Should I go Digital or Analog for new Camera
Joeman
I am looking at possibly taking up photography as a Hobby.
I know that digital cameras have come a long way in the last few
years, but should I be looking at going with a Digital or should I be
looking at an Analog camera instead? My budget is only about 500 -
750 US dollars. Can I get a decent digital camera for that amount?
And comparatively speaking, will it be equivalent or very near 35mm
quality photos? Can anyone give me any suggestions on a good camera
in that range. (Digital or/and Analog)
Thanks,
MB
Leon
"Joeman" <moogl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:82556495.0212...@posting.google.com...
Tyler D
In a couple of years you will need to replace your digital camera b/c it
will be outdated. Go ahead and spend a lil' extra and pick up the trusty
Nikon F100 that will last you a couple decades....you can be sure that
you'll be getting results that are "photo quality" because....well...they're
photos.
"Joeman" <moogl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:82556495.0212...@posting.google.com...
Stewart Pinkerton
Try the Sony DSC-S85, going for $5-600 these days, as it's last years
model, but it's still just about the best of the 4 megapixel models
for image quality. Up to A4 print size, you'll find the results pretty
well indistinguishable from 35mm film, IMHO.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Steve Young
> In a couple of years you will need to replace your digital camera b/c it
> will be outdated. Go ahead and spend a lil' extra and pick up the trusty
> Nikon F100 that will last you a couple decades....you can be sure that
> you'll be getting results that are "photo quality"
because....well...they're
> photos.
Yep, that way ya won't have to mess with this for say 20, 30 years. By
then, things should have settled down ;)
Frank S
>
> In a couple of years you will need to replace your digital
> camera b/c it will be outdated. Go ahead and spend a
> lil' extra and pick up the trusty Nikon F100 that will last
> you a couple decades....you can be sure that you'll be
> getting results that are "photo quality" because....well...
> they're photos.
That's right! I still have a very high quality "analog" music playing
device (phonograph) and it is still capable of producing the most exquisite
sounds from a record. Oh... you don't know what a record is? You don't
know where you can actually buy a record? Well, never mind. The phonograph
is still top-of-the-line! :) Even 20 years later :)
-Frank
Mark Weaver
> Hi,
>
> I am looking at possibly taking up photography as a Hobby.
> I know that digital cameras have come a long way in the last few
> years, but should I be looking at going with a Digital or should I be
> looking at an Analog camera instead? My budget is only about 500 -
> 750 US dollars.
What's your yearly film/development/print budget? An active hobbyist
shooting film could spend a lot of money that way. And if it's going to be
a hobby, and you're thinking about film, are you also thinking about doing
the printing yourself in your own darkroom? If so, you have to figure in
those costs. If not, you'll miss out on a lot of opportunities to
manipulate & improve your images. Unless, on the other hand, you also
budget in enough $$ to buy a good film scanner -- but that will cost roughly
as much as a good compact digital camera. In the other direction, do you
already have a computer suitable for storing and editing photos? How about
a photo printer? What mix of end-products do you want (digital images to
send to friend and display on a computer monitor, small prints to paste in
albums, large prints to hang on the wall)?
You really need to think about the whole system you're interested in using:
. Film only (using lab services)
. Film only (using your own darkroom)
. Film/digital hybrid (shoot film, scan, and edit/print digitally)
. Full digital
Having done all of the above at one point or another, I'd strongly recommend
#4. Digital is so much more convenient, and so much cheaper per shot (once
you've bought the camera, each additional frame is free), that you'll do a
lot more picture-taking and have a lot more fun at it. And there's a lot to
learn in digital photo editing--most of which cannot be matched in a
darkroom at all. And even when similar techniques are possible in a
darkroom, doing it on a computer is so much cleaner, faster, & more
convenient that, again, it's much easier to really get into it as a hobby.
But, of course, the digital route means having (or being willing to develop)
the computer skills to take advantage of it.
> Can I get a decent digital camera for that amount?
Oh, certainly you can get a nice 4 or 5 megapixel digital camera for $750 or
under.
