Write Review
2,077,904 Total Reviews 3,673 New Reviews
15,689 Users Online

Atlanta

Re:Digital vs Film
ga_kosh 22 Reviews 10798 reads
posted

I agree. Film makes the absolute best pictures, but I use a 5MP Sony CD Mavica b/c of the ease of shooting, the fact I burn directly to a CD (no worries of memory sticks), and I keep most of my stuff on my computer.  1600x1200 looks great on screen but the photos I've printed at home or at Wolf Camera look cartoonish in comparison to the old Canon AE I've got.

Eventually I believe digital will get to almost film quality (cameras for the mass market that is), but for right now I choose which one to use based on what I'm doing. 9/10 times I use the Sony.

My 2 cents,  Kosh

Sofiaxxx029964 reads

I need new pics, and soon...I am searching for a professional photographer; preferably with experience with B/W photography...my favorite.  I will barter, or pay, whichever works.  I would rather deal with film, than digital...As in life, I prefer natural, even though digital is great.  Please forward only serious requests...

Regards,

Sexy Sofia

ReplyQuoteReport
tippu300249594 reads

A Digital Camera >4 Megapixels will beat a film camera hands down every time. Make sure, the Digital Camera is a brand name like Cannon, Nikon, Sony etc.

Nikon CoolPix models are rated the best today. The advnatage of a Digital Camera is that the images are saved as a Jpeg file making it easier to edit with high resolution and details.

If it is good digital, you can take BW pictures as good as color. Of course I am an amateur, not a professiona. Have an excellent Digital Camera, and I used at Disney World to take some pictures of moving parade in heavy drizzle at night and the pictures came out excellent.

Just my 02 on Digital vs Film Camera's. Just like the old type writer, Mac (PC for those who use them) made electronic typewriters obsolete and digtal photography will make film camera obsolete.

Sofia, I know you are Mac person and you know I like that about you

ReplyQuoteReport
Freudian_Frolick8713 reads

Although I do not doubt that digital will beat out a film (SLR) camera, that isn't the case right now.  SLR is actually above 12 Megapixels.  Also, it's not just Megapixels that matter...  Other factors are involved that I really do not feel like typing out here.

Don't get me wrong, to the untrained eye, they look basically the same.  But to a pro, digital doesn't cut it yet.  Just go to your next sporting event and see how many photographers are using digital :)

As for being Mac users, I will try to forgive you, but it will be hard.

ReplyQuoteReport
tippu3002410354 reads

Agree Megapixels only doesn't matter. Lens qulity, filters, focusing accuracy all comes into play. You can to Wall Mart or Target and buy a Digitla with lots megapixels but may not give the samee resut.

I am very pleased with my Nikon CoolPix and it takes better pictures than Nikon SLR.  I taken the dsame pictures with both.

I also like editing the flexibility. Digital Camera+FinalCut Pro+Mac=Awesome

If one just want use Nikon editor, it also awesome.

With My G4 17" MAC, I can edit on an airplane when travellig, don't need a big clinker PC.

Just kidding about the PC. I use both, perefer MAC

ReplyQuoteReport
byno10153 reads

Just a note here, the real problem with digital photography comes on the print out.  If one uses an inkjet or laser printer it will never equal the quality of a printed 35mm film.  Not to mention the fact that inkjet and laser prints will fade and are subject to smearing from moisture even with photo quality paper.  Having said that, you can make digital pics come out extremely close to 35mm quality by printing with a dye sublimation printer (big word).  Canon, Sony, and Olympus sell these printers for amatuer photographers and most of the big photo stores will take you digital memory cards and print them with professional printers of this type.  The added benefit is these printers also seal the photo.  The dye sublimation process losses the pixel effect and gives the print an analog effect just like real film prints

ReplyQuoteReport
tecn10753 reads

High quality film will always beat digital. Film resolution is not limited by pixels. You do have paper and enlargement limitations as  for as paper grain is concerned.

However;
if you are taking pics for the sole purpose of posting them on the web, then resolution IS NOT an issue. JPEG compression and webpage load time limits are going to keep you in the 72 dpi range (if you want the page to load quickly) that is low resolution even for a cheap digital camera.
If you want to have portrait quality large display photos for framing or a portfolio, film photos taken with a large format carmera is by far the best way to go. (there are good 35mm films out now that allow good enlargement as well)
There are professional grade digital cameras than can do this pretty well and there are tricks you can do in the editing room to make the photos look more like film pictures, it just takes more effort to do it this way.

Tecn

ReplyQuoteReport
tripNatl8651 reads

Actually film does suffer from a pixelation effect of sorts in granulation.  The higher the ISO rating, the larger the grain of the film.  The larger surface area for the individual grains allows them to absorb more light without having to increase the length of time the shudder stays open.  That's why you need something like 1000 ISO film for night shots, and why they look so grainy.  When you get down to 64 ISO films, you will probably still need a flash (or other more complicated artificial focused lighting) on a sunny day to get the picture you want.  Larger format films use the same ISO scale, but you can fit a lot more of those grains on a larger negative.  Plus, you aren't having to magnify as much to enlarge to the same size.
Kind of simplified and probably boring.  Sorry about that.  Bet you can tell I prefer film over digital photography.

ReplyQuoteReport
Sofiaxxx028972 reads

Who would like to volunteer their services??  I see many of you gave up your knowledge...I'd like to see it in action.  I really love photography, but just don't have time to practice it, and my last wonderful Minolta was stolen from my vehicle...I truly loved that camera...

As for the pics on my site; the b/w pics???  They just happen to be digital...I couldn't believe it, but I also have ALL the pics on 8x10 glossy paper...Very nice...

But I just happen to love film...And good photography says wonders about the subject, don't you think???

Of course, I'll pay...or play...

Sexy Sofia

ReplyQuoteReport
Freudian_Frolick8894 reads

You can scan in those original 8x10s to get exceptional quality.  However, I doubt most web user's will be interested in downloading a 5 MB tiff just to see you :)  High quality and the web are not friends.

ReplyQuoteReport
tecn7865 reads

trip

Yes, I know.
I didn't want to get too technical on this forum. Besides with film grain we are talking about a light issue. More light = less grain (oversimplification, I know) with digital you have pixelation no matter how much light reaches the CCD. Plus you can process film on different types of paper to enhance or reduce grain effects.
(bet you can't tell I'd rather spend my time in a darkroom rather than in front of a PC :))

tecn

ReplyQuoteReport
ga_kosh10799 reads

I agree. Film makes the absolute best pictures, but I use a 5MP Sony CD Mavica b/c of the ease of shooting, the fact I burn directly to a CD (no worries of memory sticks), and I keep most of my stuff on my computer.  1600x1200 looks great on screen but the photos I've printed at home or at Wolf Camera look cartoonish in comparison to the old Canon AE I've got.

Eventually I believe digital will get to almost film quality (cameras for the mass market that is), but for right now I choose which one to use based on what I'm doing. 9/10 times I use the Sony.

My 2 cents,  Kosh

ReplyQuoteReport
jackxom8300 reads

I have a Nikon F100 and a Nikon D100. Your choice and your place. Let me know if you are still looking...

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!