Digital pictures - any good?

Mark LV · Feb 3, 2003

Lets' be honest, digital pictures are not as good as 35mm (or even the best 24mm APS film for that matter), so why all this interest in the medium? What's more, digicams are still very expensive and printing is also very expensive because of all the equipment you need.

Is it worth it?

Mr Potato Head · Feb 3, 2003

No it's not. I suggest you avoid it.

--
SPUD
Don't bend over in the garden Granny. Remember them taters have eyes.

harry · Feb 3, 2003

You should not compare digital pictures on the terms of a 35mm world, such as viewing as prints. Digital pictures are viewed mostly on a computer monitor and probably view many more times than 35 mm prints (unless you spend time to scan the negatives to digital images).

Personally I see no reason the costs for printing 24 digital prints more costly than film based prints, it's a matter of mass market. A decent 2 mp digital camera now costs less than $200 which could print up to 5x7 prints easily. My Canon A20 has pretty much replaced my Minolta 35mm P&S on a daily basis. If I get a few nice images, I just take the CF card to my local camera store to print out the ones I like. Or, I just use my home HP inkjet to print on photo papers. I saved a lot of unwanted double prints and only kept the good prints I wanted.

If you are a serious photographer, then most D-SLR's nowadays would definitely equal the image quality of traditional 35mm based SLR's, if not better.

Harry

--
Harry

Steve Parisi · Feb 3, 2003

Mark Ol Buddy

I can take all the pictures I want. I always have "Film". I print and "develop" only what I want. I make DVD shows for the family. I prinjt and frame 5x7's and 8X10s . I 'm back in the Darkroom after 20 years (Digital) . Are the prints as good as my canon EOS. Who cares!!!!!!

Jim Rickards · Feb 3, 2003

--One of the things that make it "worth it" is taking a picture, and then looking down at your LCD and seeing how it turned out. If not well, take another. Also, taking a hundred pictures, viewing them all and keeping the four (just to pick a number) you like and deleting the rest. All at no cost for film.

Since July I have taken about 3000 pictures. I've printed very few. Many I just enjoy on my computer monitor or my 46" TV. Some I print for my albums or to send to Mom.
I'm sure you can see some advantages here.

Jim Rickards

Patrick Martin · Feb 3, 2003

Have you even tried to use a modern digital camera? I will stack up my D60 pictures against any picture I ever took with my old film 35mm Canon. For that matter, I will stack up many of my Nikon 990 pictures against film.

--
Patrick Martin
http://www.patrickmartin.com

Jan Willem Mars · Feb 3, 2003

are you serious? are your real?

Please go and get your self a digicam and post again after you have some experience yourself...

Jan willem

--
greatings to you all!
some of my photo's at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jwmars

john farrar · Feb 3, 2003

Absolutely if you work with photographs or want your customers to give you instant feedback, or if you want to share them with friends via email, or enjoy manipulating images. But if you just want to print hundreds of snaps at 6x4 and don't worry if only a few of them are good then stick with film. Go digital at the photographic level you are familiar with and you will not be disappointed; you might even save time and money when you print only what you need to print.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John.
Visitors welcome to browse
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/galleries

Scott G Spellman · Feb 3, 2003

The equipment, and raw image quality specifically, is only a part of the photographic process. Find whatever tools work for you and your goals.

No one would say that Herbie Hancock's record "Headhunters" sucks becaused he used an electric piano instead of an acoustic one.

Lin Evans · Feb 3, 2003

This is your opinion, but not an opinion held by most with experience in both venues.

Printing costs are lower for digital, at least in the U.S. - I'm not certain about the U.K. where you live. Once the cost of digital media has been amortized, actual printing costs are less. Do you develop your own negatives and print in your own darkroom? How much did your darkroom, equipment and chemicals cost?

If you don't print your own 35mm film output, then compare apples to apples. In the U.S. you can take a CD or floppy disk to Wallmart and have prints made for considerably less than having a roll of 35mm developed and printed on a "per capita" comparison. Also you only print the good ones. How many times do you have 35mm negatives developed and then inspect before printing?

