Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 35mm vs digital

Reply
Thread Tools

35mm vs digital

 
 
see me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006
Hi friends : I have 2 nice digital cameras but still reach for my 35mm
camera. What are your thoughts on this?.........Your friend from
Shoptillyoudrophoney.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Randall Ainsworth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>, see
me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hi friends : I have 2 nice digital cameras but still reach for my 35mm
> camera. What are your thoughts on this?.........Your friend from
> Shoptillyoudrophoney.com


You need better digital cameras. Film is dead. Deal with it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
"see me" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hi friends : I have 2 nice digital cameras but still reach for my 35mm
> camera. What are your thoughts on this?.........Your friend from
> Shoptillyoudrophoney.com


When you need something to throw at the neighbour's cat or what?

--
Nigel
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006

see me wrote:
> Hi friends : I have 2 nice digital cameras but still reach for my 35mm
> camera. What are your thoughts on this?.........Your friend from
> Shoptillyoudrophoney.com

Look at the other posts he has done, big time troll.
It is unlikely that he even owns a camera.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006
see me wrote:
> Hi friends : I have 2 nice digital cameras but still reach for my 35mm
> camera. What are your thoughts on this?.........Your friend from
> Shoptillyoudrophoney.com
>


I guess it depends on just how you want to use the pictures, and how
much money you want to spend of each one. I haven't picked up my 35mm
camera since getting my first digital. It is just too much hassle, and
delay, to go through the film, print, scan process to get them into my
computer, rather than the album/shoebox.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dennis Pogson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006
Scott W wrote:
> see me wrote:
>> Hi friends : I have 2 nice digital cameras but still reach for my
>> 35mm camera. What are your thoughts on this?.........Your friend from
>> Shoptillyoudrophoney.com

> Look at the other posts he has done, big time troll.
> It is unlikely that he even owns a camera.
>
> Scott


He owns a develop-and-print service. Time to sell out.

Dennis.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Berbaum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

: I guess it depends on just how you want to use the pictures, and how
: much money you want to spend of each one. I haven't picked up my 35mm
: camera since getting my first digital. It is just too much hassle, and
: delay, to go through the film, print, scan process to get them into my
: computer, rather than the album/shoebox.

I agree. I was recently concidering the economic reasons to shoot digital.
When I was last regularly using my 35mm film camera I seem to remember
that a roll of film would cost about $5 and then it would cost about $7 to
develop and print the roll. So each roll cost about $12. But with my
current camera I can shoot the equivalent of about 20 rolls of film and
the only unrecoverable consumed resources is one set of batteries that
cost about $10. Processing is done on my computer and so only costs spare
time and a few cents of electricity. Archiving the photos on a CD costs
about 10 cents. And only the few photos that I really have a need to have
a hard copy of need to be printed. So for me that means that I will
average 2 or 3 prints per "roll". The ink and paper for these prints
costs about 12 to 15 cents each. So the total for 20 rolls of
digital "film" totals about $17.60, while the same 20 rolls of film would
cost $240 and I would have a box full of the photos that, while good
memories, are not particularly of interest to anyone else.

Sure the original setup cost of the digital kit is higher. A decent 35mm
film camera body would be <$500 while a good digital body is $1000 or
more. That memory card to hold the "20 rolls" is aprox $50 but is
reuseable. Due to "crop factor" I will want lenses extending further into
the wide angle range and these are very expensive. But I still figure that
with digital I am far ahead. Besides with the low cost per image for those
images that are just explorations and will not be archived or printed I am
much less resistant to exploring the possabilities and trying new ideas.
And I find I am taking more photos and the ones I take, due to all the
practice I am getting with the exploring, are more likley to be "good"
ones.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Makowiec
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006
On 28 Sep 2006 in rec.photo.digital, Scott W wrote:

> see me wrote:
>> Hi friends : I have 2 nice digital cameras but still reach for my 35mm
>> camera. What are your thoughts on this?.........Your friend from
>> Shoptillyoudrophoney.invalid

> Look at the other posts he has done, big time troll.
> It is unlikely that he even owns a camera.


Actually, it's more likely he owns the domain spammed above.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
 
Reply With Quote
 
Progressiveabsolution
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006

Ron Hunter wrote:
> see me wrote:
> > Hi friends : I have 2 nice digital cameras but still reach for my 35mm
> > camera. What are your thoughts on this?.........Your friend from
> > Shoptillyoudrophoney.com
> >

>
> I guess it depends on just how you want to use the pictures, and how
> much money you want to spend of each one. I haven't picked up my 35mm
> camera since getting my first digital. It is just too much hassle, and
> delay, to go through the film, print, scan process to get them into my
> computer, rather than the album/shoebox.


I think a high end film system on the cheap is a great solution over
the digital while keeping a hold on a cheap but still very good digital
camera is just perfect for web showing and even making artistic
works/professional work. There's an easy way to have both, even when
on a budget.

Personally, I don't see any difference in the workflow of taking 3
extra minutes per scan of the film and then post-processing it the same
way you do with digital. But if you have a slow computer like I do,
that scanning time is horrible (about 7 minutes at 3000dpi and up to 20
at 4000dpi). Then again, most of my work straight from the film is
well exposed and I can make the minor adjustments in the scanning part
making it often much faster than tweaking in photoshop. So it greatly
depends on how one's workflow is when using film and whether or not
they have what is required to run scans that can burn holes through the
computer and/or can have enough patience with a weaker computer to deal
with what can be 20 minutes or even more at 4000dpi, but also taking
into account processing the image=35-40 minutes. I can easily spend
this much time and more working on a digital image that means enough to
me as the film one that I am wasting 20 minutes vs. only 7 or even less
depending on the resolution of the image. If I wanted to have a film
system for web images mostly, and to make useable/print the ones I
really liked, it could take a few minutes to scan the 4 images that
Nikon V adapters accept.

At the same time, it takes a few minutes to have 100's of useable
JPEG+RAW images ready to go for both web and post-processing (for the
raw).

 
Reply With Quote
 
TNFergus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2006

Scott W wrote:
> see me wrote:
> > Hi friends : I have 2 nice digital cameras but still reach for my 35mm
> > camera. What are your thoughts on this?.........Your friend from
> > Shoptillyoudrophoney.com

> Look at the other posts he has done, big time troll.
> It is unlikely that he even owns a camera.
>
> Scott



It is in fact just a trolling poster advertising for their website.

Although Randy's reply was interesting.

 
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
Most 35mm format lenses can't cover 35mm full frame DSLR? einst_stein@yahoo.com Digital Photography 8 06-03-2005 11:25 PM
digital back on MF vs digital 35mm? ColdCanuck Digital Photography 6 01-14-2005 11:00 PM
Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements? Wayne Digital Photography 122 08-11-2003 11:06 AM
35mm negs to digital you suck Computer Support 9 08-08-2003 04:28 AM
Help - digital transfer of 35mm film o r b s c u r e DDJ Digital Photography 2 07-11-2003 05:14 PM



Advertisments