Digital 'vs' Traditional?

[vogonpoet]

Listening to the radio this morning, one of stories was about how for the first time, more people (USA) are buying digital cameras than traditional film cameras.

I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts about this, or any experience they would like to share/discuss.

I am guessing that eventually the digital/traditional photography subject will become similar to the vinyl record/compact disc subject.

I am not big into photography myself and use a middle of the road digital camera and am satisifed with the results.

Anyhow, anyone care to discuss?

 

[Rantin Al]

Eastman Kodak also announced global lay-offs in their workforce due to the increase in 'consumer' digital cameras.

I think that top end commercial photographers will still stick with the large format Hasselblads and such.

The prices of the top end cameras are still in the thousands. That wasn't the real blocker. It was non-interchangeable lenses that was the problem. It may change as digital cameras are now available for use with existing bayonet fixed lenses, which cost a fortune in themselves.

The general snapper will move onto digital. Particularly as the specifications for a good general purpose camera increase and the prices keep falling to a couple of hundred pounds.

As the George Harrison sung, All things must pass.

Al.

 

[Erik]

Imo, people put too much emphasis on that "megapixel" thing. In fact: it only tells something about the size of the printable result.

What stops me from going digital is:

1/ I have a good camera (Olympus OM4Ti)
2/ No digital camera matches (yet!) the quality of slides
3/ Due to the fact that the sensitive surface that replaces the film is smaller, no wide-angle lenses that match a 20mm or less lens in traditional camera's are available for digital camera's. And what am I without at least a 24mm F:2 wide-angle lens?
4/ Apart from the camera body, I would need 20 GB and at least five battery sets to survive three weeks of trekking; the 20GB with its own battery pack, and the camera packs would need a reload every evening. Meaning I would be forced to set the tent on campings, and pay for electricity.
5/ I wonder whether the digital camera's will survive real nature photography (seasalt, humidity, high temperature, shocks,...like the traditionals can.
6/ at www.dpreviews.com , *the* site for good advice (imo) there is always something not yet perfect with the camera's.

 

[Rich]

I use a little Sony DSC-P8. I love it! I keep it in my pocket all day at work. I mostly use it to capture little moments so that I can pass them on to other engineers who would never believe me otherwise. Yes sir, it is possible to install that part upside down...see!.

I do find the lag between button and shutter a bit of a drag but you get used to it. I think that's pretty common amongst the digi's.

Vogonpoet...I also heard that radio segment. You may be in the Detroit area? I'm out on a limb here but does the VO stand for Vehicle Operations? hee hee

Rich

 

[vogonpoet]

ahhhhhhhh!!! 2 engineers on the same forum!!!!! :B :B

no VO does not stand for Vehicle Ops, lol...

 

[Rich]

:B lol...that's us!

 

[Josh]

The majority of professional photographers shoot more digital than analog. I can back that up with facts if I could just find that article... :\

Both systems have their positive/negative points but as of today digital seems to be the clear winner.

People who don't have a digital camera don't understand this, but trust me, you will experience once you have a digital camera that there is more than comparing pixels with film

But hey, if you only shoot 100 shots a year... well, then I don't see a reason why you should go digital.

 

[Joy Foraker]

I shouldn't be posting here because my knowledge of photography is so limited and my Kodak megapix 3.1 delivers a so-so performance but the one thing I enjoy about this camera is its convenience for my web business \:]

IMHO there will be a market for both for many years. Digital has just become another option. I understand the increased above 3 mp for digital only helps make quick action shots but doesn't improve the quality of the picture. I don't really know if that is true or not.
It sounds reasonable.


Joyful

 

[nitrobutler]

Back in my high school days, I was well into photography, developing my own negs and prints (B/W) myself. Nowadays i'm just a casual user and own a Sony DSC-P71.
I'd like to echo Eric's commments and add, My model and from what I hear digital cameras in general are poor performers in low light situations. that's my main gripe with digital.

 

[MindBender]

I think that top end commercial photographers will still stick with the large format Hasselblads and such.

Of course, Hassel announced a digital back for their cameras a year or two ago that will fit in the film housing backing. Even Leica has announced their digital line-up.

I worked in a digital photo studio for a while. Using digital SLR and a fuji thermalsetter to output.

The shooter would get a few hundred shots on a microdrive, download it onto a computer in the studio. Then the customer could choose shots right there, make an order (including touchups in Photoshop), and have their photos printed before they left (in most cases). It was a pretty cool operation. We even took the whole setup to some proms and such. I helped lug that damned 450 pound fuji thermal setter up to the 5th floor of a hotel for one... gack... have THAT run over your toes.. not fun. hehe. That was a cool night though. We shot prom photos, and downloaded to a powerbook. There were these custom frames that the prom committee had provided for each atendee. So we were taking photos and then printing out 5x7, framing them, and sending them home with each person. Pretty slick. Two shooters and one frantic night of photoshopping.

Right now digital cameras for most photography are comparable in price and functionality to traditional chemical film cameras. They provide a lot of functionionality that isn't available with traditional film if you are committed to a digital work flow like the one I described. That fuji was about 4 grand, they had a couple older G4 machines and some laCie monitors... couple grand there... and the cameras for a couple grand each. All told, they recouped that investment back in the first months of operation.

Yeah, there are lots of things that you can do with wide film and slides that are nice, but even shooters that are going out and doing location shooting will often bring a digital along for test shots and documentation since it's quick return on preview.

Personally, I still use my Pentax K1000.

$0.02

 

[Mr. Duer]

Photography

For Digital cameras.. I was using a film camera for years.. Well two years ago I got a Canon s110.. It opened my eyes for a whole new world.. From there I went to a cnon s230 digital elf.. And that lil sucker does not leave my pocket.. It's the size of a pack of smokes, and right now is my best friend.. Since I had this canon s230 I shot well over 6000 pic's.. And it's been just over a year from today... I love the fact that I can see the pic after I shoot it to see if I want to reshot it or not.. I have a 250mb card right now.. Witch is not that big.. But it holds about 156 super high quality pic's.. At 2,048 X 1536.. It's a 3.2 mega pixel.. Witch kicks ass for the size of the camera.. But I am into rock climbing.. And I have droped it too too too many time from very high places while it was in it's lil case and so far it holds up to anything I put it though.. Took many pic's in the rain and snow.. I would say it's very durable.. I will be getting the under water inclosement for it.. And a 500mb card.. A few batteries.. (right now I have 2) And then I should be set for a while... I love the fact that you can take pic's... And they make a portable 4x6 printer that you can take anywhere.. Plug your camera in and hit print.. Have pictures in an instant.. Works good for parties and what not.. And it's very small too.. I love downloading my own pic's and no one else looks at them before me.. And there are no rules to shooting pic's when you shoot digital.. There is a walgreens on almost every corner in america.. So if your out and about you can stop and print pic's.. Or get them burned onto CD to edit later... And it really kicks ass to download right to your PC and open photoshop and do what ever you need to them to your liking.. I would never go back.. Since I get my camera.. I got so many people into taking pic's and they all went out and bought digital cameras now.. And they are all getting good.. They love seeing the pic right after you take it.. And being able to take short 3 min or so movies.. And editing your pic's yourself.. It brought a whole new light to photography to their world.. And made them see things in life different...
If you want to learn more about my camera or any canon products go here... http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/s230/index.html

Other then that.. Come see my Gallery and see what my camera produced for me....

:}

 

[Shreck]

I have Canon D60 digital SLR and it has transformed my photography.
One method of taking a single great photograph is to take a lot of bad photographs in between. It is not unusual to take 50-100 pictures in a day and delete 45 of them at night. This used to bother me, but not anymore.
I come from a film background and I have always been careful in composing shots, but is invigorating, and also fun, to go and shoot what interests me, instead of what I think will make a good picture. Some of my best pictures are serendipitous events made possible by multiple shots of the same subject. You can do the same with film, but you better have deep pockets.
A digital SLR like the Canon and Nikon and others, has the ability to use lenses available for their other SLR film cameras, so lens quality and selection is not an issue. Canon makes a 16-35mm f/2.8L lens that translates into a 25.6mm-56mm equivalent focal length lens(35mm film equivalent) when multiplied by the 160% enlargement caused by the CCD size differential. Any wider angle and you have a fish-eye lens anyway.
I agree that film and traditional film processing have a slight edge in some instances, but by the time you scan a photograph into your computer, all you have is a copy anyway.
Digital photography is superior in it's ability to correct, after the fact, bad lighting conditions that will ruin film images. Techniques like digital blending of photographs for increased dynamic range can increase the dynamic range of your image by 6 or more f stops. In that technique, you can expose for the highlight and shadows separately and blend the images effortlessly. Try that with film.
You can also stitch multiple digital images together to get super megapixel(100 megapixel+) images that you can enlarge to the size of a house without loss of quality. Try that with film. There are tutorials on the web to explain how.
I mostly shoot in raw format and I can get 35-40 pictures on a 256Mb Card that costs $45 and is reusable nearly forever. You can carry 10 cards in one pocket. Try that with 10 rolls of film. I also don't worry about airport x-rays ruining my entire shoot.
Digital's not for everyone, Hey, some people are still using tape casettes, but anyone who tries the upper level Digital SLR's will never go back to film.
The point and shoot digital camera issue is a different issue entirely.

 

[Mr. Duer]

Hey Shreck

So did ya ever hear of Deviantart? And or do you have a gallery there? You sounded like your big time into taking pic's.. And DA is the place to post them for the world to see.. And you can sell them on there too.. Go to my gallery and see what I am talking about.. And if you start/have a gallery.. Let me know so I can see your work!!!!!

 

[epic]

Film vs Digital is something I ponder over alot. I currently use a maxxum 7 camera from minolta as my prefered film SLR. I love it. But because of convience I use a 3 Mega pixel Mustek MDC3500 for everyday shooting. It is extremely cheaper but the quality is no where near 35mm. However with digital SLR's out and coming out like the canon eos 1ds http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/EOS1DS/ and the kodak dcs slr/n http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/proSLR/proSLRIndex.jhtml
I will probably trade my serious photography and my digital in for one camera and not have to worry about film anymore.

 

[DigiGuy]

I agree with everyhting Shrek said and have switched for most of the same reason. I will agree that Digital hasn't matched the quality that slide film produces but I don't see even that being king
for much longer with the rapid advancement of digital technology.

My main reason for switching from film to didgital was cost. I take alot of photos and when the developers got finished with me my pockets and bank account were beggin me to stop.

I averaged about $120.00 a week in development costs not including the cost of the film too. $120.00 x 4 = $480.00 a month x12= $5760.00 per year.

Dang! That's almost a Canon 1DS.

Not everyone shoots this many photos so cost alone wont warrant the switch but Shrek pretty much hit the nail on the head with what he posted.

With film I felt I had to make every shot a keeper but with digital I now feel I have the freedom to experiment without going broke doing so.

I will hate to see film go because it still produces awesome photos but like all things....GOOD THINGS COME TO AN END!

Look at 8 TRACKS.....

 

[Alistair]

Kodak hopes to stop producing and selling traditional products... including film.... within 5 years. [shhh]

 

[Alistair]

Kodak hopes to stop producing and selling traditional products... including film.... within 5 years. [shhh]

Film as in film for peoples.... cameras

 

[John1]

Kodak hopes to stop producing and selling traditional products... including film.... within 5 years.

Well, then they better continue (at a fast rate) to make larger storage media.
I know professionals who use 300 GB of storage (backup storage NOT included).
One can say that hard drives get bigger and bigger, but then again, the same can be said about digital photographs
I also predict (just personal) that video (using a photo camera) is going to play a larger role and that's another need for storage increase.

I also read an article that said that some hard drive producers are going to focus more on reliability, instead of size, Seagate is one of them.

I do believe that manufactures will always deliver what the market is asking for, but at what price level? :\

 

[Tron]

I think that didgital has it uses, and as time moves on it will evolved to replace traditional photography.
I don't take a lot of pictures but for web design a digital camera is a must have piece of equipment.

I am invoved doing the web site for the Manitoba Summer Games this summer and without my simple little Kodack DCP-215 i would be lost. It is only 2 megapxels but for web work it does the job just great.

When I was younger I used to dabble in photography and used a Yashikia SLR camera, I still have it but can't find batteries for it anymore so it justs gathers dust.

The didgital camerea is just the right tool for what I need at the present time. As a matter of fact i will have a small army of photographers with didgitals shooting the action during the upcoming games, my challenage will be to make all of these pictures web ready and get them uploaded to the gallerys in a timely fashion.

Makes me weary to just think about it.

:B %}

 

[TaK]

Hey everyone, no doubt you can take a lot more photos, a lot more faster on the digital, than in the analog/chemical process...
But it will take much more time until we see the end of traditional photography...
Digital maybe good for comercial photos, etc.
But when you go to a light table and you see a slide or a chrome, there are things you would never be able to see at the "digital verrsion"
The way that the digital sensor capture and develop the image is very different, you could have an enormous amount of megapixels, but it is not only about resolution, it?s about the focal depht and the color dephts, specially the white tones, the lighter ones...
My father has several cameras, [he doesn?t have a digital yet]
and these days we don?t even print the photos [only when necessary], we have them scanned directly from the film.
At some of his works he would save a great amount of money if he used a digital camera, and there are others where he couldn?t use one, because some works require a higher quality.
The arrival of the digital photography came sure for good, but it has devalorized the market a lot, since there are a lot of amateurs out there, who can?t even use a professional camera, only the digital ones [ever stoped to think about that?].