File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I'm getting into photography. What's the current argument on Digital vs. Film? Aren't digital cameras good enough to surpass the quality of Film Cameras now?
>> Anonymous
>>29268
They're not. They also promote bad habits, and are milion times less fun to play with than film.

Seriously, unless you can afford a super-ultra-top-pro model, you'll be way better off with a $75 mechanical SLR than with one of the (relatively) cheapo dSLRs every wannabes seem to get these days.

Digicams are fine for family snapshots and such, but for that get some PowerShot or equivalent. "Consumer" dSLRs are nothing but marketing gimmick and huge, HUGE rip-off for what they offer.
>> Anonymous
>>29269
In that case, I will go mechanical. I'll check out some mechincal SLRs. I can understand how digital promotes bad habits, but how is mechanical superior to digital in the technical aspects? Because of the lens? the focusing?

I took photo in high school, so I remember bits and pieces of how to develop film. I really do plan to get serious with photography. I've got the money and the time to do so. Should I consider developing my own film? I just to buy the chemicals and a darkroom light, I can convert a bathroom to a darkroom, can't I? If I want to get serious, is this considered a neccessity? I assume so, since developing your work is the other half of your labor- having a store develop your film isn't your work.
>> Stan Lee Bitches
I can tell from your post that you are not one of the digital photographers. You know, there are a lot of really cool things you can do with photography, and limiting yourself with film is sad. If you look back to the past you see that as new forms of photography appeared, people embraced it. If you love the art, you should go with the times or just be left behind.
And that was my bias post towards digital. Film is limited and even a 10mp camera can produce the same quality that a 35mm camera can if you know what you are doing.
OH and in response to that 'lazy' pot shoot, you only become lazy if don't take your time. I remember taking 3 or 4 polorids before i was ready to shoot still life. With digital i preview anything i shoot. I can also experiment with digital far easier and cheaper then with film because it cost nothing to shoot digital.
Sorry for the rant. Just wanted the defend us digital photographers out there who hate this elitist bs filmies spout all day long. Slowly they die out though HAHAHAHAH....sry for that. lol
>> anonononymous
I started digital but now I shoot with film most of the time. It's more satisfying to shoot film than digital, but I feel that in the end it doesn't matter what you shoot with. All that matters is the end result, which is the picture itself. Get the basics down first, exposure, shutter speed, depth of field, ISOs, etc. Than decide what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot it (digital vs. film).
>> Photo Newbie
OP here. Nice to see other points of view.

Are there any 'must-read' books or websites for beginners? I know getting out on the field and taking pictures for experience is important. But I've been doing that for awhile now. And I don't feel any different from all the trendy MySpace teens taking pictures 10 times a day. I'm convinced that in order to further develop my photography skills, there should be something I need to be studying.
>> Stan Lee Bitches
>>29274
Thank you for stating what I was too excited to say. It is true, very true to have good pratices and to understand the basics.
>> Stan Lee Bitches
>>29275
The best thing to do is shoot for contests, join clubs to get feedback, and just plain shoot till you drop(But make sure you are shooting with some sort of reason, with a little thought)I have found that working with local professionals helps lots, and they are always willing to let you help for free!
>> Photo Newbie
>>29277
My main reason for photography is my poor memory. Things I remember from the past are always bits and pieces. And I don't just mean important events, but random things. For example, I saw some birds in this marsh-like grass patch. It was really beautiful, and I wished I had my camera to take a picture of it. I wanted to tell my friends how pretty it was, but no words could have explained it. It would have been a waste of time. A photo of it would have done the job.

Maybe this seems like a really stupid and unprofessional reason to get serious with photo, but I can't say there is any other reason.
>> Anonymous
>>29272
In purely technical aspect, mechanical bodies are superior to digital bodies in this that they just work, oftentimes even without batteries. If you're serious about photography (and you indeed seem to be), you will be doing most of your work if full manual mode anyway. All bells and whistles are just making the equipment more prone to failure. Also, those modern plastic-fantastic bodies feel like they're about to crumble if you grab them a bit more tightly, though that's more of a personal preference.

There are good and bad lenses for both, so that doesn't matter in this case. Focusing also varies from model to model in both - you'll be thankful if you get yourself a body with a nice, big, and bright focusing screen.

As for developing your own films, go for it! You will never get this feeling of satisfaction downloading stuff from a memory card and tweaking the knobs in photochop. With digital, you will also never get the possibilities different developers/dilutions/developing times/developer and film combinations give you. Mr "don't limit yourself with film" really needs to get his facts straight in this matter.

Just for the record, your bathroom will do just fine for developing films, and you must NOT use a darkroom safelight when loading films into the tank. Unless you have an orthochromatic film (not sensitive to red), but that's unlikely at the beginning. Once you have the film in the tank, you do the rest in normal light. Doing your own prints is a different story, though.

http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/toc.html is a great site to start with all the stuff.

Oh, and a propos 10 megapixels - although it's not really comparable, that's what you get from about 1/5 of a 35mm frame of ISO 100 film. You're welcome to do your maths. :-)
>> Anonymous
>>29278
This is a great reason to get serious with photography! I wish you all the best with that. If you're passionate, you will learn how to capture the image you see the way you want in no time. :-)
>> Camera recommendation anonononymous
My favorite camera by far is the Yashica D. It's a medium format (120mm), manual camera(fully mechanical, no battery). It's a great camera and it's not very expensive. I bought this one for about $60.
>> Photo Newbie
>>29279
Thanks for the help and the link! Also, err... I didn't understand the 10 megapixels sentence : /

>>29280
Thank you : )

>>29282
I just looked up the Yashica-D on camerapedia.org. Looks like there is not flash on it? So this is a camera for studio-type shots?
>> Photo Newbie
>>29290
Whoops, I need to learn how to read. There is flash.
>> Anonymous
>>29279

ahaha. "photochop" is just as powerful and as capable as "devlopers, films, timing, etc"; however, they're 2 different mediums that can provide you with 2 different expierences. I shoot digital and i shoot film. Both give me the same satisfaction, but they can give me very different results, both of which are grandure and timeless.

so, try not to listen to the "film heads" or the "photochop screw offs" try both mediums and see what you like.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>29269
Its funny cause I have a DSLR and I tried to find a cheapo mechanical SLR (Nikon) to use for black and white while I used my D50 for all my paid work at the Motocross Tracks and whatnot. (Taking between 200 and 500 pictures a day EACH day at the track would be RIDICULOUSLY expensive on film, Even If I cut back on the pictures (and then therefore missed some good shots))

But couldn't find a fully manual Nikon camera for under 275$ CAD, ANYWHERE. EVEN on Ebay all i could find was the EM (which is Auto and bulb).

So untill i find one at a garage sale or something i'm sticking with my D50. Which is at least making me some of my money back.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsFocal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern818Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:10:11 19:50:39RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityExposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width920Image Height1310
>> Anonymous
>>29290
The 10 megapixels sentence meant that film offers way, way higher possible resolution than typical consumer dSLR. In practice, the resolution of photographs you take on film is limited mainly by the lens. But with an average, non-crappy lens, the equivalent of 25MP is very realistic. The numbers get respectively higher with medium format cameras (same film stock, bigger frame size), which, as>>29282said, are almost as accessible as 135 ones (and worth trying). BTW, using a built-in flash is usually not the best idea.

>>29292
The difference is, with film you can do 90% of equivalent Photoshop adjustments (that are not adding more lensflare) manually under the enlarger with almost equal ease. Or you can scan the film and then play with it in PS to your heart's content. Good luck getting your digital shots transferred to film at comparable cost and quality. And even if you do, this won't let you recreate the wide tonal range that digital sensors are still not able to capture.

>>29301
That kind of events is one area where digital comes in handy for amateur photography. At the expense of lower quality, though.

Did the manual camera you were looking for had to be a Nikon, and why? There are some very cool Pentax models in that range.
>> oh lawd des
>>29275
The venerable time life series of photography books are good and most libraries have them
>>29301
There are all kinds of nikons on ebay.ca for that and below. I'd really suggest something like an n8008s, it's a great little bridge camera, but I've done sports photography with an FE/MD12.

