|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Digital Photography |
Photography question: Digital or digitally scanned film? |
Which do you prefer to do and why? Use digital cameras or real film and then scan the negatives? The reason I ask is I am debating whether or not I want to change to a digital camera or not. I have used my canon AE1 for a long time. Do any professionals still use film? I don't use digital cameras at all. In fact, I don't even scan. I'm an old fossil, but am going to get a Nikon D80 after the holidays for the convenience of it all, NOT because there's any quality above and beyond film images. In fact, I would prefer to use a scanner but the scanners are still a bit too costly for me. Nikon puts out a model that costs a little less than their most affordable DSLR that gives greater image quality than any "affordable" consumer camera on the market today (if you start off with ISO film 100 or less, or course). The reason is that scanners can and often do offer greater pixel count than most cameras on the market today. That's the bottom line, really. There are some professionals that still use film; so, don't let the hype and fad fool you. There's far greater dynamic range with film than there is with digital sensors, and greater details in shadowy areas, too. Yes, you'll hear of how many are making the transition but... you won't hear of the many that still prefer or still use film. Sheesh, sounds like a well orchestrated conspiracy, no? Well, you can rest assured that most of the hype to promote digital technology is influenced by the greater profits being made with the new technology. Imagine, a digital camera comparable to a film camera in options/features costs about 5 times as much... yet, it's probably far cheaper to manufacture! The CEOs of these digital manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank with wheelbarrows of the public's money... and every few months they trickle in a few supposed "new improvements" or "new innovations" to fish in a few more suckers. Well, I digress. If you have a good camera and good lenses that you're satisfied with and are getting good results from, weigh the costs of getting a good film scanner (or a good flatbed scanner with capacity to do film) with the needed pixel count that would satisfy your needs (to enable you to do posters if you feel that you will be printing poster sized images). How often and how large do you normally have your images made? Do you wish to scan for the purpose of manipulating the images? Get an affordable digital canera and start learning (better if you can still use your Canon lenses with the digital camera). I'm afraid that the new technology's hype will soon make it impossible for film users to buy and D & P film within a few years, and I'm also afraid that digital is indeed the way of the future... because of the convenience, but NOT because of image quality. People using digital are accepting less quality for what they pay (foolishly so). But, of course, that's my opinion, and there are many that disagree with me (and they'll start spewing out how many years they've worked as pros... while I've only been in photography for a little over 42 years, having done my fair share of weddings, graduations, portraits and even court evidence photos). Your images will only come out as good as your printer, and they are not any cheaper than film if you send them out to a lab; so...? If YOU want to enjoy the convenience and can settle for the loss of quality in images, go ahead and get a digital. Digital technology is just another means of doing the same thing you're doing with your film camera and it does offer certain conveniences; the question, of course, is "Will you be satisfied with the quality of images?" Don't change over to digital because others are doing it... they have their own reasons (or maybe are just chasing after a fad). (I would love the idea of viewing, or "chimping" as they say, the images seconds after pressing the shutter buttoms... but the quality of images from digital cameras are still inferior to film in MY opinion). When trying to transfer a picture onto a computer, use a digital camera when have one, because it will not be unproportional or have blank areas when scanned. The picture should be more crisp and clearer then scanned, because the scanner can leave scratches and nicks on the picture. But on terms of time and easyness, use the camera. Professionals still used film, for ease of carring, or working in areas where digital information could be damaged. none i use both digital and film, i think that digital has its place but no one believes the picture is how you have taken it because it can be touched up on the computer. but no one can argue with a film negative. see my 360 page for some digital shots. It is purely a matter of your own preference. Some of use are technically inclinded to learn and others often are resistant to learn. Either way you can do no wrong. Are you up for the challenge?? :) I prefer to use film, but I use both. Why? Some things digital camera are better at, and some thing film cameras are better at. I use a digital camera to carry around for "snapshots" of friends and to photograph items for eBay, I use a Fuji E510 (which has a minimum macro distance of 0.6 inches) I use a film camera for any planned event, a trip, or anything that might be worth keeping for a long period of time or presenting - other than on an 8x10 or a web page. In other words - for quality. For "snapshots" of friends and to photograph items for eBay, I use a Fuji E510 (which has a minimum macro distance of 0.6 inches). Why I use digital instead of film. 1. The the nearest place to drop off film is 20 miles one-way. 2. The closest location for 1-hour developing is 35 miles one-way. 3. Mailing in film and receiving the photos back takes a long time (usually around a week) to get back unless I pay exorbitantly shipping costs for express or priority mail. 4. It's convenient, in that I can either email or otherwise give everyone in the picture the "original" photo which they can view on their DVD player or computer, or go and have it printed somewhere - which saves me a lot of headaches. 5. To photograph items for sale on the Internet I use digital. It's quite good enough for the purpose and is cheaper. 6. For occasional snapshots or pseudo-portraits (usually for a web page), the subjects can tell me whether or not they like the shot - and pick the one that they like best (from the LCD or via a TV cable) - without a return visit and the printing of a lot of to be discarded proofs. Why I use film: 1. I already have the equipment. 