Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 17, 2003, 6:48 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 51
Default Philosophical

I am old. I can remember discussions about 35mm being okay for journalist but for "real" photographers it just wouldn't do. The quality just wasn't there. There are still people shooting large and medium format to get that quality. I can remember people sneering at Tri-X. The grain was totally unacceptable.

The philosophical question might be why some people feel their needs and priorities are the only needs and priorities and they spend an inordinate amout of time trying to save souls. It's kind of pitiful, really.

Digital, right now, meets my needs. I have friends who have other needs and digital doesn't meet their needs. They're still friends of mine and we enjoy looking at each others pictures.
patrickt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2003, 6:50 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

In the previous posts which mentioned cost, I see nobody included the pc, good image editing software, a decent monitor, a colour photo printer and consumables!
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2003, 6:52 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan T
Film processors could fight back by offering optional sharpening as well, but they'd have to invest in filmscanning equipment.
Interesting point!! I took my film camera with me in this trip but still have some pictures left. When the roll is finished, I will compare side by side the results because I took some snapshots with both cameras. The nearest Walgreens has one of those Fuji Frontier mini-labs and that's where I take my digital pictures for printing. I will take this roll of film there for development. All their printing is done digitally - I have seen them scanning the negatives.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2003, 6:58 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

first to Mike_Peat- thats Kodachrome 25 that was the relative 25MP image capability not ektachrome. good stuff but still not compared to big K25 which has been discontinued a few years ago. K64 was was real close though. it seems though that not many people really knew how to shoot with it. even me in the beginning.

dynamic range- pretty much 5 stops for digital with a real steep drop/cut off. smoother for most iso 50-100 films widen their ranges. higher the iso the less the dynamic range. negative films tend to be the most forgiving especially in the shadows but the end results depends on the printer which generally falls short due to the lack of personal attention(machine printers).

optics- in theory a reasonably good digital camera will have reasonably good optics. cameras like the D7Hi and Oly 5050z and Nikon 5000 and above tend to have real good optics. these are just examples there are always more. in 35mm photography your choice of lenses is varied in both range and quality. you get what you pay for. in the case of Dslrs the full frame models have a greater resolving power then film. yeah i hate to admit it. digital bring out some of the chromatic abberations that exist in even the "best" manufactured lenses today, especially in the wider ranges below 20mm. if you like to shoot real wide you will spend some hard earned duckets to get a good chunk of glass and then there always be someone to shoot it down. film tends to absorb a bit of the CA into the emulsion. i have also found that people going from digicams to slr types get a massive dose of DOF issues. a digicam lens by design has limited fstop control a greater DOF due to imager size and optics. i used a F5 for the past 7 years and an F4 before that. started to use a minolta D7 series camera for the past 2 years and got real used to it. just got a 1Ds 2 months ago and it was like relearning how to shoot. sort of just like my F5 but not quite(a lot more money).

we seem to have gone just over the mid point in the film to digital transition. the next steps are in the hands of the engineers and marketing people that are running this game.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2003, 7:26 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voxmagna
In the previous posts which mentioned cost, I see nobody included the pc, good image editing software, a decent monitor, a colour photo printer and consumables!
It depends. For a large number of digital camera users, the cost of the PC and monitor won't count because they will already have them. In my case, the only expense was the camera itself and the memory cards. I already had the PC, monitor and some software that have proven quite useful in editing/improving images. As for consumables, I rarely print pictures at home, other than some proofs now and then.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 12:57 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 121
Default

Well as far as color printer and consumables go for me, I don't use them. I got my A70 one month ago and have taken about 1000 photos. I have printed 40 of them at my fuji frontier lab (AKA, my grocery store) They cost only $.18 a 4x6, $.87 a 5x7, and $1.89 an 8x10. The cost of paper and ink was killing me, and I wasn't getting the best quality on my HP 5550. The HP paper costs $.30 a 4x6, and ink was running over $.20 a 4x6, bringing my cost to 277% the cost of taking them to my fuji frontier lab.

As for the quality of print, I would say that no human can percieve the difference between a 341ppi 4x6 and a 35mm 4x6 for the simple fact that the paper simply cannot hold any more detail. I have gone as far as to scan a 4x6 from my A70 and found that image was slightly blurred at 1200ppi. There were no visible pixels, yet a very small amount of detail was lost.

Overall, my digital photos look much sharper and clearer than film, and I have not done any sharpening to them, nor has my A70 as far as I know.

I have already taken 3x as many photos with digital in 1 month as I did with film in 4 months. I have heard this statement many places and believe it to be digital's largest advantage over film. The statement is that the quality of a digital photograph can not be compared to a film photograph that was never taken.

I shot film for 4 months, and I know this to be very true. Lacking a digital camera on my trip to Europe, I only shot 109 exposures. The reason I didn't want to shoot any more was simple. Every photo was going to cost me an extra $.25. Take 100 photos and pay $25, take 400 photos and pay $100. I simply wasn't about to spend $100 on photos. Of the 109 exposures, I wound up with 30 that I show to my friends and family.

Two weeks ago we went to the beach house in St. Joseph, MI. We were there for only half the time as Europe, yet I took over 500 photos. I ended up putting 100 of them on a CD and distributing it to all the families that were there. Now all the families have the capability of having photos of their children printed without any loss of quality at any time they want. I even set up a website so they can show their friends. On top of that, I had about 20 of them printed, and added to our album.

I spent $25 to get those 30 photos from Europe. I got all that I just listed for about $5.

That's my $.02 on the whole digital vs. film debate,
Dan O.
Melboz99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 1:31 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voxmagna
In the previous posts which mentioned cost, I see nobody included the pc, good image editing software, a decent monitor, a colour photo printer and consumables!
For people who didn't already have a PC, and were told 'how easy it is', we also need to add the cost of buckets of blood, sweat, tears, and frustration, and hours hanging on premium rate helplines.

Everyone should cast their minds back (to the 1980s in my case) to remember just how easy it is to become computer literate from scratch. No-one should tell anyone 'computers are easy', unless they are willing to take on the support commitment
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:50 AM.