Digital or Traditional?
Discussion
I'm a real enthusiast for Digital Photography.
Working in Publishing it has made my job easier, faster and saved a lot of money in terms of Repro houses. But in the same way as the Mac blurred the boundaries when it was introduced, digital photography has also done the same, anyone with a camera thinks they can produce print-ready images and the number of people who fully understand colour for press is deminishing.
But, on a real upside, if like me you love instant gratification you can't beat a digital camera...
...pop outside, take a photo, come back to PC, transfer to disk, upload to web site and hey presto the world can admire your shots all within 5 minutes.
So, lets hear your comments on why DP is great or why the traditional process is still the best.
Tim
Working in Publishing it has made my job easier, faster and saved a lot of money in terms of Repro houses. But in the same way as the Mac blurred the boundaries when it was introduced, digital photography has also done the same, anyone with a camera thinks they can produce print-ready images and the number of people who fully understand colour for press is deminishing.
But, on a real upside, if like me you love instant gratification you can't beat a digital camera...
...pop outside, take a photo, come back to PC, transfer to disk, upload to web site and hey presto the world can admire your shots all within 5 minutes.
So, lets hear your comments on why DP is great or why the traditional process is still the best.
Tim
the one problem i have with DP is that a camera is never supposed to lie... ok i know that photography could be faked before DP ever came along but was far more rare. The skill was in the photographer.
With digital photgraphy the emphasis seems to have moved from actually taking a good picture, to just click it anyway and sort it out on photoshop or whatever.....
I like DP for the fact i can put it on the web in minutes, and that it saves you a fortune in processing bills (when you are being experimental you can end up with a whole film of shite photos!
). But to be honest, the crispest pictures i have ever seen have still always been produced on SLR technology and for me that is the best....
With digital photgraphy the emphasis seems to have moved from actually taking a good picture, to just click it anyway and sort it out on photoshop or whatever.....
I like DP for the fact i can put it on the web in minutes, and that it saves you a fortune in processing bills (when you are being experimental you can end up with a whole film of shite photos!
). But to be honest, the crispest pictures i have ever seen have still always been produced on SLR technology and for me that is the best....I guess it's horses for courses.
The ammount of darkroom 'magic' that could be done to a shot was quite extensive. Haven't we simply moved the darkroom onto the motherboard?
I know what you're saying, but I would defy you to tell the difference between two wet processed shots, one taken with a 14Megapixel SLR and the other using traditional 35mm.
Tim
>> Edited by TT Tim on Friday 28th November 16:55
The ammount of darkroom 'magic' that could be done to a shot was quite extensive. Haven't we simply moved the darkroom onto the motherboard?
I know what you're saying, but I would defy you to tell the difference between two wet processed shots, one taken with a 14Megapixel SLR and the other using traditional 35mm.
Tim
>> Edited by TT Tim on Friday 28th November 16:55
I used to use a little compact digital camera, but about a year ago i started doing 'proper' photography. As a result, a few months ago i bought a Minolta X700, and i use that all the time now, my digital never gets a lookin. I just prefer in, and for the time being i dont have a hope in hell of affording a digital SLR.
If I can be crude and bring up cost...
I've invested in a couple of decent lenses, all picked up secondhand over the years. I use two bodies, although one digital slr body would make the need for two film bodies partially redundant. Otherwise I would love to go fully digital.
The raw material - light - is the same for each medium, digital issue just a bit less messy and takes up less room.
Just my tuppence!
I've invested in a couple of decent lenses, all picked up secondhand over the years. I use two bodies, although one digital slr body would make the need for two film bodies partially redundant. Otherwise I would love to go fully digital.
The raw material - light - is the same for each medium, digital issue just a bit less messy and takes up less room.
Just my tuppence!
I think you've highlighted something pretty key there - to match an 35mm SLR, you really need something along the lines of a 10+ Megapixel SLR, which is going to cost thousands compared to a couple of hundred for the film camera.
I think digital is great, and from what I've seen, results can be fantastic, but then again, there is something very satisfying about viewing a 35mm slide on a light box - the colours are just so vivid.
At the moment, I do both - I've got a film SLR, and a decent slide scanner, however it is very time consuming to get images from my camera to my PC if I want to Photoshop them or put them on the web, plus it's also expensive when you include film and processing costs.
