Reading mode: Light Dark

Scanners, 35mm vs. digital photo

Go to last post
K

kidzgolf47878

Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I've been wrestling with the idea of a digital camera and its advantage over the 35mm with quality lenses, etc. The following is part of the discussion. Just throwing it out there to get some more info.

Yes, I'm really enjoying the (Canon A-1 35mm) camera. It took me a while to get into it, much for the same reasons you are struggling with. When I decided there was not a digital camera on the market that met my needs, both technically and financially, I decided to take a second look at standard photography. I still believe a moderate speed film has superior resolution to even the most advanced mega-pixel digital cameras on the market. While digital technology is convenient on one hand, it has serious convenience limitations on the other. When planning a long trip, you are faced with either purchasing huge amounts of memory or taking a computer along. Exposed rolls of film are cheap and easy to store.

Film negatives, while messy to deal with sometimes, are an automatic, if somewhat passive, storage system. With digital, you have to deal with the pictures you have taken before you can take more, whether it's convenient or not. Then you need mass storage media, organization software, etc. etc... I'd much rather be able to throw the negatives in a drawer and deal with them on my own schedule. With digital, one is more likely to throw away shots that might have interest later. With negatives, you generally keep everything.

I've always been a died-in-the-wool slide photographer. Using a scanner, the jury is still out. I believe the quality is at lease comparable, if not in favor of the negative. Negatives have the distinct advantage of one hour processing. The local processing outlets will process my negatives in 20 minutes for $4.95. I'm sure Costco would be cheaper, but then I'd still have to wait 3 days to see my pictures. If I want a quick turnaround, I shoot a 12 exposure roll.

I'm using an HP-5370C we bought at Costco for $250 or so. It has a transparancy attachment that works with both slides and negatives. So far, I'm quite pleased with the results. Since I still have almost no interest in printed photos, this option is quite satisfactory for converting pictures into quite acceptable digital images. I'm not sure it's a viable option if you're just going to print them and put them in a photo album. The real advantage of digital processing is image manipulation, allowing you to clean up bad pictures and turn them into something really special.

Anyway, that's my analysis. Here are the pictures I took with the A1 a couple of weeks ago on Mt. Rainier -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/

This one - http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/stream_splice.htm is a composite image. I didn't have enough depth of field to get the whole scene in focus, so I took two pictures, one focused on the foreground, the second on the background, and spliced them down the middle. Some of them I darkened backgrounds, highlighted areas, and cleaned up distracting bright spots, etc.

My favorite example of digital image processing is one I took with my little Olympus XA on our trip to Scandinavia.

http://www.rdrop.com/~tblackb/summer_vacation/scandinavia/little_mermaid.html

This slide was scanned at the local camera store with no more resolution than I can get with my current scanner.

I purchased 3 new lenses for the A1. I got a 50mm f1.4, a 24mm 2.8 and a 50mm macro with a 1:1 extension tube. I'm taking film in for processing today. I'll let you know how things turn out.

--kidzgolf
 
kidzgolf,

Yoy may find plenty of people in these forums who believe they are digital camera missionaries, out to save the world from beliefs other than their own. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them showed up in this thread.

However, it appears to me that you have made a fair analysis of your situation, clearly know your way around a photograph (there's good stuff in your album and examples), and have made the correct decision for yourself. I think your work and your analysis are both commendable. Both the pure digital and film routes have their advantages, but the important thing is that you know what you are about. And, of course, that you do work that pleases you.

You have a good handle on the situation.

My best regards,

Ed
kidzgolf said:
I've been wrestling with the idea of a digital camera and its
advantage over the 35mm with quality lenses, etc. The following is
part of the discussion. Just throwing it out there to get some
more info.

Yes, I'm really enjoying the (Canon A-1 35mm) camera. It took me a
while to get into it, much for the same reasons you are struggling
with. When I decided there was not a digital camera on the market
that met my needs, both technically and financially, I decided to
take a second look at standard photography. I still believe a
moderate speed film has superior resolution to even the most
advanced mega-pixel digital cameras on the market. While digital
technology is convenient on one hand, it has serious convenience
limitations on the other. When planning a long trip, you are faced
with either purchasing huge amounts of memory or taking a computer
along. Exposed rolls of film are cheap and easy to store.

Film negatives, while messy to deal with sometimes, are an
automatic, if somewhat passive, storage system. With digital, you
have to deal with the pictures you have taken before you can take
more, whether it's convenient or not. Then you need mass storage
media, organization software, etc. etc... I'd much rather be able
to throw the negatives in a drawer and deal with them on my own
schedule. With digital, one is more likely to throw away shots
that might have interest later. With negatives, you generally keep
everything.

I've always been a died-in-the-wool slide photographer. Using a
scanner, the jury is still out. I believe the quality is at lease
comparable, if not in favor of the negative. Negatives have the
distinct advantage of one hour processing. The local processing
outlets will process my negatives in 20 minutes for $4.95. I'm
sure Costco would be cheaper, but then I'd still have to wait 3
days to see my pictures. If I want a quick turnaround, I shoot a
12 exposure roll.

I'm using an HP-5370C we bought at Costco for $250 or so. It has a
transparancy attachment that works with both slides and negatives.
So far, I'm quite pleased with the results. Since I still have
almost no interest in printed photos, this option is quite
satisfactory for converting pictures into quite acceptable digital
images. I'm not sure it's a viable option if you're just going to
print them and put them in a photo album. The real advantage of
digital processing is image manipulation, allowing you to clean up
bad pictures and turn them into something really special.

Anyway, that's my analysis. Here are the pictures I took with the
A1 a couple of weeks ago on Mt. Rainier -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/

This one -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/stream_splice.htm is a composite image. I didn't have enough depth of field to get the whole scene in focus, so I took two pictures, one focused on the foreground, the second on the background, and spliced them down the middle. Some of them I darkened backgrounds, highlighted areas, and cleaned up distracting bright spots, etc.

My favorite example of digital image processing is one I took with
my little Olympus XA on our trip to Scandinavia.

http://www.rdrop.com/~tblackb/summer_vacation/scandinavia/little_mermaid.html

This slide was scanned at the local camera store with no more
resolution than I can get with my current scanner.

I purchased 3 new lenses for the A1. I got a 50mm f1.4, a 24mm 2.8
and a 50mm macro with a 1:1 extension tube. I'm taking film in for
processing today. I'll let you know how things turn out.

--
kidzgolf
Click to expand...
 
Film type cameras, even the modest ones, produce pretty good quality pictures. The problem I am facing is that when the pictures are digitized using a scanner (Canon N656U). They lose a good degree of sharpness. I wonder is this normal or something I didn't do right? Is there any scanner that can produce low loss of sharpness?

Frank
Ed Leys20479 said:
kidzgolf,

Yoy may find plenty of people in these forums who believe they are
digital camera missionaries, out to save the world from beliefs
other than their own. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them
showed up in this thread.

However, it appears to me that you have made a fair analysis of
your situation, clearly know your way around a photograph (there's
good stuff in your album and examples), and have made the correct
decision for yourself. I think your work and your analysis are
both commendable. Both the pure digital and film routes have their
advantages, but the important thing is that you know what you are
about. And, of course, that you do work that pleases you.

You have a good handle on the situation.

My best regards,

Ed
kidzgolf said:
I've been wrestling with the idea of a digital camera and its
advantage over the 35mm with quality lenses, etc. The following is
part of the discussion. Just throwing it out there to get some
more info.

Yes, I'm really enjoying the (Canon A-1 35mm) camera. It took me a
while to get into it, much for the same reasons you are struggling
with. When I decided there was not a digital camera on the market
that met my needs, both technically and financially, I decided to
take a second look at standard photography. I still believe a
moderate speed film has superior resolution to even the most
advanced mega-pixel digital cameras on the market. While digital
technology is convenient on one hand, it has serious convenience
limitations on the other. When planning a long trip, you are faced
with either purchasing huge amounts of memory or taking a computer
along. Exposed rolls of film are cheap and easy to store.

Film negatives, while messy to deal with sometimes, are an
automatic, if somewhat passive, storage system. With digital, you
have to deal with the pictures you have taken before you can take
more, whether it's convenient or not. Then you need mass storage
media, organization software, etc. etc... I'd much rather be able
to throw the negatives in a drawer and deal with them on my own
schedule. With digital, one is more likely to throw away shots
that might have interest later. With negatives, you generally keep
everything.

I've always been a died-in-the-wool slide photographer. Using a
scanner, the jury is still out. I believe the quality is at lease
comparable, if not in favor of the negative. Negatives have the
distinct advantage of one hour processing. The local processing
outlets will process my negatives in 20 minutes for $4.95. I'm
sure Costco would be cheaper, but then I'd still have to wait 3
days to see my pictures. If I want a quick turnaround, I shoot a
12 exposure roll.

I'm using an HP-5370C we bought at Costco for $250 or so. It has a
transparancy attachment that works with both slides and negatives.
So far, I'm quite pleased with the results. Since I still have
almost no interest in printed photos, this option is quite
satisfactory for converting pictures into quite acceptable digital
images. I'm not sure it's a viable option if you're just going to
print them and put them in a photo album. The real advantage of
digital processing is image manipulation, allowing you to clean up
bad pictures and turn them into something really special.

Anyway, that's my analysis. Here are the pictures I took with the
A1 a couple of weeks ago on Mt. Rainier -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/

This one -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/stream_splice.htm is a composite image. I didn't have enough depth of field to get the whole scene in focus, so I took two pictures, one focused on the foreground, the second on the background, and spliced them down the middle. Some of them I darkened backgrounds, highlighted areas, and cleaned up distracting bright spots, etc.

My favorite example of digital image processing is one I took with
my little Olympus XA on our trip to Scandinavia.

http://www.rdrop.com/~tblackb/summer_vacation/scandinavia/little_mermaid.html

This slide was scanned at the local camera store with no more
resolution than I can get with my current scanner.

I purchased 3 new lenses for the A1. I got a 50mm f1.4, a 24mm 2.8
and a 50mm macro with a 1:1 extension tube. I'm taking film in for
processing today. I'll let you know how things turn out.

--
kidzgolf
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Frank said:
Film type cameras, even the modest ones, produce pretty good
quality pictures. The problem I am facing is that when the
pictures are digitized using a scanner (Canon N656U). They lose a
good degree of sharpness. I wonder is this normal or something I
didn't do right? Is there any scanner that can produce low loss of
sharpness?

Frank
Click to expand...
I cannot answer your question Frank, but can only say I have similar experience. I had trannies and a small number of colour-negs scanned on a truckload of Fuji equipment at the local camera shop. They looked unsharp. When I bought a digicam, the results looked unsharp. Two weeks ago I read a thread that gave settings for Photoshop Unsharp Mask, and the set-up really works. All my digicam pictures are now put through USM, and when I extend this to those old neg scans they too become sharp. I have yet to find a digital picture that does not benefit from a varying degrees of sharpenning. This particualrly applies when resizing for the web.
LarryG
Canchan said:
Canchan said:
kidzgolf,

Yoy may find plenty of people in these forums who believe they are
digital camera missionaries, out to save the world from beliefs
other than their own. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them
showed up in this thread.

However, it appears to me that you have made a fair analysis of
your situation, clearly know your way around a photograph (there's
good stuff in your album and examples), and have made the correct
decision for yourself. I think your work and your analysis are
both commendable. Both the pure digital and film routes have their
advantages, but the important thing is that you know what you are
about. And, of course, that you do work that pleases you.

You have a good handle on the situation.

My best regards,

Ed
kidzgolf said:
I've been wrestling with the idea of a digital camera and its
advantage over the 35mm with quality lenses, etc. The following is
part of the discussion. Just throwing it out there to get some
more info.

Yes, I'm really enjoying the (Canon A-1 35mm) camera. It took me a
while to get into it, much for the same reasons you are struggling
with. When I decided there was not a digital camera on the market
that met my needs, both technically and financially, I decided to
take a second look at standard photography. I still believe a
moderate speed film has superior resolution to even the most
advanced mega-pixel digital cameras on the market. While digital
technology is convenient on one hand, it has serious convenience
limitations on the other. When planning a long trip, you are faced
with either purchasing huge amounts of memory or taking a computer
along. Exposed rolls of film are cheap and easy to store.

Film negatives, while messy to deal with sometimes, are an
automatic, if somewhat passive, storage system. With digital, you
have to deal with the pictures you have taken before you can take
more, whether it's convenient or not. Then you need mass storage
media, organization software, etc. etc... I'd much rather be able
to throw the negatives in a drawer and deal with them on my own
schedule. With digital, one is more likely to throw away shots
that might have interest later. With negatives, you generally keep
everything.