3 OM-2 slrs, lenses (25-500mm (excluding 2x and 3x converters), flashes (3 from the camera manufacturer, 2 multi-camera compatible, a Vivitar 283, and a cheap manual for backup), filters for the most common lenses. 2. Experience. 35 years of film photography - I know pretty much how to photograph anything. I also know where the camera controls are and the settings by feel. 3. Superior quality of film. Even the film from a disposable camera has better inherent quality than that from a $500 digital camera. From a good camera and lens combo, you would still need a 36 mega-pixel camera to match it. 4. Variety of films. There's still a film for every purpose or situation or mood for 35mm that's easier to use and delivers great photos "out of the box" that can be done to an image in gimp or photoshop. 5. The nature of prints. You can spend time looking over and passing around photos after an event - and twin prints are still popular. There are a lot of 4x6 printers out there, but I'd imagine printing a bunch of wallets could be expensive. Except for certain markets, I'd say that most professionals still use film. I would guess the exceptions would be: News photographers, and especially those shooting in a remote location and need to transfer the images elsewhere quickly. Department store photographers. Everything is always set the same way. The competition is cut-throat, the maximum size will usually be 8x10, and instant delivery means instant payment. - which all can justify getting a digital camera which does just that job very well. In summary: You can always digitize a negative or positive from film, but not the other way. Film is better by far. To purchase a SLR with quality approaching that of a 35mm film camera (or actually, around 1/3 the quality) will cost at least twice as much, and except for certain cameras, are incompatible with any existing lens, most flash, and some of the other accessories you may have. Digital cameras are getting better and are suitable for a number of purposes. For immediate results, they are still faster than scanning a 35mm negatives. On the other hand, that's why Polaroids were invented and are still popular today. Most consumers are confused by the "digital" factor. Digital recordings (CD's) were better than albums. Digital Video (DVD) look better than video tapes. Digital phones had better battery life and sounded better than analogue. Therefore - digital cameras must be better too. It seems that word most often seen or said next to digital camera is photoshop. "We can fix that with photoshop." However, that is another $275 (roughly) requirement to getting good digital photos - not counting any additional memory or a dual-processor to make it run fast enough while working on high-resolution photographs. That being said - I don't own a film scanner. I'm waiting for the price to come down and the quality to come up. But I have a friend who does - should I need one. However handy they are - I haven't found a need for one that often. And then I mostly scanned in some *Polaroids, and 1/2 dozen others that I wanted for the web. I only purchased a digital camera after gas prices skyrocketed about a year and 1/2 ago (or whenever it was) and it became evident that they were not going down soon. The hassle and cost (mainly the 80-mile round trip) of getting photos scanned to put them on eBay - versus doing it directly - finally made it more cost-effective to get one. However, if you have a Walmart closer than 40 miles away, you can get a roll of film processed and put onto a CD for $1.99 (as of 1.5 years ago). To get them processing and put onto CD-ROM at the store 20 miles away required that I order 4x6 twin prints and a Kodak photo-CD for about $17 total, and then go there twice - once to drop them off and again to pick them up. Update: To say that printing is done by [sic] "film images are all scanned to a digital format before they are printed at commercial labs anyway!" - just shows what over-specialization does to the Maytag repairman. At least they replaced him on TV after 30 years. It'll be news to my buddy at the camera store. Don't know why he's feeding those negative through the printer and making exposure adjustments by eye for - when they're already scanned. When I did it, it appeared that I was making the adjustments. One could argue that it was the automation of processing and mini-labs that have lessened the publics expectations to the point that they think actually think that digital is superior to - or as good as film. Well, yes - that's as good as you're going to get from a mini-lab run by a teenager - what do you expect? But, I didn't come back to argue with the digitals fans - or anyone who wants to argue (not answer) but can't get two correct sentences out to start it with. --- 'tis nay fare to the wee lads. I just came back to mention I'm using OM-2's ( I didn't always own 3 of course - I picked two more up about 5 years ago on eBay - but we always were a wild bunch!). I think it's interesting that the most of the people who actually know enough about film to make comparisons, and not just say "you must use this" are using cameras from roughly the same (1971-1976) era. F1 (1971-?), AE-1 (1976-1984), OM2 (1975-?) And my trusty old Vivitar 283 from circa 1977 is (or was last I looked) still being made! I just looked and saw that there are adapters to mount OM series lenses on the 4/3rds system and digital Canons! Perhaps digital is the wave of the future, but I will probably wait for a semi-long period between waves before making a sizable investment in digital. May our next cameras last 1/2 as long as our current ones. * Polaroid photos (from an original "Spectrum" camera) show a amazing amount of resolution when scanned! I guess they should - because that is the positive original - or a contact print from a negative in case of older films such as 107/108. Having seen the occasional Polaroid enlargement (5x5" or 8x8") that people had ordered in the past, I would have rated them barely acceptable. I imagine Polaroid was just doing copy negatives as most places did. 35 years of photography. Worked in camera stores in late 70's and early eighty and again a few years ago when I retired and moved near a friend who owns a camera store. I like filling in, helping customers, and talking about photography I am what I would consider a "very serious" amateur photographer. A "professional" photographer, is by definition, one who does it for a living. 25 years as a computer professional. |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |