35mm film vs digital

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Conrad Weiler, Dec 29, 2004.

  1. Hi,

    The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important point.
    Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or digital. If we
    look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get an
    interesting result.

    Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax 35mm film
    camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some so-so and
    some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I scanned
    those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting to see
    how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
    Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.

    I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
    adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve some/many of
    their pictures.

    Also, I'm not attacking those film people who use medium and/or large format
    film for the splendid output pictures they produce. The information provided by
    these formats is outstanding as are many of the pictures. But these formats are
    used more by semi-professionals and professional photographers.

    The digital realm has opened possibilities for point and shoot camera buffs
    that is truly amazing. I suppose that's another reason for the flood of digital
    equipment sales over the past months/years.

    Happy 2005,

    Conrad



    Conrad Weiler
    Camp Sherman, Oregon
    Conrad Weiler, Dec 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Conrad Weiler wrote:
    > The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an

    important point.
    > Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or

    digital. If we
    > look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might

    get an
    > interesting result.


    If you look at the P&S market then digital has simply swept through. My
    colleagues and friends who probably would click 2-3 rolls a year and
    that too on special occasions only now click almost everything and
    anything. Digital P&S simply mean a lot more photographs and lot more
    memories clicked. And the typical P&S shooter is more interested in
    capturing the moment rather than the sharpness, contrast, metering etc.


    The only thing is the price. Here, in India, a decent digital P&S still
    costs about Rs.10,000 and thats a lot of money for people who are more
    likely to buy the Kodak KB10 sort of camera. Then again, sales of the
    cheaper 2MP CMOS based taiwanese cameras is also strong indicating that
    people are happy with the results. Most just see the results on a PC, a
    few print 4x6 and still fewer get them enlarged.

    Then there are the phone cameras and thats a different rage altogether.
    My guess is a large number of camera manufacturers will go the US
    railroad way. They've forgotten that people are more interested in
    capturing the moment than the quality of it, so phone cameras just
    might make dedicated cameras redundant as the quality of phone cameras
    improves more and more.

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Dec 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Conrad Weiler

    Cynicor Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote:
    > If you look at the P&S market then digital has simply swept through. My
    > colleagues and friends who probably would click 2-3 rolls a year and
    > that too on special occasions only now click almost everything and
    > anything. Digital P&S simply mean a lot more photographs and lot more
    > memories clicked. And the typical P&S shooter is more interested in
    > capturing the moment rather than the sharpness, contrast, metering etc.


    I walk through Times Square every morning - I wonder how many times a year
    I'm captured in a photo by someone (not including the omnipresent security
    cameras).
    Cynicor, Dec 29, 2004
    #3
  4. Conrad Weiler

    Darrell Guest

    "Conrad Weiler" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important

    point.
    > Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or digital.

    If we
    > look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get an
    > interesting result.
    >
    > Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax 35mm

    film
    > camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some so-so

    and
    > some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I scanned
    > those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting to

    see
    > how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
    > Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.
    >
    > I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
    > adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve

    some/many of
    > their pictures.
    >

    Actually modern labs will do an amazing amount of correction. But there is a
    limit not in the lab equipment to correct these errors. Part of it is
    operator skill, an experienced technician will "eyeball" the neg and
    manually override the machine settings. A timely example is a child on
    Santa's lap, the maching sees lots of red, so it corrects leaving a cyan
    faced child. An good tech will see this and compensate, machines can't
    determine what the scene is a person can. However in the days of "how cheap"
    can this be many labs will keep the machines on full auto and hire a minimum
    wage button pusher, as operating costs will be kept low.

    At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button pusher, or
    their employers.
    Darrell, Dec 29, 2004
    #4
  5. Conrad Weiler

    Denis Marier Guest

    You have touched the nail right on the head.

    "At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button pusher,
    or
    their employers"
    I looking to purchase a new scanner. Can I ask what brand and type of
    scanner you are using?

    "Darrell" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    >
    > "Conrad Weiler" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important

    > point.
    > > Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or

    digital.
    > If we
    > > look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get

    an
    > > interesting result.
    > >
    > > Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax

    35mm
    > film
    > > camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some

    so-so
    > and
    > > some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I

    scanned
    > > those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting

    to
    > see
    > > how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
    > > Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.
    > >
    > > I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
    > > adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve

    > some/many of
    > > their pictures.
    > >

    > Actually modern labs will do an amazing amount of correction. But there is

    a
    > limit not in the lab equipment to correct these errors. Part of it is
    > operator skill, an experienced technician will "eyeball" the neg and
    > manually override the machine settings. A timely example is a child on
    > Santa's lap, the maching sees lots of red, so it corrects leaving a cyan
    > faced child. An good tech will see this and compensate, machines can't
    > determine what the scene is a person can. However in the days of "how

    cheap"
    > can this be many labs will keep the machines on full auto and hire a

    minimum
    > wage button pusher, as operating costs will be kept low.
    >
    > At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button pusher,

    or
    > their employers.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Denis Marier, Dec 29, 2004
    #5
  6. Conrad Weiler

    C J Campbell Guest

    I have seen a tremendous improvement in the quality of pictures taken by
    many P&S photographers. The digital cameras allow them to practice more, as
    well as get instant feedback, though not many are taking advantage of the
    ability to digitally correct their pictures. My wife, for example, just
    hands me a memory card and tells me to "fix them."

