35mm vs digital

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by see me, Sep 28, 2006.

  1. see me

    see me Guest

    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
     
    see me, Sep 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, 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


    You need better digital cameras. Film is dead. Deal with it.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. see me

    Nig Guest

    In article <>,
    "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


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

    --
    Nigel
     
    Nig, Sep 28, 2006
    #3
  4. see me

    Scott W Guest

    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
     
    Scott W, Sep 28, 2006
    #4
  5. see me

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 28, 2006
    #5
  6. 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.
     
    Dennis Pogson, Sep 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Ron Hunter <> 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
     
    Randy Berbaum, Sep 28, 2006
    #7
  8. see me

    Joe Makowiec Guest

    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
     
    Joe Makowiec, Sep 28, 2006
    #8
  9. 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).
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Sep 28, 2006
    #9
  10. see me

    TNFergus Guest

    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.
     
    TNFergus, Sep 28, 2006
    #10
  11. see me

    Alan Meyer Guest

    Randy Berbaum wrote:
    ....
    > the only unrecoverable consumed resources is one set of batteries that
    > cost about $10.

    ....
    Randy,

    Switch to NiMH batteries. They're typically 4 for $10 or so, plus
    another $20 or even less for a charger. I've used the same NiMH
    batteries in my ancient Palm Pilot for about 5 years now, and I
    use the device every day. I bought four batteries. I use two.
    When they run out, I replace them with the other two and put
    the first two in the charger.

    Alan
     
    Alan Meyer, Sep 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Alan Meyer <> wrote:

    : Randy Berbaum wrote:
    : ...
    : > the only unrecoverable consumed resources is one set of batteries that
    : > cost about $10.
    : ...
    : Randy,

    : Switch to NiMH batteries. They're typically 4 for $10 or so, plus
    : another $20 or even less for a charger. I've used the same NiMH
    : batteries in my ancient Palm Pilot for about 5 years now, and I
    : use the device every day. I bought four batteries. I use two.
    : When they run out, I replace them with the other two and put
    : the first two in the charger.

    : Alan

    Agreed. And I do have several sets of NiMH batteries for use when I am on
    vacation and using the camera much more constantly. But here at home I am
    much more inconsistant and more spur of the moment in my photography so I
    use a set of CR-V3 lithiums. So you are right that if I used rechargeables
    in my figures even this expense would drop. :)

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
     
    Randy Berbaum, Sep 29, 2006
    #12
  13. see me

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Randy Berbaum wrote:
    > Alan Meyer <> wrote:
    >
    > : Randy Berbaum wrote:
    > : ...
    > : > the only unrecoverable consumed resources is one set of batteries that
    > : > cost about $10.
    > : ...
    > : Randy,
    >
    > : Switch to NiMH batteries. They're typically 4 for $10 or so, plus
    > : another $20 or even less for a charger. I've used the same NiMH
    > : batteries in my ancient Palm Pilot for about 5 years now, and I
    > : use the device every day. I bought four batteries. I use two.
    > : When they run out, I replace them with the other two and put
    > : the first two in the charger.
    >
    > : Alan
    >
    > Agreed. And I do have several sets of NiMH batteries for use when I am on
    > vacation and using the camera much more constantly. But here at home I am
    > much more inconsistant and more spur of the moment in my photography so I
    > use a set of CR-V3 lithiums. So you are right that if I used rechargeables
    > in my figures even this expense would drop. :)
    >
    > Randy
    >
    > ==========
    > Randy Berbaum
    > Champaign, IL
    >


    I have figured that the cost for CRV3 lithiums is about $.03/picture.
    Not really a bad figure, given the advantages of long shelf life,
    weight, low pollution, and 'ready to go' availability. Since I have a
    'dock', my NIMH set stays charged, but I carry lithium AAs as well.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 29, 2006
    #13
  14. see me

    John Doe Guest

    Consumer digital is not of the same level of quality as 35mm film. A
    direct comparison of an 11x13 or larger print of the same image from
    digital and 35mm will show that.

    However, unless your intent is to create professional grade, archival
    quality work, in large print sizes, digital should be fine. If fact
    many pros now use digital when they know that the final print wont be
    much more than 8x10.

    Digital is cheaper, quicker and getting closer to 35mm film. It isn't
    there yet and the final increment brought to an affordable level will
    take some time to implement.

