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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 11, 2004, 3:13 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default solve an arguement for me please!!!!

My girlfriend is resisting going digital. She is very good with an SLR film camera and I would love to see her change over. She believes that one can always pick a digital photo and that they are not as good as film!!!!! My point of view is that it can't be picked with good quality digital photos except maybe that digital always seem more crisp (for want of a better word) to me.

Can anyone here truely pick the difference between a great photo taken by either type of camera???? I intend printing out this page and giving it to her, if I get enough answers that is. Hope to get her into digital and maybe she will come into this century
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 11, 2004, 5:06 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default Re: solve an arguement for me please!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by aladyforty
She believes that one can always pick a digital photo and that they are not as good as film!!!!!
Depends on viewing conditions. On a computer, you'll always see the pixels if you blow it up enough. On paper, you shouldn't blow it up that far.

Quote:
except maybe that digital always seem more crisp
Depends on how much sharpening is applied to the digital image (from camera or filmscanner). I notice that many snapshot digital cameras produce stunning results, but they almost certainly have lots of post-sharpening applied by default, to suit 6x4-ish prints. The same image files may not look so good when blown up a lot, though they could if the right degree of sharpening were to be applied just before printing. This is a point that seems to be missed by many reviewers. On my camera, you may get sharpening applied or not depending on which mode or which 'best shot' you choose. Myself, I always have it switched off, but it means I have to a lot of twiddling.

Quote:
if I get enough answers
Take a look at a thread near here on this very topic with 16 messages in it: http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...049&highlight=. There are probably plenty of similar threads to be found.

Essentially, your friend's right *provided* she can think of everything and spend lots and lots of money on trial shots that she won't see until they're processed. That is, you need lots more time and money with film than you do with digital, unless you're a technical and artistic genius.

I got into digital via filmscanning, and I still use my scanner on my family's disposable camera 35mm negs. Your friend could probably get her films processed *and* get a photo CD with ready-made filmscans for little more than the standard processing cost. If she played with the scans on her computer she might discover the delights (and miseries) of digital twiddling.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2004, 5:43 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

I think it very much depends on the camera and you need to be comparing like with like. A digital compact is going to give you more options than a 35 mm compact, you've got through the lens viewing for a start. Depending on the pixel count you are going to get prints of the digital that are just as good as the 35mm but if you want really big prints or to project the pictures any 35mm camera can do this but only the best (read expensive) digital cameras can do this. I use a 3Mp digital for point and shoot snaps and for what I want from a compact camera the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

I've recently seen the results from digital SLRs Fuji S2 and Nikon D100 and I'm blown away. Until I saw these I though digital was still behind film for quality but these cameras have changed my mind. I still use slide film in my SLR when I want a quality shot but I'd happily replace this with one new generation digital SLRs I just need to save my pennies.
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2004, 7:46 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
I've recently seen the results from digital SLRs Fuji S2
I've seen this too, and those results are stunning.

Aladyforty: You might mention to your friend that, more and more, professional photographers are shooting digitally. They're dropping like flies. Even the National Geographic photographers.

When it comes to prints, it certainly depends on the quality of the printer. However, digital photos can also be printed as real, old-fashioned photos. I used such a service back before I had a decent printer and, even then when I had a much lower-end camera, there was no way at all of telling a good digital photo from a good film photo.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2004, 8:54 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The best digital cameras exceed film in many ways (less grain at the same ISOs, for example) but are behind in some areas (some film still has better contrast, but that is correctable in photoshop. But worst, some film has more dynamic range... but only really expensive Professional grade film like Provia. That is also fixable in photoshop, but by blending two pictures, which is not always possible.)

Unless your GF is extremely serious and buys only the best films (or uses medium or large format), digital can beat it every day.

The proof is in the pudding. Go to this web site:www.naturephotographers.net.

Then go to the gallery here:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/edspicks2002tn.html

I don't think you have to sign up to view those, but you might.

These are the best pictures by week for 2002 (2003's require a separate login, it's kinda dumb.) Each one of those pictures will have the specifications of how they were taken (including what camera and film, or what digital camera.) Pick several and open them up in a window shrunk down so you can only see the picture and not the specs. Have her pick which is film and which is digital. I bet she won't be able to do it.

Some of the best nature photographers contribute to that site, she will be amazed at the quality of work and just how well digital cameras can produce stunning images.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2004, 9:13 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Thanks, I will let her see these relpies
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2004, 9:53 AM   #7
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

Quote:
Have her pick which is film and which is digital. I bet she won't be able to do it.
Once they're on the web they're all digital. comparing a scanned digital image and a digital camera image is not the same as looking at a print from each or comparing a projected slide with a projected digital image.

The only real comparison is to compare the result in whatever form you expect to use it. If you only use slides then digital probably isn't for you as a digital projector costs more than the camera. If you want prints then it probably depends on the size. I've seen brilliant digital prints up to A4 and I'm sure it's possible to produce great digital prints at larger sizes but I've not seen any example yet.
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2004, 10:09 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Marc H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 130
Default

[quote="bcoultry"]
Quote:

Aladyforty: You might mention to your friend that, more and more, professional photographers are shooting digitally. They're dropping like flies. Even the National Geographic photographers.
No, NG photographers still use analog. There has only been an article about a fighter plane, that was shot digitally as an exception, because the photographer couldnt change film in flight.
Marc H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2004, 10:09 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 575
Default

I have printed straight out of my camera to 10"X15", and it has been razor sharp. I think that if you get a decent digital camera, around 3 mp, make a couple 8"X10" prints with it. Take the same, or similar pictures with a film camera and again, make 8"X10" prints. Compare them, I think she will be suprised!
Gandalf065 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2004, 10:39 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
No, NG photographers still use analog.
I wasn't clear enough. I was referring to the photographers themselves, not to what they do on assignment for the magazine. I've read several interviews in which they've discussed their entrance into digital.
bcoultry 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 4:45 AM.