Yes it's worth it to those who want the convenience and quality. Otherwise ????

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

jerpat · Feb 3, 2003

Mark,

Since you claim your honesty, how about some honest answers to these questions: 1) Do you own a digital camera? If so which one? 2) Do you own a 35mm camera? 3) Do you own an APS camera? 4) Could you post some of your shots in reply to this post? Please indicate which of your cameras were used in the shots. Then some of the experts that visit this forum can evaluate your shots relative to your claim. 5) Since you claim digital is not as good as film, why are you wasting your time at the DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY Review when you should be at the FILM PHOTOGRAPHY Review? Whats that? You say there is no such site; you should start the site so you can show all your reviews & comparisons proving the superiority of film over digital. Last but not least, are you simply a boring TROLL who has nothing more productive in your life than posting ridiculous claims on this forum.
?

Rich Gibson · Feb 3, 2003

jerpat wrote:
Last but not least, are you simply a boring TROLL who has

david eyre · Feb 3, 2003

--
Dave

steve6 · Feb 3, 2003

I've used them all and quality stuff too. I much prefer digital for the usual and obvious reasons. The APS camera (an expensive Minolta which I won) was quickly sold - the image quality was inferior to both digi and 35mm. The images I get from my 35mm compact Nikon are arguably better than my digi but not by much and the under/over exposed ones (and other ****-ups) stay that way.

For me there is no comparison - digi is much better.

Steve
Olympus C730UZ
http://community.webshots.com/user/steve636
http://www.stanley36.freeserve.co.uk

pfiltz · Feb 3, 2003

Just kidd'n. I started up my studio with the Fuji S1, and now have a D60. Since I had NO camera equipment, I went Digi all the way. So much flexibility. I love it.

Regards,
Phillip@keepsake
http://www.keepsake-photography.com

digit #124332 · Feb 3, 2003

Mark, I honestly thought as you did until just recently. I kind of duped myself into buying a digicam for my birthday. (There's a story there but it really doesn't matter.) Even after buying a Sony DSC F717, I was skeptical until I learned how to use it properly. My wife was even more skeptical.

The proof I (and she) needed were in some pictures I recently took before a formal dance that my daughter attended. My wife was so nervous about getting good pictures that she came home with a roll of film and demanded that I pull out my old SLR. I had not used it in awhile and the battery was dead so I flew without a safety net. My wife was not too happy…until she saw the results. This one now sits printed 8x10 on our fireplace mantel. You would have to see the print to believe it. What you are looking at is scaled down, but not processed any other way. For the print I did very little processing. I took the red eye out and balanced the colors a bit (same as you would in film).

The rest of the pictures on the roll..er, memory stick were also quite good. I doubt I will be pressed to pull out the film again. Anybody care to buy an unused roll of film?

mango · Feb 3, 2003

LOL at an ignorant troll. Have you seen any digital photos printed at 300 ppi on a Fuji or Noritsu professional print machine? You know not of what you speak. You must work for Kodak, lol

Mark LV · Feb 4, 2003

No, I work for Canon!!! I wasn't trolling, only stimulating debate..........

Mark LV · Feb 4, 2003

OK, here goes:

1) Yeah. Kodak LS443 and Canon S45.
2) Nope.
3) Yeah, Fuji Nexia 4100ix.
4) Nope.

5) Hey, this is my OPINION. Accept it or not, that's your choice, but don't call me a troll. Can you prove me wrong? I am talking about the image quality, not the convenience and usefulness of digital - that's a different ball game. I think it will be 4-5 years before we get affordable 10-12MP digicams; only then will digital be superior to film. At the moment I'm not convinced.

Mark LV · Feb 4, 2003

Printing costs are still very high in the UK. But slowly going down.

With a film camera you only need it - nothing else. With a digicam you also need a PC and a printer; OK for most people on decent incomes, but it's still extra expenditure. Canon have a direct printer, but it's still very costly.

Digital pictures - any good?

Leading Member

Well-known member

harry

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Lin Evans

Guest

Senior Member

Rich Gibson

Guest

Leading Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts