much into this? :rolleyes: :)

I'm a propane guy, simple and quick. I prefer charcoal but not the hassle... Got me thinking about a "part 2" to this post (haven't seen it posted anywhere else)?!

propane 99% of the time. When I want more smokey flavor I'll sitck some smoking chips in an aluminum foil bag with a hole in it. I use dry chips and the oxygen depleted environment of the foil bag makes them smolder rather than burn, making for lots of smoke. If there's too big, or too many holes in the bag the wood chips will catch on fire, burn hot, and not make much smoke.

I also cook my bacon on the gill. I just place my griddle on there and have at it. No mess or smoke in the house, and the bacon comes out real nice becaue the grill gives off much more even heat than two burners under the griddle on the stove top.

To keep it photography related:

Easiest question I've answered in a long time... Charcoal!

Propane is fine becaise it's quick and easy but I like the extra flavor and "feeling" that comes from charcoal grilling.

charcoal is great but i prefer the ease of propane. bmadau here i thought i was the only one to cook my bacon and other foods that stink the house up on the grill. i also fry my perogies on the grill .... yum

todd

Actually I do blackened fish on the grill for that reason - it would set off the smoke detectors and the smell would stick around for a long time!!

I shoot film and digital - just trying to guess where this might be going... Computers are a love/hate thing, more of the latter at the moment... Like I said maybe reading more into this than I should be...

All in favor of moving the Chicago gathering to Crystal Lake this year, say aye! :D

<i>"I shoot film and digital - just trying to guess where this might be going... Computers are a love/hate thing, more of the latter at the moment... Like I said maybe reading more into this than I should be..".</i>

Steve you kind of guessed where this was going. Someone posted the same question on an analog forum I frequent where digital is the devil. A lot of large format users there. Many people mix their own chemicals and coat their own paper. So you get the picture. Anyway I figured most of the people would report charcoal. To my surprise over half the people responded wood saying charcoal wasn't the real thing the other half, except for me, said charcoal. There were about 25 responses. I figured I'd ask here where probably half if not more of the people shoot digital to see the response. To early to tell but my guess was correct propane is king. Curious to hear some more responses.

Interesting - after I posted that I wondered if it also might have been an analogy to large format vs. 35mm, etc. Then there's the real wood charcoal vs. Kingsford, lighter fluid vs. chimney, etc - the list goes on! Seems like it's all a matter of how much time and trouble you'll go to for acceptable results - just like photography and other things.

I guess when you think about it, photography isn't so strange after all! :)

Sorry to be off topic, but that bacon pic sure looks good right now:p

I have a friend who uses nothing but charcoal, it's the flavor he says.

I almost never barbeque but to me, nothing taste better cooked over plain wood in a grill.

Too bad I don't have a nice pic of a fat, juicy, BLT. Mayby I'm simple, but IMO there aren't many things better than perfectly cooked bacon :)!

As for me, film vs digital, I'd love to do film but it's just not practical for me right now. I'd need a lot more time and money for that to be an option. Digital is a one time investment, film five, ten, and twenties you to death for as long as you shoot.

<i>"As for me, film vs digital, I'd love to do film but it's just not practical for me right now. I'd need a lot more time and money for that to be an option. Digital is a one time investment, film five, ten, and twenties you to death for as long as you shoot."</i>

I don't want to get into a digital vs film war but the above statement is not necessarily true. That $1500 digital camera purchased today will probably be worth $250 5 or 6 years from now assuming it still works since most times these cameras are not worth fixing. That's a $250 per year cost. What about ink jet paper. What about print cartridges. What about at least $250 for a decent printer that will be worthless in 5 years. What about hour upon hour spent in front of the computer screen. Your time is worth I'm sure $10 an hour maybe $50. Your "free" digital hobby is costing you $1000 per year. Probably a lot more. Thats a lot of tens and twenties. <p> My almost 50 year old Leica cost me $500 4 years ago and is worth probably $600 now. <a href="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/427359-lg.jpg">This</a> photo was taken with the Leica and a $25 Russian lens. My complete darkroom setup (picked up used) cost less than the total cost of of a good computer and printer both of which will be worthless <i> every</i> 5ive years. <p> I've often considered going digital but every time I come to the conclusion I just can't afford it.

Propane is to charcoal as
zoom lens is to prime.

Quick, convenient, and "good enough" is the norm, unless I alot myself enough time to do it right.
;-)

Gerry, I think there's a perception that digital is a one time cost. It may have some merit but it's nowhere completely true. I used to shoot a lot of chrome, and have paid for my DSLR based on the savings in film and processing not to mention scanning time. But I'm still spending a lot of time in front of the computer, spending money on software, more memory cards and external storage. My DSLR is pretty ancient but it's my newest camera.

I use AF 35mm cameras, one a '96 design and one a '99 design. They're still great and much better machines than the DSLR that cost more than the two of them put together (although one was bought used). Sure, it's film and processing (or chemestry) but updating those cameras is as simple as changing film. And there's some great bargains for manual focus Nikon lenses out there too seeing as they don't meter with all but the pro cameras, digital or film.

They're both good tools, but neither is perfect. And I wasn't trying to turn this into an X vs. Y either...!

I think it's all a matter of taste. What works best for you, the user.

I'm a charcoal man myself. I don't mind the extra time it takes, as long as I have something to munch on while I'm waiting. :)

I'm a digital shooter most of the time, but I don't get near the satisfaction from looking at my digital images on the computer as I do looking at my slides!

Pfff...screw cooking, I eat the meat RIGHT OFF THE COW. I also etch the photos into the side of my cave with rocks.

And all you wood users thought YOU were the elite...right.