Film is cheap as chips, load your own and develop your own. The only reason film isn't "cheap" anymore is because digital is "free".
>> Anonymous
a 4x5 shot is equivalent to about 2000 megapixels, i would say digital is better for beginners as it is cheaper and allows more mistakes, BUT film is the only way to go beyound 35mm. compare any 4x5 or 8x10 shot to basically any digital camera on the market
>> Anonymous
>>29329
i have a nikon 8008, its an excellent 35mm slr, i mainly stick with my medium and large formats now though
>> Anonymous
>>29333
> compare any 4x5 or 8x10 shot to basically any digital camera on the market
I did. Couldn't say which one was film and which was digital.
>> Anonymous
>>29333
>>a 4x5 shot is equivalent to about 2000 megapixels

Are you talking 4x5 inches or 4x5 feet?
If you're talking inches, i'd like you to tell me when i can find a 100,000,000 DPI printer to print off that "film equivalent" digital image.
>> Anonymous
>>29327
I need a Nikon SLR, to match up with my current D50 lens's (50mm f1.8, and 28mm f2.8).

I don't know why everyone says film is so cheap, Every 36 shots you spend at least $4 on film, and then another like $6 on developing.

I don't have a darkroom and don't know the relative developing costs, but i'm assuming buying all the equipment to do it would probably set you back quite a bit.
>> Anonymous
>>29340I need a Nikon SLR, to match up with my current D50 lens's (50mm f1.8, and 28mm f2.8).
It's generally not a good idea to use lenses from digital on analog cameras, and vice versa (unless the digital cam has a full size sensor).

>I don't know why everyone says film is so cheap, Every 36 shots you spend at least $4 on film, and then another like $6 on developing.
40-42 shots if you load in darkroom. :P $4 is what you pay for a roll of film if you buy one in retail. Buy 10 at time from a wholesaler, and you're down to $2.50, buy a 30.5 m /100 ft (about 21 loads of 40 frames) spool and you're down to $0.50-1 depending on film.

>I don't have a darkroom and don't know the relative developing costs, but i'm assuming buying all the equipment to do it would probably set you back quite a bit.
Around here developing is $1-1.50 for C-41, and $2.50-3 for B&W. From what I rougly calculated a while ago, you start saving on B&W developing after about 15 rolls.

Also, being in control of developing process and being sure your film won't get scratched to hell by a moron lab guy - priceless.
>> ??????? !KEBab7wem6
>>29341It's generally not a good idea to use lenses from digital on analog cameras, and vice versa (unless the digital cam has a full size sensor).

Or unless, you're fine with the FOV crop.
>> Anonymous
>>29341lenses from digital
Are you talking about Nikon DX? Because those are the only lenses for digital that I know.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>29343
No, I was talking about the general rule. I don't know about specific Nikon lenses.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S500Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size7.41 - 22.22 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Owner NameDavid Craig 952-934-2835Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2005:07:22 16:26:55Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/7.1Lens Aperturef/7.1Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length7.41 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2592Image Height1944RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeFull AutoImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeAutoCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance65.530 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed128Image Number138-3879
>> Anonymous
>>29268
Sorry, but this is a silly question. It's like asking, "I'm going to build a house. Should I use a hammer or a screwdriver?" Different tools get the job done differently. That's been true since... forever, and is still true now.

Film has been around a very long time. In addition to all the tricks that have been discovered, film is an analogue process. To a degree, what you see is what you get.

Digital is very convenient, but very new and untested. There are things that are easier to do with digital that would be hard(er) with film. I shoot most of my stuff for my website; getting everything on film first and then onto the web would be very time and finance consuming. Of course, if I were looking to get a gallery set up in my study, film prints would probably do a better job.

Photoshop lets you do many things you can do with film. It also lets you do things you can't do with film. Film has a better "resolution" than digital, but requires additional equipment that you probably don't have yet.

Somebody already said it. It's not the format you use that matters, it's the results. The finer points will matter if you're aiming for the last 2% you want to squeeze out of your photos. For anybody who's beginning, the difference is unimportant. You need to learn about composition and such first.

