Digital 'vs' Traditional?

[sfm]

Interesting reading and I agree with sadness that film camera is a dying art such a shame with the high quality that it produces that the digitial sadly tries to immitate, perhaps the digital slr's will perform like the film but all the same this will be a sad day |

my digital slr that I use I can take hundreds of photo's and see instant results of any lighting effects that I have tried to use on my subjects if it hasn't worked I can try something else so it saves me time and perhaps a little money (batteries remember )

for my daughter's 5th birthday she begged me for about 4 months or so for a camera - I bought her a digital - why? because I would save on film! the first day she took nearly 400 photo's which only stopped because of the batteries - it was interesting to see what she was photographing and after a week she was getting everything into the frame! oh okay about 80% of the time anyway ha ha ha
yes she still uses it everyday, it drives us batty but who knows where her interests and future may go at this tender young age as she follows mum around or goes off on her own adventures!

my final thoughts are that photography what ever the camera used is in the person behind it
sfm

 

[Erik]

Yes, a well lit slide taken with the camera on a sturdy tripod can have a lot of detail and quality. But even at 50iso, fine grain, you will see the limits when you blow up to, say, 20x25cm (8x10inch).

Plus, when you print it out, either have it printed traditionally on the best paper, or at home, you get deterioration. No colour paper gives the full blackness and rich dark greys of some B&W papers (ILFORD Gallery etc). And on your home printer, you will have to scan your slide or have it scanned (Kodak PhotoCD etc). This always reduces it to digital stuff, memorized pixels, nothing more. And it will add noise. Ever got that washed out noisy print from that perfectly lit slide of a great night shot, asked for a new copy and hear the man/woman say that it cannot be done better because the whole process is set to automatic?

So, for most people, film has no advantages when compared to digital. It's like saying that records with all their scratches, hiss, hum etc are more natural than CD's.

 

[John1]

Both traditional and digital cameras have their pros and cons, but the fact is that there are more digital cameras being sold than the traditional cameras. This trend already started in 2003.
Here's one quote I found: "According to the International Digital Corporation, host of theDEMO 2004, 2003 marked the year that digital cameras surpassed thesales of traditional cameras"

I've found other articles, but I didn't bookmark them. I'll see if I can find them again.

I'm also a regular visitor of some photography forums and yes, also in these forums you'll notice the same trend.

A reasonable digital camera is a lot more expensive than traditional cameras, but it doesn't stop people from buying them.

My experiences with digital cameras, photography forums, talking to other people who use both digital and traditional made me conclude that digital has lots of advantages over tradiational, but traditional camera won't die for quite a while. Lots of people use both, with a major preference for digital.

 

[Erik]

Indeed. I won't stop using my Olympus OM4, but I would love to have a good quality digital camera too because of many advantages: When I have to take a pic of a new painting, I don't need to go to someone with a studio anymore to get a 4x5inch for print in a catalogue or so. Or simply to register several stages of a work in progress. Sometimes I have been asked for a slide or a photograph of one recent work, meaning I had to take one pic and have the film developed.
Also, everything that is for digital mainpulation (websites, Photoshop, bumpmaps for 3D,...) can immediately be loaded on HDD and into PS.
A third advantage is that you can verify immediately whether you have the result you wanted. If not, you can immediately start all over.
But because I don't own any lenses by or for a digital slr, Ill eventually go for one with built-in lens, and probably either the Canon Powershot pro (pro: equiV. of 200mm tele, adobe rgb; con: noise) or the Olympus C-8080 (pro: less noise, very good battery life; con: less tele)
Or another one.
One day.

 

[TaK]

But Still the result is different, when you scan from a film.
I don?t know if the term chrome is correct to say in english, I mean those films that are way larger than the normal ones, I will talk to my father and get the correct specifications.

Erik, I don?t think cd?s are more natural than records, they?re just different. Bass or low frequency, sounds better [aka more definition] at records, while high frequency sounds better at cd?s ...

 

[Erik]

I suppose you mean Ektachrome 4x5 inch slides.
Yes these are indeed very good (when perfectly lit) but it takes a professional photographer to make them.
But they have to be scanned to be used digitally, and even the best scanner still loses a lot of quality. Some people say that you can neglect it. Like people pretending MP3 is as good as CD, or that jpg is as good as tif. Ot tif as good as...the original slide.

