Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digital v Film

Reply
Thread Tools

Digital v Film

 
 
Simon Marchini
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003
I am sure that this has been debated on this group many times before but as
I am pondering whether to make the switch I would welcome views:

I currently have a film set up with a digital slide scanner. This produces
very acceptable digital images that I then process using Adobe. However
this has a number of disadvantages:

1, Delay in getting the film back from the processors;
2, On cost of processing and film;
3, Storage and image handling.

On the flip side to this though the benefits are:

1, The slide scanner can produce much higher quality digital images than any
camera on the market at the moment;
2, The cost of digital equipment is still high - currently at UK prices a
digital camera (I am thinking of the Canon EOS 10D) would not start to pay
for itself until 12/18 months;
3, Moore's Law - i.e. twice the price half the cost - again the recent Canon
10D conforms to this compared to the previous cameras launched only 12
months previous. So when is the best time to but equipment that is
essentially a small computer? I already have seen this my Nikon Coolpix
775 which was a good camera for my needs 12 months ago - now it is replaced
by better and cheaper models.
4, When will digital technology mature much as the PC market has?

I suspect that this is a dilemma that many of the people on the group has
confronted and so feedback would be welcome.

Thanks

Simon


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matti Vuori
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003
"Simon Marchini" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:berffc$gq$(E-Mail Removed):
> I am sure that this has been debated on this group many times before


Shouldn't you in that case use Google to search for the old debates?

> I currently have a film set up with a digital slide scanner. This
> produces very acceptable digital images that I then process using
> Adobe.


Adobe is the name of an US company, not an application...

--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SamMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003

"Matti Vuori" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns93B794582217Bmvuorikotisoonfi@193.229.0.31 ...
> "Simon Marchini" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:berffc$gq$(E-Mail Removed):
> > I am sure that this has been debated on this group many times before

>
> Shouldn't you in that case use Google to search for the old debates?
>
> > I currently have a film set up with a digital slide scanner. This
> > produces very acceptable digital images that I then process using
> > Adobe.

>
> Adobe is the name of an US company, not an application...
>


A.R.S. is the acronym for your condition...

Sam


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003
Simon Marchini writes:

> 3, Moore's Law - i.e. twice the price half the cost ...


FYI, Moore's law does not apply to digital cameras, because they are
analog devices.

> So when is the best time to but equipment that is
> essentially a small computer?


The most important part of a digicam is the image sensor, which is an
analog device.

> I suspect that this is a dilemma that many of the people
> on the group has confronted and so feedback would be welcome.


It's an individual decision, and I suspect you've already made up your
mind, so go with that.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Whitaker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003
"Simon Marchini" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:berffc$gq$(E-Mail Removed):

> 1, The slide scanner can produce much higher quality digital images
> than any camera on the market at the moment;


I think this is the major point where you are wrong. 5 megapixel digital
images are much better than scans of 35mm slides. There is more detail in
the shadows, much less grain, and the file sizes are much smaller.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003
JN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've had a 3MP digital camera (not SLR but still quite high end) for three
> years. Now I'm seriously considering to go back to film cameras (35mm SLR).
> My current digicam just fells like a toy compared to my friends 10 years old
> Nikon. First I thought that it would be an ultimate solution to buy a
> digital SLR, but the prices are quie high. I can buy quite many packages of
> film with that money. And the most important thing: If I now buy a digital
> SLR with 6MP, next year there will be 8MP, 12MP,... and so on. After five
> years the digital camera is 'out of date', but film cameras are still the
> same. On the other hand 6MP is already quite much and it reduces the need
> for updating the camera.


Why would be 6MP camera be out of date in 3 years? I just printed my
first 11x17 last night and it's stunning. I will still be able to do
that in 3 years with this camera and printer. Even if the new camera is
12MP I will still be able to print 11x17 with my camera. How is that
obselete?

If you want to make the argument that digital cameras become obselete,
you must make the same argumetn for film cameras. They are alwasy
adding new features to those cameras. More accurate metering, higher
shutter speeds, faster flash syncs, faster autofocus, more powerful
flashes, etc.

Manufacturers are always coming out with more features and improvements
to existing features, even on toasters. Does that make my current
toaster useless? No. It still makes toast.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gregory W. Blank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003
I am going to reply to your question from the vangtage point of someone
who has been in photo for 20 years. Professionally for about 7. Film scanners
are the best option for me at this time to produce anything done digitally,
I have a conventional wet darkroom which I use for very many reasons also.

The price/ and quality of digital cameras is still to high / low for my needs
a close camera that could fit my needs is the new Kodak DCS Pro14n
reviewd by Shutter Bug, the camera however has an unacceptable comprise
for me to use it professionally doing weddings. The Pro14n is also a little more expensive than
I wish to pay its about 5K, it accepts Nikon lens. I bought my Bronica SQAI
for around 3K. The DCSPro 14n will at max resolution give you a file about 1/2 the size
I typically scan at for 16x20 inch prints, I have stated before when a camera
is available at a reasonable price which will match my 6x6 in its ablity it will be a no brain, win win solution
to carrying heavier equiptment. Digital cameras in my experience as well as what
I have heard from reviewers still require corrections within photo editing programs to correct
skin values etc. The issue here is for me that I can take my film to a pro lab and get reasonabley
correct convential prints without any file set up or dinking with color correction,
thereby saving my time, worst case scenario now is I ocassionaly have to reprint an image that requires
burning or dodging.

I am really waiting for a camera to come along with which I don't have to accept compromise,
even then I expect the majority of my personal "art photography" as opposed
to client work to remain centered around film,...indefinately.
I wouldn't consider a $1,500 purchase this year knowing that two years from now that
all my issues with digital cameras will more than likely be addressed and for about what I would pay
for a nice medium format system.
Just my 2 cents. If your into LF cameras check out my article in this months View Camera magazine
on film tests for Fuji Acros film.
Regards
Gb

In article <berffc$gq$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Simon Marchini" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I am sure that this has been debated on this group many times before but as
> I am pondering whether to make the switch I would welcome views:
>
> I currently have a film set up with a digital slide scanner. This produces
> very acceptable digital images that I then process using Adobe. However
> this has a number of disadvantages:
>
> 1, Delay in getting the film back from the processors;
> 2, On cost of processing and film;
> 3, Storage and image handling.
>
> On the flip side to this though the benefits are:
>
> 1, The slide scanner can produce much higher quality digital images than any
> camera on the market at the moment;
> 2, The cost of digital equipment is still high - currently at UK prices a
> digital camera (I am thinking of the Canon EOS 10D) would not start to pay
> for itself until 12/18 months;
> 3, Moore's Law - i.e. twice the price half the cost - again the recent Canon
> 10D conforms to this compared to the previous cameras launched only 12
> months previous. So when is the best time to but equipment that is
> essentially a small computer? I already have seen this my Nikon Coolpix
> 775 which was a good camera for my needs 12 months ago - now it is replaced
> by better and cheaper models.
> 4, When will digital technology mature much as the PC market has?
>
> I suspect that this is a dilemma that many of the people on the group has
> confronted and so feedback would be welcome.
>
> Thanks
>
> Simon


--
Check out My Homepage at
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Support bacteria - they're the only culture
some people have." -Stephen Wright
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003
Simon Marchini wrote:

> 4, When will digital technology mature much as the PC market has?


Which PC market are you looking at? I buy a USB 1.1 card and then they
come out with USB 2.0. I buy a 1Ghz processor and then they come out
with 1.2Ghz. I spend $900 on a flat screen LCD monitor and three months
later it can be bought for $700.



 
Reply With Quote
 
friend
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003
Why don't you check archives of that group on Google?













 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Whitaker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2003
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Gregory W. Blank) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> The price/ and quality of digital cameras is still to high / low for my
> needs


Are you talking about >>35mm<< film vs digital? If so, I think you are
mistaken. Have you ever compared digital images to 35mm slide scans? I
have. I thought it was going to be a close competition, but the digital
images are far superior. I'd love to see a sample image of yours that shows
the superiority of a scanned slide to an equivalent digital image. I'll
have to put up the sample I got done. It'll just take a few minutes.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o) Sharp Shooter Digital Photography 10 06-22-2005 05:44 AM
Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras brian Digital Photography 108 12-18-2004 10:01 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner Mike Digital Photography 6 07-05-2004 06:06 PM
digital images: from film vs from digital camera H. S. Digital Photography 10 11-08-2003 06:52 PM



Advertisments