    The downside, of course, is the enormous flood of really terrible
    photography. And some people just don't seem to improve; all they do is take
    lots of bad pictures, myself being a notorious case in point. :)

    The one I don't understand is camera phones. All kinds of people with high
    quality cameras will instead take pictures with the terrible camera phone.
    This is partly because they have the phone with them, but I have seen them
    do it even while the camera sits in their pocket. Then, of course, they have
    to use the phone to send me a copy of the cool picture they took. Perhaps
    when more P&S cameras get Bluetooth or Wi-Fi people will start giving up on
    the crappy cell phone camera.
    C J Campbell, Dec 29, 2004
    #6
  7. Conrad Weiler

    Jeremy Guest

    "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > The downside, of course, is the enormous flood of really terrible
    > photography. And some people just don't seem to improve; all they do is

    take
    > lots of bad pictures, myself being a notorious case in point. :)
    >


    The downside to digital is the time it takes to tweak all the images.

    When I have one or two really important ones, I enjoy working on them, but
    film still offers advantages when shooting lots of photos, in that the lab
    does much of the post-shoot work.

    Of course, it requires that we use good labs, not those generic types that
    hire minimum-wage employees, if we are to expect decent results.

    I just hate having to edit 50 or more shots at a time. I'd rather be doing
    something else, instead of going cross-eyed watching a monitor. Just one of
    my personal peeves.

    For me, digital will not replace film, it will add to my current
    capabilities.
    Jeremy, Dec 29, 2004
    #7
  8. Conrad Weiler

    bmoag Guest

    The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to tinker with
    the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make prints at all
    they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that paradigm
    for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That is the
    market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be respected.

    How many people want to fix their own cars?

    However the process is not automatic, at either a commercial film lab or
    home digital darkroom. That is why there is so much disappointment when
    unsophisticated consumers are misled by all the advertising, buy digital
    cameras and printers, then post on this newsgroup how they get better 4x6
    prints at Walmart than they can make at home.
    bmoag, Dec 29, 2004
    #8
  9. Conrad Weiler

    C J Campbell Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:uuAAd.4432$...
    > The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to tinker

    with
    > the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make prints at

    all
    > they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that paradigm
    > for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That is the
    > market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be respected.



    That is true. The Kodak EasyShare cameras I gave away this Christmas were
    very well received. The only thing recipients new to digital photography
    wanted to know was where they could get their pictures printed. I told them
    Costco or WalMart and they were happy.
    C J Campbell, Dec 29, 2004
    #9
  10. Conrad Weiler

    Jeremy Guest

    "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    > news:uuAAd.4432$...
    > > The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to tinker

    > with
    > > the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make prints at

    > all
    > > they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that

    paradigm
    > > for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That is the
    > > market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be respected.

    >
    >
    > That is true. The Kodak EasyShare cameras I gave away this Christmas were
    > very well received. The only thing recipients new to digital photography
    > wanted to know was where they could get their pictures printed. I told

    them
    > Costco or WalMart and they were happy.
    >
    >


    Kodak seems to have automated the printing process, via their PerfectTouch
    process. The algorithms are now so sophisticated that they can even
    identify and remove red-eye. They also use this on prints made by their
    online OFOTO subsidiary.

    Frankly, this may give better overall results than having to rely upon the
    skill of an underpaid technician operating a high-volume printer. I still
    remember that moron at Sam's Club that printed my photos with tree leaves
    and grass coming up Kelly Green.

    I'm looking for another online lab that does not interfere with my edited
    files. PerfectTouch may be great for consumers that don't edit, but it
    completely defeats the purpose of editing for those of us that do our own
    and do not require being second-guessed.

    Anyone know of any online labs that print on real photo paper (not inkjet or
    dye sub) and that do not "improve" the customer's file?
    Jeremy, Dec 29, 2004
    #10
  11. Jeremy wrote:

    > The downside to digital is the time it takes to tweak all the images.
    >
    > When I have one or two really important ones, I enjoy working on them, but
    > film still offers advantages when shooting lots of photos, in that the lab
    > does much of the post-shoot work.
    >
    > Of course, it requires that we use good labs, not those generic types that
    > hire minimum-wage employees, if we are to expect decent results.
    >
    > I just hate having to edit 50 or more shots at a time. I'd rather be doing
    > something else, instead of going cross-eyed watching a monitor. Just one of
    > my personal peeves.


    Then spend a bit more time setting up your shots.
    >
    > For me, digital will not replace film, it will add to my current
    > capabilities.
    >

    That's an excellent approach. I plan to go back to some film at some point.

    --
    John McWiliams
    John McWilliams, Dec 29, 2004
    #11
  12. Conrad Weiler

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Jeremy" <> writes:
    > Kodak seems to have automated the printing process, via their PerfectTouch
    > process. The algorithms are now so sophisticated that they can even
    > identify and remove red-eye. They also use this on prints made by their
    > online OFOTO subsidiary.
    >
    > Frankly, this may give better overall results than having to rely upon the
    > skill of an underpaid technician operating a high-volume printer.


