Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > beginner's question on digital vs film SLRs

Reply
Thread Tools

beginner's question on digital vs film SLRs

 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006
"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> []
> > On the other hand, digital bodies are expensive, both because they're
> > new, and because they have all that electronics in them.

>
> .. and because the market will stand the higher prices?


Very likely; I'm not privy to profit margin information from anybody
in that field (and hence can speculate wildly ).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006
Randy Howard <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote
> (in article <(E-Mail Removed)-b.net>):
>
> > "Dennis Pogson" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >
> >> My grand-daughter is currently in the 3rd year of a 4-year degree course in
> >> photography at a well-known British University. So far they have not even
> >> mentioned digital photography.

> >
> > Well, if she wants to work in the field when she gets out, they'd
> > better get around to it soon.

>
> Are you implying that if you truly understand lighting,
> composition, DOF, exposure and film processing that using a
> digital SLR will cause you problems?


No, but Photoshop is another matter.

> Think how much better digital pictures would be overall if those
> behind the camera had that knowledge, instead of entrusting it to
> the firmware.


I don't find it any more true of digital P&S cameras than it is of
film P&S cameras (which is nearly 100% true, in both cases). However,
I find the people going to DSLRs to be the top of the pack mostly, so
the people using DSLRs have *better* knowledge than the people using
film SLRs in general.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gisle Hannemyr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006
"michael" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> I'm planning to take some photography classes in the fall at my
> local community college and i've been having trouble deciding
> whether to start with a film or digital SLR camera. the only real
> appeal i see with digital is that any mistakes i make while learning
> won't cost me in film.


> i do want to learn film photography, though mainly because the idea
> of developing my own photos holds some personal appeal.
>
> anyway - any suggestions?


For the classes, you'd better go with whatevere technology they base
the course on (but if it is film based - maybe you should shop
around for another class?)

My advise is: Go digital!

I worked twenty years in a wet darkroom, before switching to digital.
I would never go back to the fumes, the stains, and the high cost of
working with chemicals and papers.

As for being a beginner: When you are learning, you make mistakes,
and a ruined colour print could easly cost $10 in paper and
chemicals. Fiddling around with the settings in an image editing
program like Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop cost you nothing more than
your time - and once you've mastered colour management you can
outsource your printing and get consistent results at a very low cost.

As for the "personal appeal" of developing your own photos:
Post-processing in Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro gives you the same
control as one used to have in the darkroom - with the added benefit
of unlimited scope for experimentation and "undo" when you make a
mistake.

For a longer rant I wrote just after going digital - see by blog:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/blog/?p=12
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
qwerty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006

"Dave Martindale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:e2j3ge$q5e$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Bolshoy Huy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>reminds me of colleges that teach Cobol, UNIX, AS/400, SQL; while
>>others teach VB.net, C#, Java, etc.
>>which ones would you go for?

>
> Actually, I'd pick one that taught algorithms, operating systems,
> AI, graphics, databases, numerical analysis, computational geometry,
> discrete math, statistics, and other stuff that makes up a computer
> science education.


Yes, this is important if you're going for a PhD in Computer Science and
want to stay in the academic world of CS. However, if you're more
interested in getting a practical engineering\developer job then this is far
less important. As a retired Software Engineer with 25 years experience I
can honestly say that numerical analysis, computational geometry, discrete
math, statistics, & AI are completely worthless in obtaining & keeping most
any software development position. Understanding databases would be useful
though but not necessary.

> The computer language (if any) used for each course
> doesn't matter very much.


Not true. If you're going for a Software Engineer\Developer position then
what language & OS platform is extremely important. Employers are looking
for people to contribute from the first day on the job and if you're not
familiar with the language and OS they're developing on then it's very
unlikely you'll get hired. If you don't have a good handle on .NET, C#,
Java, C\C++, etc., you're not getting hired no matter how much you
understand algorithms, AI, statistics, etc.!

> At the end, you're supposed to understand
> computer systems and how to build software for them, not just learn the
> current programming languages.


Understanding the development platform, how to build software for that
platform and the platform language are ALL important.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006
>My grand-daughter is currently in the 3rd year of a 4-year degree course in
>photography at a well-known British University. So far they have not even
>mentioned digital photography.


Well, there's 3 wasted years of her life that she'll never get back.

 
Reply With Quote
 
BJ in Texas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006
J. Clarke <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|| Xiaoding wrote:
||
||| "Is this course run by photography historians, or by
||| practitioners?? "
|||
||| Ha! Good one.
|||
||| Britain is decades, if not centuries, behind the curve when
||| it comes to anything computerized.
||
|| This is due to the difficulty involved in making inexpensive
|| small fast computers that drip oil.
||

rings back memories...
Lucas Electrics - The Lords of Darkness


--
--
Read: http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/

TROLL: A socially challenged individual whose activity or
behaviour is to post deliberately purile and asinine opinions or
statements, looking to invoke or incite a response to fulfill
social interaction that might be otherwise lacking in their
life.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryan Olson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006
Dave Martindale wrote:
> "Bolshoy Huy" writes:
>
>>reminds me of colleges that teach Cobol, UNIX, AS/400, SQL; while
>>others teach VB.net, C#, Java, etc.
>>which ones would you go for?

