Which is the better between digital camera and traditional camera?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Kamol Panitpongsakorn, Apr 9, 2004.

  1. It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
    we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
    large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
    we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
    such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
    photography.
    Kamol Panitpongsakorn, Apr 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 8 Apr 2004 18:13:46
    -0700, (Kamol Panitpongsakorn) wrote:

    >It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
    >we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
    >large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
    >we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
    >such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
    >photography.


    Only you can decide that for you.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Apr 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    DonB Guest

    There is no answer. Horses for courses. You may need both.
    DonB
    On 8 Apr 2004 18:13:46 -0700, (Kamol
    Panitpongsakorn) wrote:

    >It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
    >we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
    >large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
    >we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
    >such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
    >photography.
    DonB, Apr 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    Mark Johnson Guest

    (Kamol Panitpongsakorn) wrote:

    >It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
    >we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
    >large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
    >we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
    >such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
    >photography.


    Both. The film provides far more detail. You can zoom in with a
    digicam on a slide or neg, or even super 8 film strip, and get detail
    throughout that tiny image. But you can shoot it with a 4-5MP digicam,
    and print at 20x24 from that digitized image, easily. You just need
    clean sharpening that doesn't add too many bright jaggies that might
    be exaggerated in the final print.
    Mark Johnson, Apr 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    Guest

    Kamol Panitpongsakorn <> wrote:
    > It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
    > we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
    > large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
    > we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
    > such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
    > photography.


    You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
    is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart Scale
    to enlarge the image.
    , Apr 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <c568oq$75a$> on 9 Apr 2004 13:34:18 GMT,
    wrote:

    >Kamol Panitpongsakorn <> wrote:


    >> It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
    >> we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
    >> large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
    >> we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
    >> such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
    >> photography.

    >
    >You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
    >is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart Scale
    >to enlarge the image.


    No matter what you do, 3.2 MP will be "soft" at that size.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Apr 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    zbzbzb Guest

    >>You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
    >>is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart

    >Scale
    >>to enlarge the image.

    >
    >No matter what you do, 3.2 MP will be "soft" at that size.
    >


    Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.
    zbzbzb, Apr 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    Mark Johnson Guest

    bzbzb (zbzbzb) wrote:

    >>>You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
    >>>is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart

    >>Scale
    >>>to enlarge the image.


    >>No matter what you do, 3.2 MP will be "soft" at that size.


    >Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.


    You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.
    Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?

    20-24 isn't so big. But without sharpening, I agree - I think it would
    be a little soft. But that's okay. It would be the next step up,
    though, to get the shots of Art Wolfe, for example. It might even
    require different equipment - dare I even say it on this ng . . film.
    Mark Johnson, Apr 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:09:17
    -0700, Mark Johnson <> wrote:

    > (zbzbzb) wrote:
    >
    >>>>You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
    >>>>is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart
    >>>Scale
    >>>>to enlarge the image.

    >
    >>>No matter what you do, 3.2 MP will be "soft" at that size.

    >
    >>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.

    >
    >You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.


    Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good. ;-)

    >Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?


    No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Apr 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    Mark Johnson Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:

    >>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.

    >>
    >>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.

    >
    >Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good. ;-)
    >
    >>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?

    >
    >No tool can add real detail that isn't there.


    I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
    edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
    have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
    isn't in the photo.
    Mark Johnson, Apr 11, 2004
    #10
  11. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    Tom Scales Guest

    I regularly print 6 mp images from my D100 at 24x36 from my Epson 7600. Just
    upsample in Photoshop CS. They are incredible -- better than the results
    from my Nikon 4000ED film scanner. Sharper, clearer....just better.

    Tom
    "Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > John Navas <> wrote:
    >
    > >>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.
    > >>
    > >>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.

    > >
    > >Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good. ;-)
    > >
    > >>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?

    > >
    > >No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

    >
    > I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
    > edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
    > have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
    > isn't in the photo.
    >
    Tom Scales, Apr 11, 2004
    #11
  12. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:57:46
    -0700, Mark Johnson <> wrote:

    >John Navas <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.
    >>>
    >>>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.

    >>
    >>Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good. ;-)
    >>
    >>>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?

    >>
    >>No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

    >
    >I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
    >edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
    >have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
    >isn't in the photo.


    Upsampling an image adds no real detail, and that much upsampling inevitably
    looks soft or fuzzy, depending on how it's being mangled.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Apr 11, 2004
    #12
  13. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:20:27 -0400,
    "Tom Scales" <> wrote:

    >"Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    >news:...


    >> John Navas <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.
    >> >>
    >> >>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.
    >> >
    >> >Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good. ;-)
    >> >
    >> >>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?
    >> >
    >> >No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

    >>
    >> I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
    >> edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
    >> have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
    >> isn't in the photo.


    >I regularly print 6 mp images from my D100 at 24x36 from my Epson 7600. Just
    >upsample in Photoshop CS. They are incredible -- better than the results
    >from my Nikon 4000ED film scanner. Sharper, clearer....just better.


    A good MF film print at that size will be visually superior.
    The quality of a 6 MP print suffers above about 11x15.
    See "Digital Camera Image Quality" at
    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml>.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Apr 11, 2004
    #13
  14. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    Tom Scales Guest

    I don't believe I compared my D100 to a MF camera, did I? I compared it to
    a 35mm negative scanned at 4000dpi. They both have their advantages.

    You can read all you want, and are entitled to your opinion from your
    reading. Just curious. Have you personally printed a 24x36 inch print on a
    printer capable of doing so from both a 35mm scan and a 6mp digital?

    I have.

    Tom
    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:briec.5115$...
    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004

    08:20:27 -0400,
    > "Tom Scales" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...

    >
    > >> John Navas <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.
    > >> >
    > >> >Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good. ;-)
    > >> >
    > >> >>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?
    > >> >
    > >> >No tool can add real detail that isn't there.
    > >>
    > >> I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
    > >> edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
    > >> have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
    > >> isn't in the photo.

    >
    > >I regularly print 6 mp images from my D100 at 24x36 from my Epson 7600.

    Just
    > >upsample in Photoshop CS. They are incredible -- better than the results
    > >from my Nikon 4000ED film scanner. Sharper, clearer....just better.

    >
    > A good MF film print at that size will be visually superior.
    > The quality of a 6 MP print suffers above about 11x15.
    > See "Digital Camera Image Quality" at
    > <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml>.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas
    > [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    > <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    Tom Scales, Apr 11, 2004
    #14
  15. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:45:04 -0400,
    "Tom Scales" <> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:briec.5115$...
    >>
    >> In <> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:20:27 -0400,
    >> "Tom Scales" <> wrote:


    >> >I regularly print 6 mp images from my D100 at 24x36 from my Epson 7600. Just
    >> >upsample in Photoshop CS. They are incredible -- better than the results
    >> >from my Nikon 4000ED film scanner. Sharper, clearer....just better.

    >>
    >> A good MF film print at that size will be visually superior.
    >> The quality of a 6 MP print suffers above about 11x15.
    >> See "Digital Camera Image Quality" at
    >> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml>.


    >I don't believe I compared my D100 to a MF camera, did I? I compared it to
    >a 35mm negative scanned at 4000dpi. ...


    In fact you just made a sweeping statement, as quoted above.

    >You can read all you want, and are entitled to your opinion from your
    >reading. Just curious. Have you personally printed a 24x36 inch print on a
    >printer capable of doing so from both a 35mm scan and a 6mp digital?
    >
    >I have.


    So have I.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Apr 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    Mark Johnson Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:

    >>>>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?
    >>>
    >>>No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

    >>
    >>I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
    >>edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
    >>have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
    >>isn't in the photo.

    >
    >Upsampling an image adds no real detail, and that much upsampling inevitably
    >looks soft or fuzzy, depending on how it's being mangled.


    Isn't that the very selling point of Nik Sharpener, though - sharpness
    from where you stand?

    I didn't say it added details. In fact, I said it didn't. I said
    "you'd have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something
    there that isn't in the photo."
    Mark Johnson, Apr 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Mon, 12 Apr 2004 05:26:33
    -0700, Mark Johnson <> wrote:

    >John Navas <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?
    >>>>
    >>>>No tool can add real detail that isn't there.
    >>>
    >>>I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
    >>>edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
    >>>have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
    >>>isn't in the photo.

    >>
    >>Upsampling an image adds no real detail, and that much upsampling inevitably
    >>looks soft or fuzzy, depending on how it's being mangled.

    >
    >Isn't that the very selling point of Nik Sharpener, though - sharpness
    >from where you stand?


    Like other such methods, Nik Sharpener just increases the apparent (not the
    real) sharpness of the image in certain limited ways, and can't increase the
    amount of detail. So if your image lacks detail in tree leaves, sharpening
    (by Nik Sharpener or anything else) might help the edges of the tree trunk,
    but will still leave the leaves (play on words intended:) soft/fuzzy. The
    difference against an image that has such detail will be immediately apparent.
    "There is no magic."

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Apr 13, 2004
    #17
  18. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    Mark Johnson Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:

    >Like other such methods, Nik Sharpener just increases the apparent (not the
    >real) sharpness of the image in certain limited ways, and can't increase the
    >amount of detail. So if your image lacks detail in tree leaves, sharpening
    >(by Nik Sharpener or anything else) might help the edges of the tree trunk,
    >but will still leave the leaves (play on words intended:) soft/fuzzy. The
    >difference against an image that has such detail will be immediately apparent.
    >"There is no magic."


    You'd have to add detail that's not there. I've said, now, in two
    messages. It's not adding information, here. But isn't the selling
    point of Nik that it can be used to increase sharpness at a particular
    viewing distance? So you upsample an image, and apply Nik, for say
    'book' distance, or whatever. I don't use that. I've tried the demo
    and found the sharpening tends to certain artifacts, and doesn't allow
    much control. I use other sharpening actions and filters. But I can
    certainly see how a fuzzy line can be made sharper. If the line simply
    isn't there, then it's another matter.
    Mark Johnson, Apr 14, 2004
    #18
  19. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    carl Guest

    i have seen 16x20 made from a D100 and a epson 7600
    they were quite good.
    i have also made my own 16x20 cibachromes from a F100 and guess what they
    blow the doors off digital.
    I cannot for the life of me understand why someone wants to do cross-over
    workflow. If you image with slide film, it is much better to print on 'film'
    optimized materials such as cibachrome.
    at 16x20 35mm is a compromise, and as far as i have seen the digitals are
    not as good as 35 yet. Handier yes, better images, no way.
    MF is needed for museum quality at 16x16, and the honest equivalent maximum
    35 print size is 5x7. Digital below 16mp is also 5x7 at museum quality. The
    fact that people are willing to accept lower image quality does not in and
    of itself make poor technique good enough for me.
    People have been accepting 35mm as the 'holy grail' to which digital claims
    to be equivalent for a long time. I have never been able to get anything but
    compromised images from 35mm, which is why i shoot MF and LF for serious
    work and a nikon 5700 for fun. I can't see investing serious money in
    digital gear yet.
    carl, Apr 19, 2004
    #19
  20. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    gsum Guest

    I use a D100/Epson 7600 to produce prints up to 12x18 inches
    and stitched panoramics up to 30x12 inches. I also use the 7600 to
    produce prints up to 24x18 inches from scanned 6x9 MF i.e. crossover
    workflow. I used to do a lot of Cibachrome work but, thankfully, no more.
    I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to
    produce horrible overpriced, oversaturated Cibachrome cartoons when
    digital technology is avaialable. Digital colours are far more realistic
    than those possible with Cibachrome, and the digital process is more
    controlled, direct and easier to use. It is therefore possible to get great
    results with much less image manipulation. The only reason for using
    film is the greater resolution of MF.

    Graham

    "carl" <> wrote in message
    news:vbKgc.11274$...
    > i have seen 16x20 made from a D100 and a epson 7600
    > they were quite good.
    > i have also made my own 16x20 cibachromes from a F100 and guess what they
    > blow the doors off digital.
    > I cannot for the life of me understand why someone wants to do cross-over
    > workflow. If you image with slide film, it is much better to print on

    'film'
    > optimized materials such as cibachrome.
    > at 16x20 35mm is a compromise, and as far as i have seen the digitals are
    > not as good as 35 yet. Handier yes, better images, no way.
    > MF is needed for museum quality at 16x16, and the honest equivalent

    maximum
    > 35 print size is 5x7. Digital below 16mp is also 5x7 at museum quality.

    The
    > fact that people are willing to accept lower image quality does not in and
    > of itself make poor technique good enough for me.
    > People have been accepting 35mm as the 'holy grail' to which digital

    claims
    > to be equivalent for a long time. I have never been able to get anything

    but
    > compromised images from 35mm, which is why i shoot MF and LF for serious
    > work and a nikon 5700 for fun. I can't see investing serious money in
    > digital gear yet.
    >
    >
    gsum, Apr 19, 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. Kamol Panitpongsakorn

    Which is the better between digital camera and traditional camera?

    Kamol Panitpongsakorn, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    292
    Kamol Panitpongsakorn
    Apr 9, 2004
  2. Glenn Jacobs

    Digital Versus Traditional Cameras

    Glenn Jacobs, Oct 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    324
    Glenn Jacobs
    Oct 8, 2004
  3. Dan Jacobson

    turning traditional cameras into digital cameras

    Dan Jacobson, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    349
    Phil Wheeler
    Oct 31, 2004
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    410
    Bruce Hoult
    Jan 7, 2006
  5. D_Mac
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    901
    Robert Coe
    Oct 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page