Developing Film From Park Trips
- More
- 1
- 2 of 2
Lord Gonchar said:
Ouch. Got to disagree. Film will look better 99% of the time - until they make more cameras like that sweet D60 Jeff scored. The comparison between film and digital is very similar to the comparison between albums and CD's. Some people still swear that records sound better than CD's and to a degree there's merit in that claim. I feel the same about film vs digital - although that gap is almost non-existent as technology improves.Of course this is comparing digital with simple 35mm cameras. You can still by medium or large format cameras like real pros use (4x5, 6x7) that will capture much better images than either 35mm or the very best digital camera will.
I guess the bottom line is what you plan on doing with your images. If you just want them on your PC or make small 4x6 prints then you can get away with cheap scans or simple digital cameras.
I still tend to prefer having prints over the convience of digital. Sure you can have prints made from digital but I find it simpler to just use film (for now at least, like I said the gap is closing fast) and scan the negatives I need in digital later.
As far as I have seen the D60 offers one of the highest resolutions of any digital camera at 6.3 megapixels (3072 x 2048) but for about half the price you could get a mid-range SLR and film scanner wihich would at the very least match those specs if not do better.
Give it a year or two and I'll probably be saying "Film is Dead" too. Until then film is only a little under the weather.
Kodak's current best Prosumer cameras (well camera backings) are 16MP (4080x4080). These aren't new either, they've been around a good 3 or 4 years at least. I believe Ricoh released a 7MP (although interpolated) camera around three years ago, as a consumer model.
Their DCS-645 is designed to replace film in Mamiya, which is a 70mm camera manufacturer (the 'cheapie' in the professional photography range). The problem with these professional cameras, is they are bulky, non-SLR and expensive.
Digital photography has taken over reportage, and had done so by the mid-late 90's, definitely by around 1998, maybe even as early as 1996. Magazine, book, poster photography is now done entirely digital, as the resolutions far superceeded 35mm long ago.
The only place I think I'd say film is used on a regular basis, is for portraiting. Most of these places left 35mm long ago, of course assuming they ever went with it. If I ever got into the portraiting business, I'd only be using Hasselblad's. But then again, 9 times out of ten, it'd be B&W, and I'd want the control that you can't get with digital.
You say the gap is closing fast. The gap has already closed, and the Himalayan Mountains are well and truely being formed my friend. Film in consumer or prosumer uses is almost dead. I'll probably never stop using it for B&W, but that is about it. Scientific photography (astronomy, biology namely) will probably remain with film, although Kodak is pumping a lot of resources into scientific digital photography development, and who knows what they're working on.
For reportage, digital is the only way to go (reportage is basically photography of general human life, coasters fall into this category).
And Jeff - what's the point in getting such a damn awsome camera, if you're not willing to go out and buy the nice Canon low dispersion lenses. :)
-----------------
So what if the best coaster in Australia is a second hand Arrow?
Oh no, you're not an L-glass snob are you? I loath people like that! The photos I posted on Sillynonsense.com would've looked exactly the same with the more expensive lenses.
The quality gap was closed indeed, but only for some uses. Newspaper and magazine shooting went digital ages ago, even at 3 megapixels. I've seen nothing but Nikon D1's in the hands of those photographers for quite some time.
However, the gap is just now starting to close on price and quality intended for print use. 3 MP starts to look a bit ugly at 8x10. Even now, the 6 MP D60 costs over $2k, so the gap still has some way to go.
I think for consumers the real turning point was the release of the Nikon Coolpix 990. Heck, Time called it the machine of the year or something. At 3 MP and around a grand, it was the first camera that really made it possible to get nice 4x6 prints. I still have mine and we use it when the SLR isn't practical. All of the IAAPA photos from the last two years were shot with that camera.
So yes, "we have the technology," but that doesn't mean we've reached gap closure. Expense is still a giant factor.
-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"We used to hate people, now we just make fun of them. It's more effective that way." - KMFDM, "Dogma"
-----------------
Can we change the name of Top Gun to your mom so no one wants to ride your mom?
auscoasterman said:
Kodak's current best Prosumer cameras (well camera backings) are 16MP (4080x4080). These aren't new either, they've been around a good 3 or 4 years at least. I believe Ricoh released a 7MP (although interpolated) camera around three years ago, as a consumer model.
OK, but at what price? The gap hasn't truly closed until these cameras are within the reach of most budgets. It's my understanding that you'll need around $10,000 for a Kodak DCS. That's not realistic for 99% of the consumer market.
Edit: Now that I actually went back through and read the remainder of the thread, I see that Jeff said basically the same thing. Price, price, price!
It'll be a few years before film is truly outdated. It'll be a lot longer before they quit selling it.
On a side note, we stopped by Dorney yesterday and I actually saw a woman using one of those old 110 instamatic type cameras to take picture of her kids on rides.
-----------------
www.coasterimage.com
*** This post was edited by Lord Gonchar on 7/12/2002. ***
I'm really not sure why you'd need a 3MP camera to get nice 4x6 prints. I have a Kodak DC3400 2MP camera (yes, laugh at me... It ain't 16 freaking MP, but it works...) and set to the highest quality and resolution (I believe 1760x11something) I can print out photo quality 6x9 photos to put on my wall.
No, I'm not sure how the 6x9 thing came about... That's just how they print.
Of course, I always buy Kodak's best photo paper (the super-glossy stuff for like $.50 a page) and I have an HP Deskjet 990cse printer, which is probably way too good to print out 6x9s anyway.
Maybe it is just the camera, but the pictures I've taken with the DC3400 absolutely kill the quality of the pictures I used to take with an Olympus point 'n shoot camera. (No, I'm not into the whole SLR deal... Too expensive)
Of course, with the Olympus, I never scanned negatives or the finished product. I got them put on those picture CDs. Maybe it was just my inexperience at the time, but they were never quite as good as the Kodak is now.
Picture CD's were likely your problem - they're a joke. Photo CD's (yes there's a difference) are much better but you're still at the mercy of whoever scans your negatives.
I think you really touched on the whole point of this thread (or at least what it turned into) - use what works for you! Everyone has a budget and everyone has different needs with their camera. More power to you if you're getting good prints with a 2MP digital camera and prints off an inkjet. It proves that you can be happy with whatever works.
-----------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park visits in 2002: 14
*** This post was edited by Lord Gonchar on 7/12/2002. ***
No film developer has ever asked me about my pictures. I don't use one hour photo though (are people really that impatient?). I would consider such a question to be a little out of line anyway. It is personal property and none of the developer's business.
Side note: Has anybody worked for a film developer? I've always been curious if people developing pictures make extra copies of for themselves. Hoochie shots and so on ;)
As for cameras, I'll stick with my 15 year old used Minolta X-370 and Canon point and shoot. I don't have a spare 2 grand laying around for a D70! I'm a traditionalist anyway and prefer good old fashioned film.
-----------------
everything's better with a banjo
- More
- 1
- 2 of 2
You must be logged in to post