I've always been a died-in-the-wool slide photographer. Using a
scanner, the jury is still out. I believe the quality is at lease
comparable, if not in favor of the negative. Negatives have the
distinct advantage of one hour processing. The local processing
outlets will process my negatives in 20 minutes for $4.95. I'm
sure Costco would be cheaper, but then I'd still have to wait 3
days to see my pictures. If I want a quick turnaround, I shoot a
12 exposure roll.

I'm using an HP-5370C we bought at Costco for $250 or so. It has a
transparancy attachment that works with both slides and negatives.
So far, I'm quite pleased with the results. Since I still have
almost no interest in printed photos, this option is quite
satisfactory for converting pictures into quite acceptable digital
images. I'm not sure it's a viable option if you're just going to
print them and put them in a photo album. The real advantage of
digital processing is image manipulation, allowing you to clean up
bad pictures and turn them into something really special.

Anyway, that's my analysis. Here are the pictures I took with the
A1 a couple of weeks ago on Mt. Rainier -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/

This one -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/stream_splice.htm is a composite image. I didn't have enough depth of field to get the whole scene in focus, so I took two pictures, one focused on the foreground, the second on the background, and spliced them down the middle. Some of them I darkened backgrounds, highlighted areas, and cleaned up distracting bright spots, etc.

My favorite example of digital image processing is one I took with
my little Olympus XA on our trip to Scandinavia.

http://www.rdrop.com/~tblackb/summer_vacation/scandinavia/little_mermaid.html

This slide was scanned at the local camera store with no more
resolution than I can get with my current scanner.

I purchased 3 new lenses for the A1. I got a 50mm f1.4, a 24mm 2.8
and a 50mm macro with a 1:1 extension tube. I'm taking film in for
processing today. I'll let you know how things turn out.

--
kidzgolf
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I think you have everthing worked out in your mind, and it sounds like it is the right decision for you.

I too, recently went through the "film vs digital" dilema, I finaly decided that digital was the answer for me for what I do, so much so that I sold all of my film cameras, including a Hasselblad.

The one thing I think a lot of people forget is, its not neccesarily about the camera, its more about the thought process and emotion that goes into your work. Dont get me wrong, I do a lot of work that I dont really consider "art or even creative" in any sense of the word, but it pays the bills, a lot of my photography is done for me, and me alone, very few if any people ever get to see it.

Do what works for you.

Cheers

Leo
 
Leo Howard said:
I think you have everthing worked out in your mind, and it sounds
like it is the right decision for you.

I too, recently went through the "film vs digital" dilema, I finaly
decided that digital was the answer for me for what I do, so much
so that I sold all of my film cameras, including a Hasselblad.

The one thing I think a lot of people forget is, its not
neccesarily about the camera, its more about the thought process
and emotion that goes into your work. Dont get me wrong, I do a lot
of work that I dont really consider "art or even creative" in any
sense of the word, but it pays the bills, a lot of my photography
is done for me, and me alone, very few if any people ever get to
see it.

Do what works for you.

Cheers

Leo
Click to expand...
Hi Leo, I agree to a point with what you say except for the "its not necessarily about the camera" bit. A few years ago this was perfectly true, afterall, any proficient photographer could go out with any camera built over the past 80 years and 'get it in the bag'. This digital 'thing' is something very new, and I suspect many of us oldies, especially those who have been into photography a good many years, are here to discover how the technology is coming along and if it has anything to offer when compared to film and transparencies. And for a given chip size, it is now obvious some cameras are delivering less noisy pictures than others. With a conventional camera one simply changes to another film. Speaking for myself, I have been overwhelmed by the comparative ease in which one can capture a picture on digicam (the extra DOF is a revelation after 35mm and 645) and I suppose the 11 x 8 prints are quite amazing. However amazing digital is though, I have'nt lost sight of the value of well-exposed transparencies. I still like a good old slide show, and it is still the preferred medium of hobby publications.
Regards, LG
 
Leo Howard said:
I think you have everthing worked out in your mind, and it sounds
like it is the right decision for you.

I too, recently went through the "film vs digital" dilema, I finaly
decided that digital was the answer for me for what I do, so much
so that I sold all of my film cameras, including a Hasselblad.

The one thing I think a lot of people forget is, its not
neccesarily about the camera, its more about the thought process
and emotion that goes into your work. Dont get me wrong, I do a lot
of work that I dont really consider "art or even creative" in any
sense of the word, but it pays the bills, a lot of my photography
is done for me, and me alone, very few if any people ever get to
see it.

Do what works for you.

Cheers

Leo
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong ... I will join the digital camera craze before too long. Over the years, I've collected some 35mm lenses and hate to put them aside for digital snap shots. The only lense out there in the digital realm that I like is found on the Sony 505v.

The best to you!
 
You've got a very good read on the current state of affairs. After having some fun with digital, and some nice shots, I've reached the conclusion that film, scanned is the way to go for me.

I still enjoy shooting with my CP990 amd Fuji S1, but when I set out to do the best work I can, it's still a Leica M6, a Hassleblad 500 CM or a Nikon F100. I'm not down on digital but, at least for now, it's film and a scanner.
kidzgolf said:
I've been wrestling with the idea of a digital camera and its
advantage over the 35mm with quality lenses, etc. The following is
part of the discussion. Just throwing it out there to get some
more info.

Yes, I'm really enjoying the (Canon A-1 35mm) camera. It took me a
while to get into it, much for the same reasons you are struggling
with. When I decided there was not a digital camera on the market
that met my needs, both technically and financially, I decided to
take a second look at standard photography. I still believe a
moderate speed film has superior resolution to even the most
advanced mega-pixel digital cameras on the market. While digital
technology is convenient on one hand, it has serious convenience
limitations on the other. When planning a long trip, you are faced
with either purchasing huge amounts of memory or taking a computer
along. Exposed rolls of film are cheap and easy to store.

Film negatives, while messy to deal with sometimes, are an
automatic, if somewhat passive, storage system. With digital, you
have to deal with the pictures you have taken before you can take
more, whether it's convenient or not. Then you need mass storage
media, organization software, etc. etc... I'd much rather be able
to throw the negatives in a drawer and deal with them on my own
schedule. With digital, one is more likely to throw away shots
that might have interest later. With negatives, you generally keep
everything.

I've always been a died-in-the-wool slide photographer. Using a
scanner, the jury is still out. I believe the quality is at lease
comparable, if not in favor of the negative. Negatives have the
distinct advantage of one hour processing. The local processing
outlets will process my negatives in 20 minutes for $4.95. I'm
sure Costco would be cheaper, but then I'd still have to wait 3
days to see my pictures. If I want a quick turnaround, I shoot a
12 exposure roll.

I'm using an HP-5370C we bought at Costco for $250 or so. It has a
transparancy attachment that works with both slides and negatives.
So far, I'm quite pleased with the results. Since I still have
almost no interest in printed photos, this option is quite
satisfactory for converting pictures into quite acceptable digital
images. I'm not sure it's a viable option if you're just going to
print them and put them in a photo album. The real advantage of
digital processing is image manipulation, allowing you to clean up
bad pictures and turn them into something really special.

Anyway, that's my analysis. Here are the pictures I took with the
A1 a couple of weeks ago on Mt. Rainier -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/

This one -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/stream_splice.htm is a composite image. I didn't have enough depth of field to get the whole scene in focus, so I took two pictures, one focused on the foreground, the second on the background, and spliced them down the middle. Some of them I darkened backgrounds, highlighted areas, and cleaned up distracting bright spots, etc.

My favorite example of digital image processing is one I took with
my little Olympus XA on our trip to Scandinavia.

http://www.rdrop.com/~tblackb/summer_vacation/scandinavia/little_mermaid.html

This slide was scanned at the local camera store with no more
resolution than I can get with my current scanner.

I purchased 3 new lenses for the A1. I got a 50mm f1.4, a 24mm 2.8
and a 50mm macro with a 1:1 extension tube. I'm taking film in for
processing today. I'll let you know how things turn out.

--
kidzgolf
Click to expand...
 
Hi Frank,

All scanners are most definitely not created equal, especially when it comes to 35mm. A flat bed scanner, with a 35mm adapter will give you mediocre results at best. A dedicated 35mm scanner will give you optimal results, if, of course, it's a good quality scanner.