So, I'd say start digital. It may not offer the same options as film, but if you cared about those differences you wouldn't be asking. You can fool around all kinds of ways with digital while you learn about taking photos. If then later on you decide to try film, you'll know exactly how/if it better suits your needs.
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
>>29269

Are you smoking crack? Current "prosumer" dSLRs like the XTi and D50/70 are better than professional SLRs of just 2 years ago. They're weak only in terms of autofocus systems and weather sealing. Million times less fun to play with? I play with my dSLR more than I ever did with film; there's no per-shot cost and instant feedback.

>>29272

Digital gives you more feedback because you can look at the images on a computer in minutes, not hours/days/weeks. There's EXIF data embedded for you to remember exactly what you did, and they're not "fixed" by some lab monkey. You either take the time to put effort into proper composition, or you don't- digital might influence you a little since there's no "penalty", but shooting more will make up for it, and pros advise that beginners are too shutter-shy.

The only real advantage film SLR bodies offer over digital these days is fancier bodies for cheaper prices; ie, you can pick up a pro film SLR with full seals and 45-point AF for less than a new dSLR. The viewfinder will also generally be larger/better. UI is poorer though; film SLRs don't have a nice big LCD to display menus on.

>>29279

I don't know of many bodies made in the last 20 years save the K1000 that work without a battery (work= metered+exposed.) Even my old OM-1 requires a (no longer available) watch cell.

>>29327

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html You'll note that even the 3+ year old, 6MP 10D is better than film above ISO200. Film's resolution drops dramatically because the grain gets larger; digital just gets noisier, and not by much, especially with the 8+10MP sensors from Canon. Fuji's SCCD is also excellent.

I'm sorry you didn't get the memo- digital surpassed film long ago. Better dynamic range & resolution, instant review/transmission/backup, no temperature compensation, no film breakage/sticking, it can be instantly backed up, and greater per-roll(card) capacity.
>> Photo Newbie
>>29360
I've decided to go digital. I definitely have the interest in photography, but I am a beginner. Digital seems it will be more forgiving to me on both time and cost. Once I learn the basics with digital, then I will shop around for mechanical cameras.

Now the next question. Where is the best place to shop for a digital camera? Will retail stores try to rip me off and sell me a gimmicky digital camera? Should I use eBay? Or are there a few online shops I should check out?
>> Stan Lee Bitches
>>29366
Thank you brother!
>> Stan Lee Bitches
>>29376
If you know what you are looking for then try ebay. If not go to www.shutterbug.com, read the reviews on new cameras, and pick the model you want. I go to Best Buy to test out new cameras first, then I go to newegg, pricegrabber, or even pricewatch to buy. Ebay kinda scares me, it is like the legal black market lol
>> Anonymous
>>29376

if you're a student try a local camera store. they usually give discounts and have the most competitive prices.
>> Anonymous
>>29366UI is poorer though; film SLRs don't have a nice big LCD to display menus on.
I thought you were simply very wrong and even intended to give some reply until I read this. You're either a troll, or misinformed beyond any help (to put it mildly). In either case, please go away.

But thanks for a good laugh.

>>29376
Well, your choice. Although it is counter-intuitive. You usually learn the basics with a more basic and cheaper equipment, not the other way round. It's also better to burn $50 than $500 if you're going to discover photography is not your thing after all.

What do you mean by basics, anyway? Exposure, DoF, and stuff? If you're smart and do your reading beforehand, you'll have the full graps of it after the first batch of photos. Composition? Shoot 4-5 rolls keeping to the rule of thirds, analyze your work after each, and you will be on track.

That's about the basics. Learning them is not a matter of trial and error, but conscious thinking. Digital camera won't save you a fortune here. And by that time, if you're serious about serious photography, you will know that all you need is a light-tight box with a shutter and lens, and preferably a spot lightmeter. There are things in cameras that increase convenience and are nice to have, but there are also useless "features" that only make the bodies more expensive and fragile, and are there only so the marketoids can come up with new slogans to sell stuff to naive/ignorant/snobistic users. The thing with dSLRs is that they're like 3% of the former, and 97% of the latter. Think about it.
>> Anonymous
>>29384

I'm sorry, it's hard to listen to your argument when you keep pointing out that people who buy dSLR are idiots.
>> des
>>29385
most are.
most people that buy any type of SLR are idiots.
This is 4chan, we're ALL idiots.