> And comparatively speaking, will it be equivalent or very near 35mm
> quality photos?
Yes.
> Can anyone give me any suggestions on a good camera
> in that range. (Digital or/and Analog)
>
Canon G2/G3, Olympus C4000/C4040/C5050, Nikon CP5000, Minolta Dimage7i,
Sony F707.
Some of the above would be pushing your $750 limit -- you'd have to go
mail-order to come in under that, I think.
Mark
Bit Bucket
Read this brief article if you have time
http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/dcnotes/printing.htm
Now, if you don't want to take my word for it, download a decent 1600x1200
(2MP) and a 2048x1536 (3MP) and take/send them, unaltered, to a digital lab
for 8x10 prints. Talk is cheap and this is newsgroup was not created to
discuss the merits of film, which overall are few by comparison. There's a
plethora of digital cameras out there in and above this megapixel range and
well within your budget. They provide many more options and modern
functionalities than the old 19th Century technology.
--
Visit Terry and the Pixels at
http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/
or The DiMAGE Xi Deli
http://home.earthlink.net/~xideli/
Joan McGalliard
> Hi,
>
> I am looking at possibly taking up photography as a Hobby.
> I know that digital cameras have come a long way in the last few
> years, but should I be looking at going with a Digital or should I be
> looking at an Analog camera instead?
Digital. The best way to become a good photographer is to see what you
want to take, take the photos, examine the results to see where it
worked and didn't and then go try again. This cycle is so much easier
and faster with digital (and nearly cost free after your initial
investment) that you will learn photography better with a digital
camera.
Then if you want, get a film camera.
joan
--
Joan McGalliard, UK http://www.mcgalliard.org
Mark Weaver
> my 2 cents
>
> In a couple of years you will need to replace your digital camera b/c
> it will be outdated.
The fact that, in time, something better will come along won't make the
camera you own stop taking pictures as good as the day you bought it. And,
as time goes by, I am sure that people will tend to upgrade less and less
frequently, simply because what they already have still works perfectly well
for their purposes (as with computers). Also, the fact that film
photography is a relatively stagnant technology doesn't count in its favor.
> Go ahead and spend a lil' extra and pick up the
> trusty Nikon F100 that will last you a couple decades....
The F100 may last a couple of decades, but it is not at all clear that the
infrastructure to support film photography will last a couple of decades. I
don't doubt that you will be *able* to buy film and have it processed in 10
years, but I don't think it'll be anywhere as easy or inexpensive as it is
now.
> you can be
> sure that you'll be getting results that are "photo quality"
> because....well...they're photos.
>
So using film (whatever film, in whatever camera, with whatever lens)
assures 'photo-quality' because...well...you're taking photos?
Mark
Ed
> I am looking at possibly taking up photography as a Hobby.
> I know that digital cameras have come a long way in the last few
> years, but should I be looking at going with a Digital or should I be
> looking at an Analog camera instead?
Take these questions into consideration and decide for yourself:
* Will you be taking a lot of pictures (i.e. more than a roll a week.)
* Do you want instant access to your pictures?
* Will you ever need print sizes larger than 8x10?
* Is functionality more important than having the latest technology?
* Do you want to work with studio-like lighting or other more sophisticated
setups?
* Is it acceptable for a delay in the time you press the button until the
picture is actually taken?
* Do you need longer zoom than about 200mm?
* Do you need wide angle capability?
* Will you frequently be away from a computer for days or weeks at a time?
James Cassatt
with a couple of lenses for the amount of money you want to spend.
With interchangeable lenses you will have a lot more flexibility. In
addition, the metering system will probably be better as will the
focusing system. As noted, you digital camera will be out of date in
a couple of years.
However, I thought twice. You say you are new to photography and want
to learn. For learning purposes, there is real value in getting rapid
feedback. With film, you go out take 6 pictures, let them sit until
you take a few more and then have the roll developed. Many are good,
many could be improved, but by the time you get them back, you have
forgotten what you have done. With digital, you compose the picture,
have a histogram to give you some indication about whether you have
the exposure right, take a few pictures, load them to your computer
and see right away what you have done right and what you have done
wrong. These factors need to be considered. If you do go digital,
since you do appear to be serious, I would check of a few features:
Can you set the lens opening (fstop) and shutter speed manually?