I've been using an LS 2000 for quite a while and I'm very pleased with the results. I scan negs and chrome full out, 2700DPI, and do most colors and cropping adjustments in the scanner. Then the images go to photoshop for editing and are then saved in genuine fractals. I've printed 13x19 prints on an Epson 2000P and Epson 1270 and the results are wonderful. Customers are happy, I'm happy, so what else?

I am psychopathically picky when it comes to image quality. I expect the colors to be rendered faithfully, the highlight and shadow detail to replicate what is on the chrome or in the negative and the overall impression of the photography to be as I saw it. So far I've been lucky having these results. The next generation of Nikon scanners are due out soon and I'm anxious to see them.

You can find good scanners out there. But it is vital that you have a 35mm scanner for 35mm negs and chromes. A flatbed won't do it.

I have a flatbed and it's great for 120-4x5 formats. Great quality. But it absolutely sucks for 35mm. It's an Epson 1600 Pro.

Good luck to you.
Frank said:
Frank
Canchan said:
kidzgolf,

Yoy may find plenty of people in these forums who believe they are
digital camera missionaries, out to save the world from beliefs
other than their own. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them
showed up in this thread.

However, it appears to me that you have made a fair analysis of
your situation, clearly know your way around a photograph (there's
good stuff in your album and examples), and have made the correct
decision for yourself. I think your work and your analysis are
both commendable. Both the pure digital and film routes have their
advantages, but the important thing is that you know what you are
about. And, of course, that you do work that pleases you.

You have a good handle on the situation.

My best regards,

Ed
kidzgolf said:
I've been wrestling with the idea of a digital camera and its
advantage over the 35mm with quality lenses, etc. The following is
part of the discussion. Just throwing it out there to get some
more info.

Yes, I'm really enjoying the (Canon A-1 35mm) camera. It took me a
while to get into it, much for the same reasons you are struggling
with. When I decided there was not a digital camera on the market
that met my needs, both technically and financially, I decided to
take a second look at standard photography. I still believe a
moderate speed film has superior resolution to even the most
advanced mega-pixel digital cameras on the market. While digital
technology is convenient on one hand, it has serious convenience
limitations on the other. When planning a long trip, you are faced
with either purchasing huge amounts of memory or taking a computer
along. Exposed rolls of film are cheap and easy to store.

Film negatives, while messy to deal with sometimes, are an
automatic, if somewhat passive, storage system. With digital, you
have to deal with the pictures you have taken before you can take
more, whether it's convenient or not. Then you need mass storage
media, organization software, etc. etc... I'd much rather be able
to throw the negatives in a drawer and deal with them on my own
schedule. With digital, one is more likely to throw away shots
that might have interest later. With negatives, you generally keep
everything.

I've always been a died-in-the-wool slide photographer. Using a
scanner, the jury is still out. I believe the quality is at lease
comparable, if not in favor of the negative. Negatives have the
distinct advantage of one hour processing. The local processing
outlets will process my negatives in 20 minutes for $4.95. I'm
sure Costco would be cheaper, but then I'd still have to wait 3
days to see my pictures. If I want a quick turnaround, I shoot a
12 exposure roll.

I'm using an HP-5370C we bought at Costco for $250 or so. It has a
transparancy attachment that works with both slides and negatives.
So far, I'm quite pleased with the results. Since I still have
almost no interest in printed photos, this option is quite
satisfactory for converting pictures into quite acceptable digital
images. I'm not sure it's a viable option if you're just going to
print them and put them in a photo album. The real advantage of
digital processing is image manipulation, allowing you to clean up
bad pictures and turn them into something really special.

Anyway, that's my analysis. Here are the pictures I took with the
A1 a couple of weeks ago on Mt. Rainier -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/

This one -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/stream_splice.htm is a composite image. I didn't have enough depth of field to get the whole scene in focus, so I took two pictures, one focused on the foreground, the second on the background, and spliced them down the middle. Some of them I darkened backgrounds, highlighted areas, and cleaned up distracting bright spots, etc.

My favorite example of digital image processing is one I took with
my little Olympus XA on our trip to Scandinavia.

http://www.rdrop.com/~tblackb/summer_vacation/scandinavia/little_mermaid.html

This slide was scanned at the local camera store with no more
resolution than I can get with my current scanner.

I purchased 3 new lenses for the A1. I got a 50mm f1.4, a 24mm 2.8
and a 50mm macro with a 1:1 extension tube. I'm taking film in for
processing today. I'll let you know how things turn out.