>>29384
He is right, you're being more than a little condescending.

My faygot take:
almost every non-flagship DSLR (10-30 years ago film SLR) purchase is for toy and/or epenis get usage. As soon as the next revision comes out, that will be purchased OR the person who wanted the shiney will have since moved on to the next distraction.

The best camera is the one that's in your hand.
>> Anonymous
>>29385
>>29387
I fail at that assertiveness thing, sorry. :3 Then again, we indeed are on 4chan here.

I'm not saying digital doesn't have its merits. I'm not saying people who buy dSLRs are idiots, either. Although those who claim digital equals or surpass analog most definitely are.

For me, photography by definition and in its own heart consists of capturing the image on film, and then developing it. OP seems to be serious about photography, not just snapping pictures, so I'm defending my point. Generating pixels is a poor substitute of what photography is for me.

To draw a 4chan worthy parallel, doing digital is like doing a sex doll. Perhaps modern top-shelf models come somewhat closer to a RealDoll than a blow-up one, but they're still far from what the real thing is. That's all.
>> Anonymous
>>29389

Yeah, but a real doll doesn't nag all the time :D.

See, I work with both digital and film all the time, hell, I'm taking a course that use view camera while I love my 350D, because the 350D can do what I want to do. The thing is with photography is that a good photograph doesn't have be from anything special, it doesn't have to be from film. It can be from a digital source. Like it or not, the industry is moving towards the digital age.

I know it's fun and very rewarding to see the photo appearing on photo paper when you dunk it in the developer, but gosh darn it, I can't stand the smell of fixers.
>> Photo Newbie
I've found this website:http://www.geometer.org/beginner/lenses.html
Very helpful for the beginner I am. Here are tips I've picked up:

- Canon and Nikon are the top names, but I can save a few bucks for the lesser-big names like Minolta, Olympia, etc

- Lenses are more important that camera body. I can spend $1000+ on a nice dLSR, but if I don't have good lenses, my pictures are no good.

- Flash is bad! Drains your batteries and it often ruins pictures. (but what if I'm taking pictures outdoors at night?)

Still reading..
>> Photo Newbie
Shutterbug.com is very useful. I'm reading all the reviews for Ameteur dLSRs. Pentax *ist is lookin' pretty nice so far...
>> ??????? !KEBab7wem6
>>29391

They are big names for a reason, though. I think the strongest point Canon & Nikon has, is their lens backup for their bodies. Flash isn't bad though - it's the camera's built-in flash that's *bad*.
>> ??????? !KEBab7wem6
>>29366UI is poorer though; film SLRs don't have a nice big LCD to display menus on.

This is what the Counter Strike Interwebz-generation is all about.
>> Anonymous
>>29384
Frankly, it took me well over 1000 shots to realy understand the basics. Doing that with film would not have been an option for me. In addition to the cost, I can easily take 1000 shots in a weekend with a digital. Using film, I'd have to be lugging around rolls and rolls of film.

This debate really comes down to what people are used to. I'd love to try some film shooting to see the difference, but (a) it would still be impractical for my regular work and (b) I doubt I'd really care much about the difference. And even if I did care (or notice), it might not be worth the hassle.

I gots plenty of respect for everybody who shoots film, but it's not the only way to go. This actually seems just like the megapixel debate that shows up here from time to time. All the best film or sensors or lenses will still turn out crappy photos if you don't take photos of interesting things.

If you're more worried about the technical aspects of creating a photo than the photo itself, you fail regardless of what you shoot with.
>> thefamilyman
     File :-(, x)
i agree on the fact that digital creats lazy photographers.

i'm not saying that digital is bad, i still use my D70 more often than my F5, but when using film, you can truely appreciate the art of photography.