How good is the autofocus in dim light?
how good is the metering system?
The flash on the camera is inadequate for anything beyond snapshots.
How easy is it to add an external flash?
Good lick.
moogl...@hotmail.com (Joeman) wrote in message news:<82556495.0212...@posting.google.com>...
JXStern
A couple of points.
* Digital cameras are very kewl. You don't pay for film so you can
take a zillion shots. This is a good thing. You can view the results
on the camera itself immediately, and the full pictures on your PC
almost as easily. That's hard to beat.
* Digital picture processing is very kewl. You can fix up shots in a
thousand ways that used to require a darkroom, scissors, paint
brushes, and such. HOWEVER, you can get your film pictures scanned
onto a CD at most places when you get them developed in the first
place, or you can scan them yourself, so this is really NOT a reason
to go one way or the other with a camera.
* Printing digital pictures is a bit of a hassle. Digital cameras are
especially handy if you just want images for the screen -- which are
low resolution and generally less demanding of fancy processing. Even
cheap photographic printing is still at least as good as the best
you'll get in most home printers.
* You can get a good midline SLR film camera for, what, $500? Plus
bags and filters and tripods and extra flash and meters and, well, it
depends where you're going. Looks like to get a full set of equipment
on a digital SLR body is going to cost another $1,000 or more.
* So, why not decide for yourself? You're just starting out. Get both
a midline film SLR outfit and a modest $300-$500 digital camera. They
should both have some resale value, if after a couple of years you
want to get a professional grade digital outfit ... which just may
come down in price over the next year or two anyway. And, with any
luck, your film-camera lenses and other paraphernalia should be
usable with the high-end digital back.
* The factoid here is that at any given price level under $1,000,
you do get more *camera* for your money with film. You also get
higher operating costs, of course. If you think you'll shoot say 100
rolls of film in your first hobby phase, then the digital camera's
total *costs* come out cheaper, but you're still struggling with
less camera.
* What this leads to is the idea that you need to consider your
total hobby budget over a longer period. If you do that, and your
TOTAL budget over say two years is $10,000 for travel and prints
and conventions and equipment, then spending $2,000 on a high-end
digital camera NOW is financially justified. However, to start
dabbling, I'd go with the film/digital combination. And, software,
did I mention software? For post-processing digitized images
no matter which way you go.
* There is a lot of photography you can learn with very modest
equipment. There are always tales of beginning, and even advanced,
classes given with simple "Brownie" cameras, no better than the
disposable film cameras you can buy today for $10.
* The only thing I find questionable is whether, if you go the
film route, you might also want to set up a darkroom someday. That's
a whole other set of equipment, and consumable chemicals, and SPACE.
In this day of 1-hour film processing, it's just a lot less attractive
to the novice (or pro!) to go that way. I guess about the time you'd
set up a darkroom on the film route, you add that budget to your
equipment list and decide to go full digital instead.
***** Bottom line, my recommendation is to plan to do both, and
to budget accordingly.
J.
notjustjay
> However, I thought twice. You say you are new to photography and want
> to learn. For learning purposes, there is real value in getting rapid
> feedback. With film, you go out take 6 pictures, let them sit until
> you take a few more and then have the roll developed. Many are good,
> many could be improved, but by the time you get them back, you have
> forgotten what you have done. With digital, you compose the picture,
> have a histogram to give you some indication about whether you have
> the exposure right, take a few pictures, load them to your computer
> and see right away what you have done right and what you have done
> wrong. These factors need to be considered. If you do go digital,
> since you do appear to be serious, I would check of a few features:
I would agree with this assesment.
For a long time I was a point-and-shooter. As a kid I'd buy those cute
110-film cameras, finally getting my first 35mm motorized unit, an Argus
something or other, then upgrading that to a nice Pentax with an 80mm zoom
lens. I can't say my pictures were great though. They were generally
grey, and not particularly exciting.