As soon as I can afford a decent DSLR, I'll make the jump, but probably won't give up on the film stuff quite yet.
I think digital is great, and from what I've seen, results can be fantastic, but then again, there is something very satisfying about viewing a 35mm slide on a light box - the colours are just so vivid.
At the moment, I do both - I've got a film SLR, and a decent slide scanner, however it is very time consuming to get images from my camera to my PC if I want to Photoshop them or put them on the web, plus it's also expensive when you include film and processing costs.
As soon as I can afford a decent DSLR, I'll make the jump, but probably won't give up on the film stuff quite yet.
Beano, it really depends upon what you're taking photos for.
If they're for sticking in an album then the traditional route is great.
But, if like me, you work in publishing and everything is geared around what they now call digital-workflow there really is no alternative as far as I'm concerned. The difference in cost both financially and in terms of time is HUGE!
Tim
If they're for sticking in an album then the traditional route is great.
But, if like me, you work in publishing and everything is geared around what they now call digital-workflow there really is no alternative as far as I'm concerned. The difference in cost both financially and in terms of time is HUGE!
Tim
Yes, to get a CCD close to 35mm then you're talking 12Megapixel plus. But a 5MP Digital will give you print quality (304dpi) as approx A5, which is fantastic.
What musn't be forgotten is that it's not just the Megapixels that are important, optics are critical. A £100 Trust 4Mp camera seems like a great buy until you look at the 2mm lens that you're trying to capture the world through.
Tim
What musn't be forgotten is that it's not just the Megapixels that are important, optics are critical. A £100 Trust 4Mp camera seems like a great buy until you look at the 2mm lens that you're trying to capture the world through.
Tim
TT Tim said:
Beano, it really depends upon what you're taking photos for.
If they're for sticking in an album then the traditional route is great.
But, if like me, you work in publishing and everything is geared around what they now call digital-workflow there really is no alternative as far as I'm concerned. The difference in cost both financially and in terms of time is HUGE!
Tim
Good point - but like Ed I can spent a good deal of time scanning one 35mm slide in - I must say the only real problems with this route are getting a good quality scan (which has never been as easy as I expected even with a Nikon coolscan) and the time it takes.
Mine mostly end up digital - with the odd print up to A4 for some friend or relative.
Regardless of the quality I prefer being in total control and having an SLR.
As soon as Digital SLRs become affordable to me though I will have one.
I have a good scanner in the mean time but the quality is flawed during a scan.
(Although I must admit I have been too lazy to try the negative scanner part of it as yet).
>> Edited by DustyC on Friday 28th November 17:18
As soon as Digital SLRs become affordable to me though I will have one.
I have a good scanner in the mean time but the quality is flawed during a scan.
(Although I must admit I have been too lazy to try the negative scanner part of it as yet).
>> Edited by DustyC on Friday 28th November 17:18
Quality will have to come up and price come down before I switch to digital. (I'm sure it will, too, it has been so far.) I do have a little digicam I use for web pix but that doesn't really count . . . in addition to my main system, I have a Yashica Electro 35 G rangefinder with a superb lens on it, which can produce images of the same quality as a multi-kilo-buck Canon 10D, and I paid $17 for it - beat that, digital
lenses etc are pretty cheap on old kit - so far ive spent the following on kit;
£170 - Minolta X700 with 28mm lens and 132px TTL flashgun
£75 - Minolta 50mm lens and Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm zoom
£40 - Jessops Tripod
£60 - Cokin filter system + a few filters
Plus i was given a power winder, 400mm Vivitar lens and Sigma 70-210mm zoom by a fellow PHer in return for a donation to charity.
Most of this kit came from Jessops. Pretty good kit too - the X700 is a good SLR with plenty of features.
£170 - Minolta X700 with 28mm lens and 132px TTL flashgun
£75 - Minolta 50mm lens and Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm zoom
£40 - Jessops Tripod
£60 - Cokin filter system + a few filters
Plus i was given a power winder, 400mm Vivitar lens and Sigma 70-210mm zoom by a fellow PHer in return for a donation to charity.
Most of this kit came from Jessops. Pretty good kit too - the X700 is a good SLR with plenty of features.