There is a different feeling from just snapping shots with a digital and planning every careful shot with film, and the results are satasfying when you can look at your prints from film.

i say, digital is great for everyday shots etc, but if you want to capture a momnet, nothing can beat film (unless your just a lazy photographer.)

the down side to film is, if your going to it, its best to go all out on it, like spending the money on decent film, like Fuji NPH400 or Fuji Velvia 50 or Kodak Ektachrome E100 series, and taking it to a decent lap. but pro films aren't as forgiving as consumer films.

there is just some special feeling wile holding the trans. and looking and the amazing colours
>> des
>>29389
>>I'm not saying people who buy dSLRs are idiots, either. Although those who claim digital equals or surpass analog most definitely are.

Of course, and so are those who claim film equals or surpasses digital.
There's no better, just different.
Find a workflow that works FOR YOU(vous not tu), your truths are not anyone else's. If you find a look or style you like, that you can afford~, then use it. Everything else is fuck all.
You can be a measurebator or you can be a photographer.
>> Anonymous
>>29411There is a different feeling from just snapping shots with a digital and planning every careful shot with film, and the results are satasfying when you can look at your prints from film.

And why can't one carefully plan out shots with digital? I assure you there are a lot of people just taking snapshots with film.

I at least can't tell the difference between a film print and a digital print. They both look very nice to me, provided it's a nice photo. A snapshot is just a snapshot regardless of how it's shot.
>> Stan Lee Bitches
>>29411
You noob. What stops you from planing every shot with your digital?? You do! Just try and not make your digital an excuse for lazy shooting.
>> Anonymous
>>All the best film or sensors or lenses will still turn out crappy photos if you don't take photos of interesting things.

agreed.

>>29423

this also makes sense but i have to say that with the nature of digital most ppl will shoot more. the only reason that there is a comparison is because ther is one to be made.
>> Anonymous
ok now that you guys have all blown your top about equiptment do any of you consider context?

why are you taking pictures? Seeing something you think looks nice and simply taking a picture of it, not matter how good, will never make a great picture.
>> des
>>29426
>>why are you taking pictures?
because I can't not
Not sure why that is; to practice lying, I suppose.
>> Anonymous
>>29415I at least can't tell the difference between a film print and a digital print.
Try comparing prints bigger than 9x13 cm (with the film print being actually analog, not scanned+digitally printed). Or try comparing image projected on a big screen from even a 135 transparency with one from a digital shot projected with an 800x600 digital overhead projector.

>>29426
Hard to say. Because I want to capture things the way I see. Or show things in specific context, or opposite, out of their context, to make some sort of a statement, or point something out. Or enhance or modify the scene to my liking via photographic means, because, to my disappointment, I couldn't draw or paint to save my life (see what painters though about photography back when it was a novelty). Or, on the other hand, to most accurately capture a visually stunning scene.

Ultimately, guess because I want to share all these aesthetic pleasures with other people.
>> Photo Newbie
If built-in camera flash is bad, what should I be using for flash? Should I just not be using flash?
>> Anonymous
>>29432
Try not to use flash and just use the available light. That's why people go nuts for those low f/numbered lenses. Those can take pictures under really low light condition.

It's all about how it represents an image as you see it, i.e. your eyes doesn't have flash etc.
>> des
>>29432
There's nothing necessarily wrong with on-camera flash, but using any type of flash system is going to be more complex and require more experience to use with consistancy.
If you're not already comfortable with your camera system in availible light, you don't want to add confusion with flashes.

You've got a multitude of variables in availible light, don't add more to the mix until you feel you're ready.
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
>>29438

People go nuts over "Fast" lenses because they also can yield very dramatic depth of field.

>>29384

I'm not "wrong". Sophisticated dSLR bodies have the main LCD to display neatly organized menus with all the various settings. For example- mirror lock-up. Hand a dSLR to someone and ask them to turn it on. They'll find it after messing around in the menus for a minute or two. Hand them a pro film SLR and ask them to turn on mirror lock up. They'll never figure it out, because it'll require some exotic combination of button-presses. Oh, and you didn't address any of my arguments except a stupid ad-hominem attack. Did you even look at the URL I posted, where the guy gives a clear chart showing resolution+ISO for film and various (several year old) digital cameras?

>>29385

Exactly. He/she is the only person I've heard even TRY to assert film is still better than digital. People had trouble making that argument 3 years ago.

Pop quiz: if film is so much better, why is it that fashion/event/wedding/sports/studio photographers and photojournalists all shoot digital and have for years? Why is it that people spend +$20K for a digital back for their medium or large format camera? Why is it that virtually nobody sells film SLRs anymore, and Polaroid's film sales disappeared and they desperately tried to save themselves by switching to the digital camera market? Why is it that the dSLR market is fiercely competitive and exploding in growth?
>> Anonymous
>>29464why is it that fashion/event/wedding/sports/studio photographers and photojournalists all shoot digital and have for years?
Well, not everyone, some still prefer film.

http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803
>> Anonymous
>>29464


Well make that 25"x25" enlargement from your digital ones without pixelation, thx.
>> Anonymous
>>29470
In all fairness, wouldn't a 25"x25" enlargement from a 35mm film also show some effects? And hence the utility of medium format cameras?
>> Anonymous
>>29465
"One last thought on the film vs. digital debate: If you’re planning to switch to a digital camera soon, don’t give up on film just yet. Remember always to back up your digital photographs on film."

WTF, I think thats a typo

But ya I agree with the magazine there, Medium format camera's make waay better large prints. Just medium format camera's aren't very convenient or affordable.
>> Anonymous
>>29477

of course, even with a really low ISO (like 50 or less), there's bound to be grains.

Of course, we're so used to them that it doesn't bother anybody anymore.
>> thefamilyman
>>29495
not affordable? i dissagre, but convenient, lol yeah, nothing like a P&S camera.

but a nice little kodalux exposure meter makes things a hell of a lot easier for me.
>> des
>>29495
Not really. I know more than a few people that have slides made from their important digitally captured images.
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
>>29470

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

My 10D has better resolution than film at 200ISO and above. Sorry.

PS:I've done 18x20 enlargements of cropped images. Looked fine. Most people sharpen to what looks good on their screen, and are then astounded when it looks "pixelated" in a big print.
>> Anonymous
>>29464
Sorry, I'm not going to get myself dragged into this "dSLRs have LCD screens, so they are clearly superior" argument. This is one of the dumbest, if not THE dumbest, things ever said on /p/.

>Did you even look at the URL I posted, where the guy gives a clear chart showing resolution+ISO for film and various (several year old) digital cameras?
I did, it's quite interesting. However, it's only one unverified source, and the results are different from my personal observations (see somewhere below).

>Pop quiz: if film is so much better, why is it that fashion/event/wedding/sports/studio photographers and photojournalists all shoot digital and have for years?
Not all. Those who know their stuff, and are worth their price, shoot on film for good reasons. Ask aroud, preferably not in your local digital camera club. The Arizona Highways link explains it quite well, though there's more to it. The only redeeming feature of digital is convenience (for specific purposes), if you're willing to sacrifice quality.

>Why is it that people spend +$20K for a digital back for their medium or large format camera?
We're discussing 135 format here, aren't we? I didn't see any (full size) shot from a medium/large digital back, but I don't see how they're not limited in the same way as the smaller sensors are (proportionally to their film equivalents).

>Why is it that virtually nobody sells film SLRs anymore, and Polaroid's film sales disappeared and they desperately tried to save themselves by switching to the digital camera market? Why is it that the dSLR market is fiercely competitive and exploding in growth?
Because demand from a mass consumer says anything about the quality? What are you doing shooting with your dSLR then? dSLR is so niche compared to compact, or even mobile phone cameras. Eat shit, billions of flies cannot be wrong.
>> Anonymous
Field too long, lol.

>>29477In all fairness, wouldn't a 25"x25" enlargement from a 35mm film also show some effects?
It would. However, it's natural, and often even desireable for artistic purposes. While digital mosaic of one-colour rectangles is what you see in Japanese porn and wish to go away.

>>29538My 10D has better resolution than film at 200ISO and above. Sorry.
I'm scanning my films at 4000 dpi (roughly 20.5 to 21 MP). With ISO 200 (and not exactly fine-grained) films there often still are details that could be obtained with higher resolution. Sorry.
>> >>29412 des
Why is this still on the front page?
I love the failed oneupsmanship in this thread. I'm glad that it's been mostly civil but it's getting a little silly at this point.
>> ?00 !XBOXgikTFw
>>29495
>Even if you have already made the move to digital, consider that today’s best cameras record digital files at a little more than 11 megapixels. But what if, in the near future, the standard moves up to 20 megapixels or higher? If you have backup on film, you can scan your images at a higher resolution. But will your old 11-megapixel files be convertible? We don’t know for sure.