I much preferred using my dad's ancient, fully-manual Minolta, which was
not an SLR, just a manual camera from the 70's. It had a much narrower
depth of field than my fixed-focus cameras, and had that nice out-of-focus
effect in the background, which I felt made the shots look much nicer.
Anyway, to make a long story short I ended up playing with two SLR's, one
old all-manual Konica SLR that someone sold me used, and a brand new
Pentax SLR with full auto modes (granted, it was a cheaper one).
Bottom line is that the manual controls were fairly daunting a task to
suddenly try and learn, and my first few rolls were very disappointing. I
have a lot to learn and, apparently, a lot of money to spend in processing
before I get there.
I'm much happier with my digital camera where I can experiment all I want,
especially with low-light and slow-shutter shooting, without costing me
anything.
Richard W. Woodley
cheaper to learn because your mistakes are free. You do not go through
tons of film making mistakes and you can see the results a lot faster
making a shorter learning curve. The downside is that a serious camera
with the manual controls necessary to really learn photography is a
lot more expensive.
moogl...@hotmail.com (Joeman) wrote in message news:<82556495.0212...@posting.google.com>...
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
Top of the line?
Vinyl:
Rolled off above 12-15kHz to avoid overheating the cutter head
Rolled off below 50Hz to give reasonable playing time
Summed to mono below 100Hz to avoid needle jumping
Dynamic range of 70dB at the very best
Distortion of 0.5-1% in the midrange, five times that in the treble
Suffers from acoustic feedback and vibration
Gets more worn every time you play it.
CD:
Ruler-flat from 10Hz-20kHz at all output levels
Dynamic range of 93dB
Distortion of less than 0.01% at all frequencies
No vibration or acoustic feedback problems
No wear
Steve Young
> Top of the line?
>
> Vinyl:
>
> Rolled off above 12-15kHz to avoid overheating the cutter head
> Rolled off below 50Hz to give reasonable playing time
> Summed to mono below 100Hz to avoid needle jumping
> Dynamic range of 70dB at the very best
> Distortion of 0.5-1% in the midrange, five times that in the treble
> Suffers from acoustic feedback and vibration
> Gets more worn every time you play it.
>
> CD:
> Ruler-flat from 10Hz-20kHz at all output levels
> Dynamic range of 93dB
> Distortion of less than 0.01% at all frequencies
> No vibration or acoustic feedback problems
> No wear
Let's see, that's taken what? close to twenty years for us to view vinyl
that way? and they still press vinyl for the Club DJs, who woulda thunk
I remember when I paid about $600 for a Sony cassette tray loaded CD-ROM in
the later 80's (whatever the name of that carrier case was). Man! Isn't
this technology super duper !?
Axinar
Probably, for just getting started, I'd go with 35mm ... something
with mostly automatic settings that can be put into manual mode --
something along the lines of a Nikon N65 or something of the sort.
I started out in this hobby with a Canon AE-1P. Got "Joy of
Photography" and Hedgeco's "Photographer's Handbook" -- plus I just
about memorized the user manual that came with the camera -- took
classes too.
One ... you need to have something with a decent zoom that is marked
so you can see what you can do at 35mm, 50mm, 80mm, etc ...
And you need some way to manually control exposure so you see what
happens when you drop below 1/15th on a 50mm shot -- what happens when
you go to 1/1000 sec on something you DID want a little blur ... plus
you want something where you can fool with filters.
With digital something like this will cost you well over $2000. With
film you might be able to stick in that $500 - $700 range. Plus, sort
of like when learning how to drive a car, sometimes its best only to
try to tackle so many things at once as I can tell you there are MANY
other variables to tweak on the digital side. If I didn't have a
really strong understanding of reciprocity and all the other aspects
of 35mm photography there are things I would have been WAY confused by
when I started fooling with digital.
Ax
Axinar
> my 2 cents
>
> In a couple of years you will need to replace your digital camera b/c it
> will be outdated. Go ahead and spend a lil' extra and pick up the trusty
> Nikon F100 that will last you a couple decades....you can be sure that
> you'll be getting results that are "photo quality" because....well...they're
> photos.