>
>
> Actually, I'd pick one that taught algorithms, operating systems,
> AI, graphics, databases, numerical analysis, computational geometry,
> discrete math, statistics, and other stuff that makes up a computer
> science education. The computer language (if any) used for each course
> doesn't matter very much. At the end, you're supposed to understand
> computer systems and how to build software for them, not just learn the
> current programming languages.


True, but languages influence programmers' thinking, and a good
curriculum will require students learn at least two radically
different languages. Otherwise they tend to fall into the old "when
your only tool is a hammer..." syndrome.

When I first heard about digital photography, I figured the point
was to save money on film. If the next generation is trained too
long on the old stuff, will their vision fail as badly as did mine?


>>do you want to support legacy systems or move into the future?

>
> Mostly, I think he want to learn photography, and film and digital
> photography have more in common than they are different, at least at the
> point of taking the picture.


More in common yes; I wouldn't sign up for "Composition for
Digital Photography". Nevertheless, my photography books contain
quite a bit of material that's specific to film or to digital,
and a lot that's more relevant to one than the other. A digital
photographer needs to know more about color profiles, less about
color filters.

Worse, real visionaries are rare, so digital photography suffers
from film-think. The disadvantages of digital seem intolerable
defects; the new avenues, frivolous tricks.


--
--Bryan
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006
"qwerty" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "Dave Martindale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:e2j3ge$q5e$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Bolshoy Huy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >>reminds me of colleges that teach Cobol, UNIX, AS/400, SQL; while
> >>others teach VB.net, C#, Java, etc.
> >>which ones would you go for?

> >
> > Actually, I'd pick one that taught algorithms, operating systems,
> > AI, graphics, databases, numerical analysis, computational geometry,
> > discrete math, statistics, and other stuff that makes up a computer
> > science education.

>
> Yes, this is important if you're going for a PhD in Computer Science and
> want to stay in the academic world of CS. However, if you're more
> interested in getting a practical engineering\developer job then this is far
> less important. As a retired Software Engineer with 25 years experience I
> can honestly say that numerical analysis, computational geometry, discrete
> math, statistics, & AI are completely worthless in obtaining & keeping most
> any software development position. Understanding databases would be useful
> though but not necessary.
>
> > The computer language (if any) used for each course
> > doesn't matter very much.

>
> Not true. If you're going for a Software Engineer\Developer position then
> what language & OS platform is extremely important. Employers are looking
> for people to contribute from the first day on the job and if you're not
> familiar with the language and OS they're developing on then it's very
> unlikely you'll get hired. If you don't have a good handle on .NET, C#,
> Java, C\C++, etc., you're not getting hired no matter how much you
> understand algorithms, AI, statistics, etc.!


It depends a lot on what part of the field you want to (and are
capable of) work in. A company advertising for people with "5 years C
programming experience" is looking for junior-level programmers -- the
people who take 5 years to get anything approaching mastery in C.

Several of my best jobs and contracts have involved being hired to do
stuff using tools I'd never seen before, including my very first job.

> > At the end, you're supposed to understand
> > computer systems and how to build software for them, not just learn the
> > current programming languages.

>
> Understanding the development platform, how to build software for that
> platform and the platform language are ALL important.


But the platform and language issues can be dealt with in days or
weeks by any good programmer, and the other things take years or
perhaps an original talent (I'm not sure I really believe in "talent",
but some people sure do lean some things fast).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Gisle Hannemyr <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Fiddling around with the settings in an image editing
>program like Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop cost you nothing more than
>your time - and once you've mastered colour management you can
>outsource your printing and get consistent results at a very low cost.


Well, I do process all my film images digitally, but digital is not as
easy as you present it.

Once you have mastered digital printing, you will have spend quite
a lot of money on materials, equipment, etc.

One of disadvantags of outsourcing printing is that large prints tend
to get made on different equipment than small prints. In general, you can't
just expect a large print to be exactly the same as a smaller print when
it comes to colors or contrast.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
Prometheus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-24-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
Xiaoding <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>"Is this course run by photography historians, or by practitioners?? "
>
>Ha! Good one.
>
>Britain is decades, if not centuries, behind the curve when it comes to
>anything computerized. Have they started using those fancy new "roll
>film" cameras yet?


Roll? Roll! How do you apply the emulsion if it is in a roll?

--
Ian G8ILZ
 
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
Optical difference between film SLRs and DSLRs? 223rem Digital Photography 24 12-20-2005 06:01 AM
why do film SLRs cost more than DSLRs? Mr.Happy Digital Photography 17 08-12-2005 02:22 AM
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
are non digital lenses better for digital slrs? Luis ORTEGA Digital Photography 6 05-25-2004 02:16 AM
Question about Nikon digital SLRs, Eolake Stobblehouse Eolake Stobblehouse Digital Photography 1 09-07-2003 04:08 PM



Advertisments