    If you have a good scanner, you can create scanned images that are of
    better quality than what a consumer level digital camera can create.

    You can purchase film in bulk and most of the commercial labs will
    develop your film to negatives, without printing. My local Ritz will do
    that for ~$2 a roll and close to $1 for several at a time, with a
    coupon. Using Ritz housebrand film- made by either Fuji or Agfa,
    depending on date code, and using Ritz for development, gives me a cost
    of ~$5 per exposed role of film. Then the cost of my time in scanning
    the negatives, playing around with corrections and then printing. At
    that point, there are additional consumption costs involved (ink,
    paper). But the costs are still reasonable. And for me this is a
    hobby, so the modest cost differential is acceptable.


    Best,

    Ross

    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
    >
     
    John Doe, Oct 1, 2006
    #14
  15. see me

    Scott W Guest

    John Doe wrote:
    > Consumer digital is not of the same level of quality as 35mm film. A
    > direct comparison of an 11x13 or larger print of the same image from
    > digital and 35mm will show that.

    This depends on what you call a consumer digital. But keep in mind
    that the people using point and shoot digital cameras are also the ones
    who where using ISO 400 print film, and it does not take much of a
    digital camera to beat that.

    And the low cost DSLRs will pretty much beat any 35mm film photo.

    > However, unless your intent is to create professional grade, archival
    > quality work, in large print sizes, digital should be fine. If fact
    > many pros now use digital when they know that the final print wont be
    > much more than 8x10.

    Not many pros would make prints larger then 8x10 with 35mm film, if you
    are
    using film and want to print larger then that you really should be
    using MF.

    > Digital is cheaper, quicker and getting closer to 35mm film. It isn't
    > there yet and the final increment brought to an affordable level will
    > take some time to implement.


    > If you have a good scanner, you can create scanned images that are of
    > better quality than what a consumer level digital camera can create.

    Could you share one of these scans with us?

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Oct 1, 2006
    #15
  16. see me

    see me Guest

    On Sep 27, 7:36 pm, "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

    good responces. Thanks
     
    see me, Oct 5, 2006
    #16
  17. see me

    Guest

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


    35mm is OVER. I used to take tons of photos on it - and still have
    the slides somewhere. But I sold my 35mm cameras very soon after going
    digicam and getting equivalent results at a much-lower cost - and that
    meant I sold them at what seems to have been the last moment before
    prices on used 35mm gear collapsed on eBay to near-zilch! Full-service
    camera store people tell me 35mm film sales are way off.

    No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
     
    , Oct 5, 2006
    #17
  18. see me

    Stewy Guest

    In article <>,
    "" <> 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?.........

    >
    > 35mm is OVER. I used to take tons of photos on it - and still have
    > the slides somewhere. But I sold my 35mm cameras very soon after going
    > digicam and getting equivalent results at a much-lower cost - and that
    > meant I sold them at what seems to have been the last moment before
    > prices on used 35mm gear collapsed on eBay to near-zilch! Full-service
    > camera store people tell me 35mm film sales are way off.
    >
    > No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com


    There is no prospect of a digital back for my stereo realist so I'm
    hoping 35mm will be a round forever
     
    Stewy, Oct 5, 2006
    #18
  19. see me

    Guest

    Stewy wrote:
    > There is no prospect of a digital back for my stereo realist so I'm
    > hoping 35mm will be a round forever


    How many Americans even know what a Stereo Realist is? Much less
    own one - or know how to use one or the photos it produces? Heck, how
    many former heavy film photographers do?
    35mm FILM sales at full-service camera stores are off over half -
    according to counter guy at one here.

    No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
     
    , Oct 7, 2006
    #19
    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. you suck

    35mm negs to digital

    you suck, Aug 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    611
    Computer Guy
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. o r b s c u r e DDJ

    Help - digital transfer of 35mm film

    o r b s c u r e DDJ, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,085
    o r b s c u r e DDJ
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. Wayne

    Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements?

    Wayne, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    122
    Views:
    3,411
    Philip Homburg
    Aug 11, 2003
  4. ColdCanuck

    digital back on MF vs digital 35mm?

    ColdCanuck, Jan 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    451
    Crownfield
    Jan 14, 2005
  5. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    659
Loading...

Share This Page