<i>"As for me, film vs digital, I'd love to do film but it's just not practical for me right now. I'd need a lot more time and money for that to be an option. Digital is a one time investment, film five, ten, and twenties you to death for as long as you shoot."</i>

I don't want to get into a digital vs film war but the above statement is not necessarily true. That $1500 digital camera purchased today will probably be worth $250 5 or 6 years from now assuming it still works since most times these cameras are not worth fixing. That's a $250 per year cost. What about ink jet paper. What about print cartridges. What about at least $250 for a decent printer that will be worthless in 5 years..

One of the serious hidden costs of digital is storage. I'm spending roughly $150 a year on external drives to store all my image files. And I don't even have a really reliable system for backing up my files. I should be spending twice as much and saving everything twice. And yeah - there's all the time spent sitting in front of a computer monitor. A lot of what I do on the computer used to take place in big chemical tanks :-)

I still prefer digital because of the higher degree of control it offers me. And I really believe that unless you're shooting 6x7 or larger, the quality of a current digital SLR is generally better than film. And I don't think this comparison is the same as charcoal vs. gas. I don't think anyone would really argue that gas delivers better <i>flavor</i>. Gas is just so much easier that it's hard not to use it. Personally, I'd love to have a huge smoker that always has a pork shoulder roasting in it. You can't do that with gas. Never. Not possible :-)

Good post, Gerry. Thanks for trying it out on us :)

<i>Chevy.</i>

WOOD! Or at least a wood/charcoal mix. Propane is too much like cooking inside: my gas stove actually has a grill attachment and an appropriate exhaust to to grill indoors if I desire.

I shoot a LOT of film. Nothing beautiful most of the time, just documentation and the film is still required for many contractual and legal reasons. But it all gets scanned as well. The documentation standards for banking and certain recording keeping hasn't fully translated itself to the rest of the world yet.

When I use a digital camera, (and I've several both personal and for work) it pays for itself in terms of not using film in months rather than a year. I usually calculated the 35mm cost of slides at about $ten bucks a roll (bulk purchase, the film fridge, developing and yes, we follow EPA guidelines or make sure the lab we use does, when it comes to disposing of all the chemicals). It doesn't take long to pay for a new body when you stop and think about it. Since my workflow is digital, its a wash.

As far as working at a computer vs the darkroom, well if I spill coffee its usually on something that doesn't matter as much and I can work on the road editing. I can also go shoot and within an hour or two have work to show the client if not sooner. I've never lost a digital original. I've still got chromes and negatives floating in FedEX/UPS/USPS space.

I'm probably going to use wood and film for as long as they both are available (or I am) but other cooking methods and digital, or whatever comes next will certainly consume more of my attention and the others will become nostalgic I imagine sooner rather than later.

A CD-R will hold 4-6 rolls of high resolution scans of 35mm film easily and a DVD will hold 10X that many if not more. Less Plastic, less environmental damage, and the images don't get dusty and cracked.

Don't fret that there another convert to the dark side completely, there's a newer M42 mount camera on its was to support some of the older Zeiss lenses.

.. and you can pry my 500CM out of my cold dead hands..

Mahalo

Not to take it WAY off topic, but I watch a lot of Food TV. Alton Brown has a show called good eats, and he made a true BBQ smoker (the back yard grill is a grill, not a BBQ, so when your cooking, your are grilling) out of a terra cotta planter and an electric hot plate. He took the pot, placed the hot plate in the bottom with a pie tin on it with his wood chips. He then found a grate that fit nicely in the top, supported by the taper of the terra cotta pot. Then he took the base and flipped it over in top with a temp probe and smoked away. He kept the heat at 200F and 8 hrs later he had a sweet looking BBQ pork butt (actually the shoulder, go figure). I've been really tempted to make one myself. Every time I'm at lowes I have to look around for supplies.... Now I've made myself hungry.

I didn't think of it to that extent. But, where my digital save me money, being a novice shooter, is all the wasted frames I take while experimenting. Those only cost me the amount of electricity it took to charge my batteries. Just last night I took 40 or so shots that I just deleted. It's easy to practice differnet techniques with digital, and I don't have to wait for developing to find out if my experiement worked or not. I know in seconds, and I try again. Printing isn't a big expence for me either. My wife and I print maybe 10% of the pictures we take. We often have our pictures printed in one of those photo books from an online source too, and that'd be hard with film.

I watch a lot of Food Network, too. I saw that one and it was a good one. Pork shoulder is a gift from the gods.

Pork shoulder is a gift from the gods.
Heck yeah, it is! Ever been to Austin TX (completely OT)? Great food (BBQ, Mexican) and local live music scene - and lots of stuff to shoot. Also, the first photograph ever made - from about the 1820's (should remember the guy's name) is in a museum there, but I only found that out recently so I haven't seen it.

I think I saw that show too, but most terra cotta and clay that's not specifically made for cooking has lead in it - not made in the 'States that way, but most of it is imported. Think about lead paint, etc... That's why I bought a real baking stone instead of using clay tiles. I do breads and pizzas when I have the time (not much lately!).

If your food doesn't actually touch the leaded clay, would it still matter? I've known about older fine china and such being dangerouse to use in your microwave (news special from like 10 years ago) because the microwaves would release the lead into your food, while only eating off of it was harmless.

How about brick and mortar BBQ pits?

charcoal....

A funny bit from the Daily Show about digital cameras. Go to the site and click on <a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?startIndex=49&p=helms">Digital Watch Digital Cameras</a>

I don't mind as long as the quality of the meat is good and it's not burnt (i like my meat blue)!!!!

...And the beer is flowing :D :D

chris