Oh come now ... I imagine the electronics will go belly up long before
20 years is out (actually the control electronics on an F100 may go
belly up long before 20 years), but aside from cameras coming out
pretty quickly with 1X mutiplication factors, as far as portrait work
is concerned, as well as just about anything else up to about 20 X 30
... looks like the D100 / S2 class is going to be able to do alot of
useful work for quite some time.
Ax
Tyler D
have, your digital shot will look as good as my Velvia....
"Frank S" <fse...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:uoOcnTRp7v9...@giganews.com...
Tumbleweed
news:KUYJ9.176653$8D.46...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> In a couple of years you will need to replace your digital camera b/c it
> will be outdated. Go ahead and spend a lil' extra and pick up the trusty
> Nikon F100 that will last you a couple decades....you can be sure that
> you'll be getting results that are "photo quality"
because....well...they're
> photos.
>
years and, as a new photographer, wont let you see your pictures and the
results for days or weeks. Unless you splash out on a set of devloping
equipment as well?
--
Tumbleweed
Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)
Stewart Pinkerton
Woodley) wrote:
>The big advantage of digital over film for the beginner is it is a lot
>cheaper to learn because your mistakes are free. You do not go through
>tons of film making mistakes and you can see the results a lot faster
>making a shorter learning curve. The downside is that a serious camera
>with the manual controls necessary to really learn photography is a
>lot more expensive.
As previously noted, the seriously high quality Sony DSC-S85 (with
full manual controls) is now available for $5-600. Having been a film
photographer for about thirty years, I intend to use this little
beasty for a couple of years to learn about digital photography - then
I'll buy a 24x36 digital body for my Nikkors!
>moogl...@hotmail.com (Joeman) wrote in message news:<82556495.0212...@posting.google.com>...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am looking at possibly taking up photography as a Hobby.
>> I know that digital cameras have come a long way in the last few
>> years, but should I be looking at going with a Digital or should I be
>> looking at an Analog camera instead? My budget is only about 500 -
>> 750 US dollars. Can I get a decent digital camera for that amount?
>> And comparatively speaking, will it be equivalent or very near 35mm
>> quality photos? Can anyone give me any suggestions on a good camera
>> in that range. (Digital or/and Analog)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> MB
--
Stewart Pinkerton
<sryo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Top of the line?
>>
>> Vinyl:
>>
>> Rolled off above 12-15kHz to avoid overheating the cutter head
>> Rolled off below 50Hz to give reasonable playing time
>> Summed to mono below 100Hz to avoid needle jumping
>> Dynamic range of 70dB at the very best
>> Distortion of 0.5-1% in the midrange, five times that in the treble
>> Suffers from acoustic feedback and vibration
>> Gets more worn every time you play it.
>>
>> CD:
>> Ruler-flat from 10Hz-20kHz at all output levels
>> Dynamic range of 93dB
>> Distortion of less than 0.01% at all frequencies
>> No vibration or acoustic feedback problems
>> No wear
>
>Let's see, that's taken what? close to twenty years for us to view vinyl
>that way?
Nope, it was that way in 1983. Not my problem if some folks are slower
than others.................. :-)
> and they still press vinyl for the Club DJs, who woulda thunk
Ya cain't 'scratch' with a CD. It's not about sound quality, it's
about 'cool'.
>I remember when I paid about $600 for a Sony cassette tray loaded CD-ROM in
>the later 80's (whatever the name of that carrier case was). Man! Isn't
>this technology super duper !?
Yup - and it keeps getting better and cheaper!
Stewart Pinkerton
No, the Minolta D5 and D7 will do all that just fine.
> With
>film you might be able to stick in that $500 - $700 range. Plus, sort
>of like when learning how to drive a car, sometimes its best only to
>try to tackle so many things at once as I can tell you there are MANY
>other variables to tweak on the digital side. If I didn't have a
>really strong understanding of reciprocity and all the other aspects
>of 35mm photography there are things I would have been WAY confused by
>when I started fooling with digital.