    They will probably build such processing into minilabs soon, if they
    haven't already.

    > Anyone know of any online labs that print on real photo paper (not inkjet or
    > dye sub) and that do not "improve" the customer's file?


    Yes, any decent digital pro lab.
    Paul Rubin, Dec 29, 2004
    #12
  13. "Jeremy" <> writes:

    > "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> The downside, of course, is the enormous flood of really terrible
    >> photography. And some people just don't seem to improve; all they do is

    > take
    >> lots of bad pictures, myself being a notorious case in point. :)
    >>

    >
    > The downside to digital is the time it takes to tweak all the images.


    The upside to digital is that it takes far less time to adjust the
    images than it did with film photography.

    > When I have one or two really important ones, I enjoy working on them, but
    > film still offers advantages when shooting lots of photos, in that the lab
    > does much of the post-shoot work.
    >
    > Of course, it requires that we use good labs, not those generic types that
    > hire minimum-wage employees, if we are to expect decent results.


    If you want to hire somebody to print for you, you can do that in
    digital, too.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <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/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 29, 2004
    #13
  14. "Jeremy" <> writes:

    > I'm looking for another online lab that does not interfere with my edited
    > files.


    Whitehouse Custom Color, <http://www.whcc.com>.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <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/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 29, 2004
    #14
  15. Conrad Weiler

    Pete D Guest

    "Cynicor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote:
    >> If you look at the P&S market then digital has simply swept through. My
    >> colleagues and friends who probably would click 2-3 rolls a year and
    >> that too on special occasions only now click almost everything and
    >> anything. Digital P&S simply mean a lot more photographs and lot more
    >> memories clicked. And the typical P&S shooter is more interested in
    >> capturing the moment rather than the sharpness, contrast, metering etc.

    >
    > I walk through Times Square every morning - I wonder how many times a year
    > I'm captured in a photo by someone (not including the omnipresent security
    > cameras).


    Immortalised, gotta be happy with that.
    Pete D, Dec 29, 2004
    #15
  16. Conrad Weiler

    Jon Pike Guest

    (Conrad Weiler) wrote in
    news::

    > I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
    > adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve
    > some/many of their pictures.


    If they were willing to spend the hundreds of dollars on buying photoshop,
    they're likely not the kind of people who would use only cheap p&s's.

    --
    http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
    Jon Pike, Dec 29, 2004
    #16
  17. Conrad Weiler

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Jon Pike <> writes:
    > If they were willing to spend the hundreds of dollars on buying photoshop,
    > they're likely not the kind of people who would use only cheap p&s's.


    I got a copy of Photoshop LE included with my scanner. I think some
    digicams come with it too.
    Paul Rubin, Dec 30, 2004
    #17
  18. Conrad Weiler

    Mike Henley Guest

    Darrell wrote:

    > >

    > Actually modern labs will do an amazing amount of correction. But

    there is a
    > limit not in the lab equipment to correct these errors. Part of it is
    > operator skill, an experienced technician will "eyeball" the neg and
    > manually override the machine settings. A timely example is a child

    on
    > Santa's lap, the maching sees lots of red, so it corrects leaving a

    cyan
    > faced child. An good tech will see this and compensate, machines

    can't
    > determine what the scene is a person can. However in the days of "how

    cheap"
    > can this be many labs will keep the machines on full auto and hire a

    minimum
    > wage button pusher, as operating costs will be kept low.
    >
    > At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button

    pusher, or
    > their employers.


    What frustrated me about shooting film was how variable the quality I
    got from photo labs. There was one that was excellent, but expensive.
    The rest were crap. At least with a digital camera, if you're shooting
    JPEG, it's more predictable. If you're shooting RAW, then you have even
    more control.
    Mike Henley, Dec 30, 2004
    #18
  19. Conrad Weiler

    Jon Pike Guest

    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote in
    news::

    > Jon Pike <> writes:
    >> If they were willing to spend the hundreds of dollars on buying
    >> photoshop, they're likely not the kind of people who would use only
    >> cheap p&s's.

    >
    > I got a copy of Photoshop LE included with my scanner. I think some
    > digicams come with it too.
    >


    but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p

    --
    http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
    Jon Pike, Dec 30, 2004
    #19
  20. Conrad Weiler

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Jon Pike <> writes:
    > > I got a copy of Photoshop LE included with my scanner. I think some
    > > digicams come with it too.

    >
    > but then you're back to learning photo-SHOP and not photo-GRAPHY. :p


    Back in the day, learning photography included learning how to make
    prints in a darkroom. Dodging, burning, adjusting contrast, all that.
    Now it's the same thing but with computers. It's still all about
    turning the image you've previsualized into a picture that others can
    see.
    Paul Rubin, Dec 30, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin Riddle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    79
    Martin Riddle
    Apr 23, 2014
  2. Paul Ciszek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    89
    J. Clarke
    Apr 26, 2014
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    97
    Whisky-dave
    Apr 29, 2014
  4. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    78
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
  5. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    85
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page