DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Digital v Film again

Paul S., I can understand what you are saying very well about your work and the clients' expectations. You put it all rather well I think. I have nothing to add since I completely agree. (I can't speak about the sensor size since that isn't my forte!) I also, like you, scan to size. I don't know how else one would do it? My standard rule when I send out for a drum scan: 300 dpi minimum, at physical size, or slightly larger in case of a change of plan.

Marc - yes I believe we will never see eye to eye. That is the beauty of a free world - we don't have to see eye to eye. As for the quality of the images I was receiving, I didn't mean to imply that I was the one always producing the images in question. Hardly. I generally receive most of my clients images from full time professional commercial photographers. I do occassionally find my own shots in my clients work, however, and I did fill in for some time to replace the resident photographer when he'd be out of town on other shoots. That is where I was using the Sinar. However, I certainly have had images provided via other digital methods. This is just for clarification - in case I was not clear.

Howard - Well I guess this is a debate that is close to my interests. It is hard to tell with text typed in an email, but I think you may have been making the point about the Governor tongue-in-cheek meaning since we felt we had all the answers, what should we do about the Calif Governor. I do apologize if I seem like I was trying to monopolize the viewpoint. I do not, nor do I ever, mean to force my views on others.

Again, just to clarify. I do like the concept of digital shooting. I look forward to the day when it does everything I want it to do. It will come someday - I wish it was here already.

-Lynn
 
Peter, The idea of a digital camera giving a closer image is not quite as it seems. Remember that the raw image size - i.e on the film plane or CCD sensor is 2/3 the size of the same image on a 35mm camera or full size sensor.

You will get exactly the same magnification simply by having the subject fill 2/3 of your current camera's viewfinder frame and simply enlarging it at the printing or scanning process.

That way you will have a better image than a digitally captured one and be able to use your current lenses.
 
Clive, I do realize that. Actually the number of pixels per cm/inch is the real indicator for the amount of meaningful information in yur negative/slide or digital file. But with a 600 mm and 2 times magnification because of the multiplication by the smaller sensor it will be more easy in the field to make the right size pictures. I was not referring to a 3 MP 2/3 inch sensor but at least 6, rather >8 MP. Now I scan my slides with a Nikon 4000dpi scanner and even then one wonders whether all the information from the slide is picked up in the scan.
Anyhow, the real issues was: I have no choice, do I?
 
> Film and Digital -- another one of life's mysteries - no simple or > right answer at this time.

I find the answer simple. They both have their places, and which ever one works best for you, in a particular situation, is the "right" answer. I think people think to much about this subject...

Regards,

Austin
 
> Clive, the only thing that matters is the total number of pixels in > the final image.

I strongly disagree. Not all pixels are created equal, for may reasons. Not all sensors give the same data, and not all analog front ends are equal as well. Every implementation is different. A 6M interline sensor will give you far worse data than a 6M CMOS sensor. So, don't believe that sensor size is everything...and it's not just the lense.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Paul,

> I have to disagree ! If you scan the slide you never increase quality > but decrease it because every lens (the lens of the scanner) doesn't > let 100% of the light pass through.

IMO, this is not a valid/useful argument, because when you print film, you have to print through a lense as well. And, the degredation is insiginficant anyway, compared to may other factors in the overall system.

Regards,

Austin
 
HEY! GUYS! And Galls!
I strongly disagree that it’s relevant that you disagree with someone else's disagreement! Ya de ya de ya!

Did no one ever take a great shot with a 110? Or a Minox? (or a 300Kb webcam?)

Do we all aspire to shoot every shot so that it could be blown up to billboard?

Do we all buy cameras so that we can puff out our chests (or bosoms) about their specs?

Many in this thread have put forward their opinion on why X is better than Y (under Z conditions).

I enjoy photography for my own, and I hope, other’s enjoyment. It doesn’t matter if I use a pinhole camera or the latest bank-buster. The image is all that matters, as long as someone enjoys it ... or can use it commercially (if that was the purpose that was taken!) regardless as to the means it was taken and reproduced.

It seems to me that most of you who have contributed to this thread have used (or have exposure to) both digital and film.

Embrace the benefits of either and overcome the deficiencies of both. Keep taking the images and show them to those that are receptive ....

The rest is froth and will blow away in the wind ...... or else with time!

Cheers, Bob
 
Right on, Bob!

Sometimes I want something easy, good enough, and fun: then it's the Aria, TLA280, P50/1.4 and D28/2.8. Easy because I drop the film off at my 1-hr photo, and then read the paper at Peets. Good enough because the final form is 6x4 prints. Fun because... well, if you have to ask about having fun with an Aria, I just pity you.
happy.gif


The DSLR comes out when I mean business. Having film and digital options should be cause for celebration, not divisive diatribe. This is the Golden Age of photography. Grab your camera del giorno, go forth, and shoot!
 
Well said! We are really just spoilt for choice. And the film hold-out's can now pick up superb and suddenly affordable Contax lenses and bodies as they are apparently hastily discarded in the headlong scramble for digital, ......so we all benefit in unforeseen ways .

And in five years or so perhaps we can find 20-plus Mp cameras (with sensors and lenses whose design we can now scarcely imagine) on the most reasonable of terms, as manufacturing costs plummet with dramatically higher volumes.

It seems we should all be celebrating. Our principal pain is the agony of (excessive?) choice. A "Golden Age" indeed.....
 
What a discussion! Right on, Rico. For me, very much an amateur, and someone who often works 8 hours a day in front of a computer screen at my job, it comes down to eye strain. I don't want to come home at night and work a couple more hours on a computer scanning or on Photoshop. I know someone who is semi-retired and is trying to get into digital photography as a second career. For him it's different. I hope to someday learn enough to master digital. Also hope Contax comes out with that new N-mount DSLR and that film dosen't die. We need both.
 
Back
Top