Hmmmmm. Actually, if you go straight into digital, reciprocity failure
will never bother you! :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
>nobdy can honestly tell me that no matter how many bloody megapixels you
>have, your digital shot will look as good as my Velvia....
It will look *different* for sure, but once we have 24x36 sensors with
20 megapixels, which is 4000 PPI (summer of '03?), then the resolution
will be better than Velvia. After that, it's down to how good you are
with Photoshop!
Plus the small matter of artistic talent....................
Andrew Wong
> On 11 Dec 2002 21:02:15 -0800, moogl...@hotmail.com (Joeman) wrote:
> >I am looking at possibly taking up photography as a Hobby.
>
> A couple of points.
That was a lot more than a couple of points! :-)
(But they were pretty good points.)
Andrew
Bit Bucket
> nobdy can honestly tell me that no matter how many bloody megapixels you
> have, your digital shot will look as good as my Velvia....
>
Who cares? Film stinks.
Tyler D
photography--it's between you, the camera, and your scene. While photoshop
is an amazing program, it can turn almost anybody's snapshot into a
masterpiece...if you need this to justify your photography, then I suggest
you look into another hobby.
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3df901bd....@news.fsnet.co.uk...
MarkH
> Once you bring photoshop into the equation, you take away the true art
> of photography--it's between you, the camera, and your scene. While
> photoshop is an amazing program, it can turn almost anybody's snapshot
> into a masterpiece...if you need this to justify your photography,
> then I suggest you look into another hobby.
I take it that you never had any tolerance of airbrushing back in the days
of film photography?
It doesn't matter anyway because Photoshop is a optional tool in digital
photography, you don't have to use it!
If photoshop could really turn almost anybody's snapshot
into a masterpiece then that WOULD justify everyone abandoning film
forever.
Jim G
> On 12 Dec 2002 11:06:15 -0800, axi...@one.net (Axinar) wrote:
>
> >moogl...@hotmail.com (Joeman) wrote in message news:<82556495.0212...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am looking at possibly taking up photography as a Hobby.
> >> I know that digital cameras have come a long way in the last few
> >> years, but should I be looking at going with a Digital or should I be
> >> looking at an Analog camera instead? My budget is only about 500 -
> >> 750 US dollars. Can I get a decent digital camera for that amount?
> >> And comparatively speaking, will it be equivalent or very near 35mm
> >> quality photos? Can anyone give me any suggestions on a good camera
> >> in that range. (Digital or/and Analog)
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> MB
reason to use film any more. It cost money for film - for processing -
for printing. There are too many steps were things can get screwed up!
Oh I bought the wrong film for the job - The 1 hr photo lost my film -
the xray machine at the airport ruined my film - and on and on!
Be smart go Digital!
templar
EOS-1Ds that digital has surpassed 35mm. it has less noise, more
resolution on top of the the many advantages that digital inherently
has over film. Many professional film developers are phasing out film
processing because fewer and fewer professionals are shooting film.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com is a website by various pro
landscape and nature photographers who have alot to say on the digital
vs film debate. right now the debate is not whether cameras like the
1Ds are better than 35mm, its whether or not they are better than
medium format.
of course not everyone can afford a 8,000 dollar camera body.
"Tyler D" <a...@me.yourself> wrote in message news:<d46K9.141036$Gc.47...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
templar
up photography as a hobby should get. Digital. Allow me to outline
the benefits.
1. Instant feedback. You take the shots, you and look at them
immediately on the lcd (which is not that great actually) or download
them soon afterward and view them on your PC. You can rapidly see,
how changing parameters affected your shot. So you can fix what is
wrong rather quickly. With film, if you send out for developing,
there can be up to several days of lag time between when you take the
shot and see the results, then you adjust the shot and then wait
several days to see if that fixed it, etc. You can do your own
developing and reduce this lag time but see below.
2. Cost. Digital is cheaper. Sure you can get a nice manual film
SLR with lenses for less than 500. I shot for a long time with a
Canon FT-QL. But if you want to learn photography, you're gonna burn
ALOT of film and spend alot of money of developing. You shoot 10,000
shots with film and lets say you use cheap film and cheap developing,
that's gonna cost you at least 15 cents/shot. That's gonna cost you
1500 dollars! Doing your own developing? Setup your own lab and buy
your own chemicals. Probably not any cheaper, just faster and more
control and probably higher quality. I've shot over 5,000 shots with
my digital in a year. And you know what is costs? basically nothing.
I see the results on my screen and print the few I really like.
Costco does 4X6 for a little as 19 cents each. And if you want more
quality, you can pay more. Epson 2200 printers produce cleaner prints
than from labs and with archival inks are supposed to last 90+ years
based on UV irradiation tests. Digital promotes experimentation
because experimentation and learning is free.
3. Film is dying. Kodak has noticed almost a 50% drop in film sales
in the past two years. They claim it is due to the downturn in the
economy but i suspect they are sticking their heads in the sand. Many
pro film developing labs are phasing out film developing because so
few professional photographers shoot film these days. A good site to
read about things like this is http://www.luminous-landscape.com. The
Canon EOS-1Ds has higher resolution and less noise than ISO 100 35mm
film. goto that website to see comparison shots. Film cameras will
be seen in attics and in museums not too long from now in my opinion.
4. Plenty of good digital cameras that offer full control over focus,
apeture, shutter speed, ISO settings, etc in the 500-750 range.
Minolta Dimage 7i, Olympus E10, Sony DSC-707, 717, Fuji S602. They
are all fine cameras and you should probably base your decision on the
"feel" than anything else. They will all produce great prints up to
8X10 at the very least. The E10 probably feels the most like a
traditional film SLR and is the choice of many pros for their work.
Tumbleweed
> Once you bring photoshop into the equation, you take away the true art of
> photography--it's between you, the camera, and your scene. While
photoshop
> is an amazing program, it can turn almost anybody's snapshot into a
> masterpiece...if you need this to justify your photography, then I suggest
> you look into another hobby.
>
the true art of 35mm photography....while selective developing and printing
can turn almost anybody's snapshot into a masterpiece...if you need this to
justify your photography, then I suggest you look into another hobby.
Do you have to work hard at being a bozo or did it come naturally?
Tumbleweed
term, once you factor those 'tons of fil' (and developing and printing) in.
--
Tumbleweed
Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)
"Richard W. Woodley" <wood...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9a04df93.02121...@posting.google.com...
Stewart Pinkerton
>Once you bring photoshop into the equation, you take away the true art of
>photography--it's between you, the camera, and your scene. While photoshop
>is an amazing program, it can turn almost anybody's snapshot into a
>masterpiece...if you need this to justify your photography, then I suggest
>you look into another hobby.
Excuse me? Did you miss the bit about artistic talent? Further, the
*serious* amateur film photogropher did his own developing and
printing, and would have given his eye teeth for the precision and
flexibility of Photoshop. It's a *tool*, just like darkroom trickery
was always just a *tool*, and cannnot substitute for artistic ability.
The true art of photography is between you, the subject and the final
print or slide (or digital image). The camera and post-processing are
simply the artists tools, just like brushes, paint and palette knives.
If you really believe that Photoshop all by itself can turn a snapshot
into a masterpiece, then I submit that *you* are the one who needs to
try a hobby more within his abilities............
Stewart Pinkerton
<bitbu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Tyler D" <a...@me.yourself> wrote in message
>news:d46K9.141036$Gc.47...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>> nobdy can honestly tell me that no matter how many bloody megapixels you
>> have, your digital shot will look as good as my Velvia....
>>
>
>Who cares? Film stinks.
Only if you do your own processing! :-)
Besides, 'film' isn't just 35mm. It'll be some time (but admittedly
not more than 5 years) before digital can outshoot a Mamiya RZ67 or a
Sinar 5x4..................
templar
time developing your own prints you would know this. Dodging and
burning while printing are time honored techniques in photography.
Photoshop allows people to do with digital what people have been doing
with film for years. I agree that people can go overboard with
photoshop but great use of photoshop is as much an art as any other
part of modern photography.
"Tyler D" <a...@me.yourself> wrote in message news:<VjbK9.182223$8D.47...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
templar
sensor digital bodies. They have started making lenses for their
current digital sensor size. You'll probably have to switch to Kodak
bodies to use your Nikon lenses.
pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<3df8fe8d....@news.fsnet.co.uk>...
Bit Bucket
Larger format, bigger stink. ;-) You got my pun OK, but I am also referring
to a whole range of cost, practical application and expediency issues. What
*can* happen in theory and what really happens in practice are two fairly
different things. For commercial uses, I imagine economics and customer
acceptance are becoming the big issue now. For larger format, I also
imagine the costs of media and processing will become the most critical
factors at some point. For hobbyists, hell, anything goes including such
things as antique collecting and pinhole photography.
Bit Bucket
> Once you bring photoshop into the equation, you take away the true art of
> photography--it's between you, the camera, and your scene. While
photoshop
> is an amazing program, it can turn almost anybody's snapshot into a
> masterpiece...if you need this to justify your photography, then I suggest
> you look into another hobby.
>
More points for artist control, more opportunities for better art, which is
(unlike your equation) between the artist and the viewer. That's another
reason why many think film stinks. "True art" is an oxymoron. Think about
it.
Joeman
Holy Crap !
You people gave me a TON of valuable information. Thanks to all that
posted. Since computers is basically the business that I'm in now, and
I have more computer equipment than I know what to do with, digital
photography was the one that I was leaning closer to....
After all of these posts I dig some digging around and found that
there really is no substitute right now regarding analog (35mm) film.
It seems that no digital camera is going to give you the absolute
quality that film can give you at this point in time. (at least no
where near my budget..) That's OK by me however, because after reading
many of your posts I took a look at some printed photos taken with the
Canon and Minolta 4+ megapixel digital camera's and saw that the
quality and ease of use will be more than sufficient for a beginner
such as myself.
To top it off, I don't travel very much and since budget is a big
concern for me , going digital really seemed to make sense. This way
I can eliminate added developing costs down the road and Now I'll
finally be able to make good use of my Epson Photo Printer!!
Thanks for all of the great information,
MB
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>Unfortunately, it appears that Nikon will not be building full frame
>sensor digital bodies. They have started making lenses for their
>current digital sensor size. You'll probably have to switch to Kodak
>bodies to use your Nikon lenses.
We'll see how the market goes. I can't see that Nikon will have any
choice once pros start deserting Nikon in favour of Canon (or Kodak!)
to get the full use of their lenses (and the higher resolution that
the 24x36 frame allows). Can you *really* imagine Nikon saying to
their massive professional customer base "sorry guys, you'll have to
buy Kodak bodies now"? :-)
Don Stauffer
so many on the market. SOME films are better than almost any digicam on
market, many aren't. Don't use film in general. What kind of film
would you be using in a film camera? Compare THAT film to digicams.
BTW, the CCD chip in a digital camera IS analog. Image is converted to
digital AFTER CCD reads out the image. So it is not an analog/digital
thing, it is a sampled data system versus another sampled data system.
Yes, film has individual grains that expose, so it really is a sampled
data system also.
Joeman wrote:
>
>
>
> After all of these posts I dig some digging around and found that
> there really is no substitute right now regarding analog (35mm) film.
> It seems that no digital camera is going to give you the absolute
> quality that film can give you at this point in time.
> MB
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Kris Kadela
"Tyler D" <a...@me.yourself> wrote in message
news:VjbK9.182223$8D.47...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> photography--it's between you, the camera, and your scene. While
photoshop
> is an amazing program, it can turn almost anybody's snapshot into a
> masterpiece...if you need this to justify your photography, then I suggest
> you look into another hobby.
>
>
By this definition any fiddling with the image in the darkroom is art and
the same fiddling in Photoshop is not?
Robert E. Williams
What is the most popular course in the Art Dept?........Digital Imaging.
As a techie, I learned a lot hanging around those Art majors.
I've done Darkroom manipulation and Digital manipulation.
I can be a lot more creative in the digital mode, than I ever was in the wet
chemistry mode.
Bob Williams