As for the music: I agree. Zlso: cd can be so absolutely silent that it becomes unnatural. A bit what I call "hospital" atmosphere. Too clean. Antiseptic.

 

[John1]

Erik, I don?t think cd?s are more natural than records, they?re just different. Bass or low frequency, sounds better [aka more definition] at records, while high frequency sounds better at cd?s

Tak, actually they are better in every department, it's called SACD;

http://www.sonymusic.com/sacd/

 

[TaK]

Erik, you loose some quality for sure, every time we scan anything here at our studio,
I always spend some time fixing what the scan changed the
image form the original, that?s why I Luv Photoshop!
We only use chromes when the work needs it, it?s just too expensive!
The conversion from traditional photography to a digital media is
part of the evolution process, it took many years to get this far from the original photography, which used a sheet of glass with a light sensitive emulsion over it to "capture" the image.
Apart from taking photographs, the printing process is also getting
more sofisticated every day, the day will soon come when you will be able to print your own photographs at home, cheaply.
Have you ever heard of a new type of ink which contains, small microchips at it, that enables you to keep track of it?
They?re perfecting this technology to use it to make money, to
make the falsifications more difficult to make...
Also have you ever heard of a Digital gravure technique called Gicl?? ?
In this process one small drop of ink can be the size of a blood red cell, and it?s so accurate that you can reproduce drawings, water-colors, etc, with a result very, very close to the original. [it prints with a wide range of papers and inks]

John1, cd maybe perfect but as I said it?s a different process.
I have a technics pickup at home, and the sound that comes out of it...
It?s just not the same thing, It?s my personal opinion about that, I know some people think like that and others don?t. [my father for example prefer cds]
There are a lot of modern artists that keep on adding the noises and hums from the records digitally at their songs!
Nowadays there are just a few artists who keep on releasing their songs on records, here on brazil there?s only one factory left, the process is very artesanal.
Cheers, everyone!

ps: if anyone wants to read more on the gicl?? process here one good link:
http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/Iris_fine_art_giclee_printers/Iris_fineartgicleeprinters.html

 

[John1]

John1, cd maybe perfect

Tak, I wasn't talking about CD, I was talking about SACD and that's a maaajor difference. I didn't even mention XRCD, which goes even one step further.

Please do yourself a favor and read this;

https://www.audiophilesounds.com/glossary.asp

Sorry for the confusion.

But let's stay on topic here, since the thread is about photography

 

[parelorentz]

I think it boils down to personal preference.

No one can deny the flexibility or the cost advantage of digital.

Depending on your setup, you can approach the quality you get from a medium format film neg.

I am lucky enough to shoot with a Fuji S2 and an Olympus E1. Both are fine digital cameras and have proven very usefull and can save time and money with the proper workflow in place.

However, when shooting for my own pleasure, not a customer, I still mainly use film cameras.

I use a Rolleiflex from 1953, Zeiss lenses, 120 film.
I also shoot with a Calumet 4x5 camera, Schneider optics.

Both make me slow down, think about what I am trying to do and give incredible results. I still love putting the exposed paper into the tray and seeing the image come to life before my eyes. It's a shame that many shooters will never experience this feeling.

Also try and see a gallery show of some of the greats....Ansel Adams, Eugene Smith, Walker Evans etc. Just look at the photos. They have a look, even upclose, that you can't get with digital. You can almost walk right into the photographs. Obviosly they were master photographers who were and would use some of the finest darkroom printers available.

Anyway, enough rambling, it all comes down to choices and taste. Whatever works for you is the best choice.

 

[Lee]

Got a Canon 10D here and would never go back to film. B7

 

[Sark]

Lee

Does your 10D produce a sharp image? I'm looking to buy a digi SLR soon and have been looking at the Nikon D70. My only issue with this camera is its plastic body and huge size. The Canon 20D is out of my price range, but the 10D is now a reasonable option.

My only concern with the Canons are that they may not be as sharp as the Nikon. Would be interested to hear your comments.

Sark