TT Tim said:
What musn't be forgotten is that it's not just the Megapixels that are important, optics are critical.
Yep - totally agree, which is why I've gone for a Canon film SLR, and am slowly building up a collection of decent lenses which will also fit their DSLR cameras.
I think the quality of the lens is the most important factor, and even the most expensive, multi-megapixel camera will give crap results if you don't use a decent lens.
DustyC said:
Regardless of the quality I prefer being in total control and having an SLR.
As soon as Digital SLRs become affordable to me though I will have one.
I have a good scanner in the mean time but the quality is flawed during a scan.
(Although I must admit I have been too lazy to try the negative scanner part of it as yet).
>> Edited by DustyC on Friday 28th November 17:18
I think £350 is pretty affordable these days.
As for scanning, short of spending proper money on a scanner you will not get decent results from a home scanner, having said that there is a Umax 3000 on eBay ate the moment at a rediculously cheap price, I paid £4K for mine! As for negatives, even the best repro houses won't scan negs, the conversion software is just too hit or miss. Just don't do it. Have a print done and scan that.
Tim
re:scanning, i got pretty good with mine for a few projects i have done and with the right computer power you can certainly get a reasonable scan. But quality will always be lost.
I had noticed that even the sharpest photo in the world, would still come out slightly blurred (even though you couldn't see it. you could *tell*) after scanning, Worse after printing too!
if your photo was blurred to start with (due to lens, or whatever) it would be worse after scanning.
I guess that is one way digital has it better, because you are cutting out the middle man so to speak, it can only loose quality through printing....
I had noticed that even the sharpest photo in the world, would still come out slightly blurred (even though you couldn't see it. you could *tell*) after scanning, Worse after printing too!
if your photo was blurred to start with (due to lens, or whatever) it would be worse after scanning.
I guess that is one way digital has it better, because you are cutting out the middle man so to speak, it can only loose quality through printing....
I've just bought one of the Canon 300D jobbies, because I have been waiting for the first affordable digital slr - I've gradually gone from film, to digital, to digital with electronic viewfinder, and now back to a proper SLR but with "digital film". For my amateur purposes 6Mp is fine, and gives excellent quality at anything up to A4 size, and I'm not in the near future going any bigger than that. The qulaity is superb, and there is sufficient "traditional" manipulation to make it like using film, except for the white balance issue.
It is a sheer pleasure to be handling and SLR again, and to be honest I don't mind the fact that it's digital - it still takes great pictures. Now, if only I had a bit more imagination....
It is a sheer pleasure to be handling and SLR again, and to be honest I don't mind the fact that it's digital - it still takes great pictures. Now, if only I had a bit more imagination....
TT Tim said:
Yes, to get a CCD close to 35mm then you're talking 12Megapixel plus.
With respect, I would have to disagree. A 6 megapixel Canon 10D is knocking on the door, of 35mm film, if not better. The Canon 1ds is an 11 megapixel camera and leaves 35mm film in the dust and, arguably, is as good as medium format film quality. Check out this comparison:
www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
Cheers
TT Tim said:
I know what you're saying, but I would defy you to tell the difference between two wet processed shots, one taken with a 14Megapixel SLR and the other using traditional 35mm.
I can tell you where you would feel it: £££s but you're correct, the quality of the top end in digital slrs is extraordinary.
For me there's a quality in the best film photographs that's not quite there in even the best digital, but for the 'snapper' there's ever more to be said for digital.
Bacardi said:
Yes, to get a CCD close to 35mm then you're talking 12Megapixel plus.
With respect, I would have to disagree. A 6 megapixel Canon 10D is knocking on the door, of 35mm film, if not better. The Canon 1ds is an 11 megapixel camera and leaves 35mm film in the dust and, arguably, is as good as medium format film quality.
That's far from the truth at this point in the development of digital.
6 megapixel images will be visibly worse than film images above A4 size, 11 megapixel is approaching film quality and, in the circumstances outlined above, will give an image close to indistinguishable from 35mm film, but to suggest that it's close to medium format ? Not by a long way, even the very best digital slrs show some artifacts which give an air of 'artificiality'. You can get pictures at close the quality of medium format, or at least as close as makes no difference after reproduction, but the technology to do so is well into 5 figures.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff