Digital vs Film Again.......
Ben Lock
and it seems the digital advocates are winning over many of the film
users. I myself am a film user and I would like to find out from
those who use or have dabbled with digital cameras to let me know if
a digital camera can fulfill my needs for the following work and if it
would be cost effective? I mainly shoot with nikon 35mm and mamiya
6X7 format. I think it has been agreed upon that 8X10 from a digital
camera are pretty darn close if not equal to the film print. What I
like to blow up to at least 11X14 but also go up to 16X20 for
landscape and wedding formals. Given the quality of the digital
cameras today can we produce a print at those sizes and perhaps bigger
(20X26) that would be indistinguishable from the traditional film
negative? Would a special printer be needed and what would be the
approximate cost of the printer and camera body? I know canon and
nikon digitals can take the same lens as their film cameras. Any
input would be greatly appreciated. thanks Ben
bokeh
Ben Lock wrote in message ...
You are not asking an open question. You want someone to justify your desire
to get a digicam. You want to hear what you want to hear. You want evidence
that digital is better than film. Sorry, I can't help you here. The digitals
that I can afford look like crap and feel like hell. I want the features to
be affordable and I guess I'll keep on shooting film until there's a digital
body for my Canon lens that costs the same as my current EOS 30. That means
about three more years. On the other hand, if I was a millionaire, I'd be
shooting film, cause the cost would not be a problem and I don't want to
waste time sharpening pics in Photoshop. I'd shoot film and print everything
at 8x12... OK, enough dreaming and back to reality of family budget...
Cheers!
Joseph Meehan
digital equipment on it.
For now and for use real down to earth types I would say digital is not
quite ready for high quality 20x24 (inches) yet. If you do centimeters,
then go for it.
I doubt if you will ever be able to say that digital is equal to silver
photography. It would be like saying water colors are equal to oil
paintings. They are just not the same thing.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Ben Lock" <orov...@kswildcat.com> wrote in message
news:b7b67f1d.02121...@posting.google.com...
Xm@n
to particular way of asking questions, regardless subject).
"bokeh" <bo...@bokeh.com> wrote in message
news:3df708ed$0$12759$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Kinon
produce prints (if that's the final medim) using the strengths of each and
compare. I've done this, and prefer film/chemical to full-digital. Right
now, the best digicams can approach film when printed out, in the future,
they may (probably) surpass it. the Mamiya is another matter. If you shoot a
fine-grained film, and print professionally, there are no digicams that I've
seen than can come close. No contest. So if that's the level of quality you
want, stick with film.
Also, digital "looks different" to me. The colors, while they can be vivid,
seem flat. The tonality is all different, and the pictures don't have the
same depth as film. Digital prints, due to sharpening and other
manipulations, can appear sharp, I don't prefer the look to film. It just
seems to have an artificial look.
Flame on.
"Ben Lock" <orov...@kswildcat.com> wrote in message
news:b7b67f1d.02121...@posting.google.com...
Salts2001
>photography. It would be like saying water colors are equal to oil
>paintings. They are just not the same thing.
I agree completely here. Two totally different animals. I use my digi often,
but for specific purposes. For nearly all of my print work I use film. When
printed both have a different look. You have to decide which you like.
No matter which way you go you will make some sacrifices. Decide what is most
important to you and go that direction. I can say that if you are going over
8x10, I believe that you will see a major lack of quality in the digi print. I
personally don't care for my digital prints over 5x7.
Don Stauffer
digital I did not sell or junk my film stuff, I still use both.
In fact, I was into digital for several years before even getting a
digicam. I started by sending negatives out to have scanned on photo CD.
Then I bought a print scanner. Eventually a digicam, then second digicam.
I still use film, then scan prints when I want absolutely highest res
(my digicam is 3MB). I shoot digital for email, web use, or any time I
need immediate use of image.
You do not need to choose up sides. Regardless of what some folks
claim, you CAN live in both worlds, and no one will FORCE you to pick sides.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Ramón G Castañ
bo...@bokeh.com wrote on 12/11/02 01:40:
> You are not asking an open question. You want someone to justify your desire
> to get a digicam. You want to hear what you want to hear. You want evidence
> that digital is better than film. Sorry, I can't help you here. The digitals
> that I can afford look like crap and feel like hell. I want the features to
> be affordable and I guess I'll keep on shooting film until there's a digital
> body for my Canon lens that costs the same as my current EOS 30. That means
> about three more years. On the other hand, if I was a millionaire, I'd be
> shooting film, cause the cost would not be a problem and I don't want to
> waste time sharpening pics in Photoshop. I'd shoot film and print everything
> at 8x12... OK, enough dreaming and back to reality of family budget...
> Cheers!
>
Excellent response!
As for the future, the only thing for certain is that digital photography
technology at this time appears to be where computers were in the early
eighties: still in diapers and way too expensive. I would also prefer to
spend that kind of money on film.
---
Please remove NOSPAM to reply privately if you are so inclined,
ramoncNOSPAM at NOSPAMsurewest dot NOSPAM netNOSPAM.
Otherwise, replies to the Newsgroup are always welcome.
Gordon Moat
comparing is printing methods. To get a better idea, talk to a pro lab in
your area, and see what samples they have. Also ask them about archive
life, and how colour fast is the print. You can use a pro lab, or service
bureau, to get very high quality outputs, on equipment much more
expensive than you can easily buy, or cost effectively operate at low
volume.
Since you can scan film, and buy a film (or used drum scanner), for less
than the cost of a digital SLR body, that would be a more valid
comparison. If you are considering MF digital, these are still quite
expensive, and better to be leased than purchased. A much cheaper medium
format digital option would be a drum scanner, for substantially less
money than a digital back. Buying a direct digital, instead of a scanning
system, should be judged on profit potential; if you can make higher
profits from one over the other, then you have your answer.
MF digital really ruins the use of expensive wide angle lenses, by making
them much longer effective focal length. I only know of one 56 mm square
digital at the moment, and that is the Rollei Gamma digital back for
their 6000 series ($$$$$). I would expect more full frame MF digital
backs in the near future, and at much cheaper prices. Until the lens
multiplication is avoided, MF digital will remain a niche market for high
volume shooters. Also, I would be surprised if MF digital backs get to
full frame 6 by 7 size, since the push seems to be for 645 size, or 6 by
6 size.
You cold blow up any small frame to any enlargement, but only you and
your customers can determine if they like the results. That is the only
meaningful comparison.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html>
Saddamm
> that I can afford look like crap and feel like hell. I want the features
to
> be affordable and I guess I'll keep on shooting film until there's a
digital
> body for my Canon lens that costs the same as my current EOS 30.
Yep same for me with my N80.
I'll let all the other suckers pay for the R&D.
Film is nice, cheap, and great quality.
Shmoo
wrote:
The Canon EOS 1Ds and the Kodak 14n may produce results like what you
are looking for, I am not sure as I have not been able to do any
testing with either camera yet. I seriously doubt that either will be
able to give results like what you have gotten from 6x7, but they may
well replace your 35mm stuff. But I some how doubt that you are
producing good 16x20 or 20x26 from 35mm. Digital is not a magic
bullet.
Regardless are you ready to spend the $5000 for the Kodak or the $8000
for the Canon?
For prints your best bet would be to get LightJet prints from your
digital files, inkjets are just not up to task. You would not buy your
own LightJet, unless you have tens of thousands of dollars lying
about. A good LightJet print is as good as if not better than a
traditional print, if your file is good enought to start with. If you
want to go digital and have good prints, get to know a good digital
lab, don't fumble the ball on the goal line with crappy output.
Cost effective would depend on how many rolls of film you typically
shot.
Shmoo
wrote:
>MF digital really ruins the use of expensive wide angle lenses, by making
>them much longer effective focal length. I only know of one 56 mm square
>digital at the moment, and that is the Rollei Gamma digital back for
>their 6000 series ($$$$$).
>
>
>
The Rollei Gamma comes in two versions the c6 and the s12. The c6 uses
a 36x24mm imaging chip, the s12 is a 56x56mm scan back. Scan backs are
useless for anything that moves at all.
http://www.rollei.de/en/produkte/digital/digital.html
The only current full frame MF chip is a Kodak 645 version that is
currently exclusive to Sinar. MF format digital is even more distant
than 35mm digital, when comparing fullframe and price issues.
DunxUK
CCD will gradually pack-in. People can argue how quickly it may happen but it
doesn't happen at all with film. There's no point holding the cat's arse to the
fire as they say...
Ben Lock
print that rivals the film format but i would have to bring it to a
pro lab because quality printers are currently not affordable for the
average consumer. Someone said it was not a question where there was
a clearcut yes or no answer. I'm happy with my film cameras but if
digital can duplicate the same results in large print sizes then I
would seriously consider buying one of the nikon digicams.
Shmoo <N...@mailplease.com> wrote in message news:<cq9fvu45b630va555...@4ax.com>...
Alec
whencomparing digital vs. film. There are other considerations like:
1. Highlight and shadown detail. Digital may look similar to a
"snappy" / contrasty tranny that may not contain a lot of shadow and
highlight detail. But what about the better slide films in that regard
(carefully exposed), or color or black and white negs? Negative film's
ability to capture shadow and highlight detail is meaningfully
superior to that of today's best digital sensors.
2. Low light performance. Capturing night scenes, particularly in
tropical / warm climate, brings out CCD noise substantially.
3. Frames per second. Enough said.