Help..Digital vs film for small (35mm) and medium (2 1/4) format?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, May 22, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Can someone give me some a little help/advice? I'm looking to get "back" into photography on a limited professional scale. When I last worked in the field Nikon F and Hasselblad 500C would do most of what needed to be done for print work. Starting from scratch equiptment-wise today I'm faced with the choice of digital or film. My question is, will digital do what I need and is the cost worth the investment, or isn't the state-of-the-art quite there yet?
     
    Guest, May 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <> wrote in message
    news:FsOrc.30309$l%...
    > Can someone give me some a little help/advice? I'm looking to get

    "back" into photography on a limited professional scale. When I last worked
    in the field Nikon F and Hasselblad 500C would do most of what needed to be
    done for print work. Starting from scratch equiptment-wise today I'm faced
    with the choice of digital or film. My question is, will digital do what I
    need and is the cost worth the investment, or isn't the state-of-the-art
    quite there yet?

    What size prints are you shooting for? Current state of the art digital
    SLRs tie or beat 35 mm (depends on the film). How much do you want to
    spend? Are you willing to learn how to use a computer and imaging software
    (like Photoshop) to post-process your digital images? Do you want to make
    your own prints?

    You have asked a complicated question because there are so many choices and
    even more opinions! This is roughly the crossover point, in time, from film
    to digital; but that in no way means that it is also the time for everyone
    to switch to digital. You should investigate this thoroughly!
     
    Charles Schuler, May 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Digital still has a lot of room to grow. Sort of like computers 10 years
    ago...or this year...or any year. If you wait until a technology has matured
    then...well...it would be time to start considering one of them new fangled
    auto-mobiles.

    On the other hand...film has stabilized. I don't know of any company that is
    putting R&D money into film. The annoying side of this is the cost! It's
    hard to spend thousands of dollars on a camera knowing that we will want to
    replace it in 3-5 years. But that is what we have to do or be left in the
    dust.

    You say you want to go pro....well...pros that I see everyday,
    photojournalist mostly, all have digitals. The research is in...they did the
    research and every one went digital. Don't bet that they all went the wrong
    direction.

    The real question is what brand of camera to buy. Someone that posts here
    thinks highly of the Sigma. No pros that I know uses one...they have Nikons,
    Canons, and Fuji's. I think highly of the Kodaks. I shoot an Olympus, and
    have since the 70's...but I don't know if their new direction is a direction
    that I choose to go.


    <> wrote in message
    news:FsOrc.30309$l%...
    > Can someone give me some a little help/advice? I'm looking to get

    "back" into photography on a limited professional scale. When I last worked
    in the field Nikon F and Hasselblad 500C would do most of what needed to be
    done for print work. Starting from scratch equiptment-wise today I'm faced
    with the choice of digital or film. My question is, will digital do what I
    need and is the cost worth the investment, or isn't the state-of-the-art
    quite there yet?
    >
    >
     
    Gene Palmiter, May 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Guest

    Mxsmanic Guest

    <> writes:

    > Can someone give me some a little help/advice? I'm looking to
    > get "back" into photography on a limited professional scale.
    > When I last worked in the field Nikon F and Hasselblad 500C would
    > do most of what needed to be done for print work.


    Believe it or not, those same cameras will still do the same work today.
    Photography hasn't changed that much.

    > Starting from scratch equiptment-wise today I'm faced with the
    > choice of digital or film. My question is, will digital do what
    > I need and is the cost worth the investment, or isn't the
    > state-of-the-art quite there yet?


    First of all, film requires a far more modest initial investment.
    Unless you expect to make a great deal of money, going digital may leave
    you with equipment costs that will never be amortized (especially since
    the equipment may be obsolete before you finish paying for it).

    It's true that film requires paying for the film and its development,
    but normally you bill these costs to your client, anyway.

    If you already have film equipment, you can continue to use it. The
    film formats have not changed, and anything that could shoot film 50
    years ago can still do so today.

    In terms of image quality, 35mm film is still superior to digital, and 2
    1/4 is of course still superior to both. However, film has to be
    scanned to convert it to the digital form that you may require for some
    uses, and scanning film _well_ is part science and part black art.
    Overall, the film chain is much more complicated than the digital chain,
    and thus has many possibilities for screwing things up, but when it's
    done right, it looks a lot better than digital.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, May 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Guest

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Gene Palmiter writes:

    > On the other hand...film has stabilized. I don't know of any company that is
    > putting R&D money into film.


    Fuji and Kodak. Both of them regularly introduce new films. They may
    say they aren't doing any R&D, but it's hard to explain the improvements
    they put into some of their newer films if there's no R&D behind it.

    > The annoying side of this is the cost! It's
    > hard to spend thousands of dollars on a camera knowing that we will want to
    > replace it in 3-5 years. But that is what we have to do or be left in the
    > dust.


    Left in the dust how? The only advantage of digital is speed, and not
    everyone needs speed.

    > You say you want to go pro....well...pros that I see everyday,
    > photojournalist mostly, all have digitals.


    Most of them do; but I still see photojournalists shooting film from
    time to time, especially those who are freelance or don't work against
    tight deadlines.

    > The research is in...they did the
    > research and every one went digital. Don't bet that they all went the wrong
    > direction.


    They only went digital for speed. Don't assume that they had any other
    reasons. And photojournalism is special; many other types of
    photographers are still shooting film.

    > The real question is what brand of camera to buy.


    If you shoot film, just about any camera with a good lens will do.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, May 23, 2004
    #5
    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. The LoxFather

    35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras

    The LoxFather, Aug 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    1,436
  2. HRosita

    Re: 35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras

    HRosita, Aug 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    538
    HRosita
    Aug 10, 2003
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    447
    Guest
    May 23, 2004
  4. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,261
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    747
    Alfred Molon
    Sep 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page