--
kidzgolf
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

You have a good analysis of the situation, well done.

For me, I shot film for over 10 years on an old Nikon FE. 2 years ago, I bought a Coolpix 950 and related accessories and had a lot of fun and great pictures with it, but being a consumer camera, it was rather limiting sometimes. I still much prefer the SLR feel, but I also love the swivel design of the 950 which had allowed me to get weird angles, candids, etc.

Recently, I upgraded my FE to the F100. I had wanted to upgrade my old FE to an AF one, but was stuck in the 'digital dilemma'. Wanted to get D1/D1X, S1 Pro, etc but found their prices prohibitive. In the end, I settled for the F100 and got my lab to scan my slides/negs to CDs. For slides, I can get them to give me 3072x2048 files ( 6mp) which gave me a lot of leeway for cropping etc. And the files gave me excellent prints too.

For now, I think this is the route I'd take. For things which I want a lot of control over, I use the F100. For street photography, candids, for shots from unusual angles, unpredictable shots, I use the Coolpix. This should pull me through until the next generation d-SLRs or when their prices drop to more reasonable levels.

After all, digital is just a medium, just like film. I'll just use whichever best suits the subject I am shooting. Just my 2cents worth.

Regards
CK
kidzgolf said:
I've been wrestling with the idea of a digital camera and its
advantage over the 35mm with quality lenses, etc. The following is
part of the discussion. Just throwing it out there to get some
more info.

Yes, I'm really enjoying the (Canon A-1 35mm) camera. It took me a
while to get into it, much for the same reasons you are struggling
with. When I decided there was not a digital camera on the market
that met my needs, both technically and financially, I decided to
take a second look at standard photography. I still believe a
moderate speed film has superior resolution to even the most
advanced mega-pixel digital cameras on the market. While digital
technology is convenient on one hand, it has serious convenience
limitations on the other. When planning a long trip, you are faced
with either purchasing huge amounts of memory or taking a computer
along. Exposed rolls of film are cheap and easy to store.

Film negatives, while messy to deal with sometimes, are an
automatic, if somewhat passive, storage system. With digital, you
have to deal with the pictures you have taken before you can take
more, whether it's convenient or not. Then you need mass storage
media, organization software, etc. etc... I'd much rather be able
to throw the negatives in a drawer and deal with them on my own
schedule. With digital, one is more likely to throw away shots
that might have interest later. With negatives, you generally keep
everything.

I've always been a died-in-the-wool slide photographer. Using a
scanner, the jury is still out. I believe the quality is at lease
comparable, if not in favor of the negative. Negatives have the
distinct advantage of one hour processing. The local processing
outlets will process my negatives in 20 minutes for $4.95. I'm
sure Costco would be cheaper, but then I'd still have to wait 3
days to see my pictures. If I want a quick turnaround, I shoot a
12 exposure roll.

I'm using an HP-5370C we bought at Costco for $250 or so. It has a
transparancy attachment that works with both slides and negatives.
So far, I'm quite pleased with the results. Since I still have
almost no interest in printed photos, this option is quite
satisfactory for converting pictures into quite acceptable digital
images. I'm not sure it's a viable option if you're just going to
print them and put them in a photo album. The real advantage of
digital processing is image manipulation, allowing you to clean up
bad pictures and turn them into something really special.

Anyway, that's my analysis. Here are the pictures I took with the
A1 a couple of weeks ago on Mt. Rainier -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/

This one -

http://www.rdrop.com/users/tblackb/summer_vacation/Rainier/stream_splice.htm is a composite image. I didn't have enough depth of field to get the whole scene in focus, so I took two pictures, one focused on the foreground, the second on the background, and spliced them down the middle. Some of them I darkened backgrounds, highlighted areas, and cleaned up distracting bright spots, etc.

My favorite example of digital image processing is one I took with
my little Olympus XA on our trip to Scandinavia.

http://www.rdrop.com/~tblackb/summer_vacation/scandinavia/little_mermaid.html

This slide was scanned at the local camera store with no more
resolution than I can get with my current scanner.

I purchased 3 new lenses for the A1. I got a 50mm f1.4, a 24mm 2.8
and a 50mm macro with a 1:1 extension tube. I'm taking film in for
processing today. I'll let you know how things turn out.

--
kidzgolf
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top