What?
>> ??????? !KEBab7wem6
What I think is ironic, that the best camera body I've used so far is the Canon EOS-3, film body, which is made back in the early 90's (1993 IIRC). It's got some features that I'm seriously missing from *any* digital body, with the 45-point eye controller autofocus being the biggest.

It also has three buttons that you use to cycle through the different mode, the same way that the 1D(s)-bodies work. Just wonderful, and you don't need a huge LCD to know which mode you shoot in.
>> Anonymous
hi guys, here is how i see it. both are great but at the moment im more interested in quality rather than how many shots i can bust out and then pick the best.

at the moment it means i use film BUT i do belive that in the future digital will all but destroy film cameras for quality. all camera manufacturers pump so much into development that its bound to happen.

But at least you can say this about film, if you own a decent film camera it will always be a decent film camera. These digital slrs ppl are all buying wont be worth shit in a few years time.

im just having a rant. ill stop......now.
>> des
>>29574
My favourite command/viewfinder layout is the old nikon FE-2.
There was an old vapourware jobber that claimed to be a near-universal "digital film" device. Stick in your favourite slr and boop, digital camera. It'd be nice if someone did something similar. I certainly can't afford, and I'm not sure that I would want, one of those digital leicas. There IS a digital "back" for the N90s which I'm not unfond of but it's operation is a little unweildy. They are cheap as chips now though. I suppose I could sell a kidney and get an MF digital back but that's rather silly.

Nikon, if you're listening, we need a DSLR modeled after the FE/FM <3
>> des
>>29580
>>...destroy film cameras for quality.
very subjective term.
Virtual analogue synthesizers are "better" than their obsolete grandparents in almost every way. No tuning, no drifting (unless programmed to do so), instant saving and recall of patches, usually polyphonic, usually multitimbral, muchmuch lower noise output, lighter, more reliable, etc. Which is better or more desireable to use in a musical context? It's a stylistic choice.
Which is better or more desireable to use in an artistic context? Film or digital? It's a stylistic choice. I, also, have said my piece on that.
This, however:
>>These digital slrs ppl are all buying wont be worth shit in a few years time.
Define worth. Money? Yes, I agree.
As a useful tool? Of course not. As long as the body is in good repair and can still properly record an exposure, it's useful.
>> Anonymous
>>29592As long as the body is in good repair and can still properly record an exposure, it's useful.
Electronic parts, especially sensors, have limited life. And spare parts won't be available forever, partly because they won't be profitable to produce, and partly because of marketing plots (buy a new camera, even though you were completely satisfied with your old one). Of course, mechanical parts in film SLRs do wear out as well. But somehow I doubt that in 30 years we will be seeing any of today's dSLRs in perfect working condition AND taking pictures no different from latest models.
>> des
>>29597
I agree, though, he said "a few years time". Maybe I was too conservative with my value of few.
>> ??????? !KEBab7wem6
>>29584

Same thing with the Canon one - there isn't a digital back for it, I'd love to try it out. It's such a wonderful body.

Biggest problem I have now is to get used to using the 7-point AF in the 350D, when used to the eye-controlled area AF in the 3. :x
>> Billy
     File :-(, x)
I love to see this debate I have both and use both digital and good old film I have a 10D and an EOS 66 both are great cameras I usualy double up on my shots things I learn on my digital I incorporate in to my film so I am spending less. I am not going to argue which on is better because I believe they are the same both have great qualities. as far as a website to learn from for digital photography if you really want to get in depth: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

that is the best website I have seen as far as learning photography. as for places to buy as far as second hand which is how I got my 10D for $400 check craigslist but if you want to buy new www.bhphotovideo.com b and h have been around for decades they are your one stop source from cameras printers even enlargers and chemicals they have it all. for editing software Adobe is coming out with Lightroom here at the begining of the year and I am doing the open beta there is no better tool for editing digital photos with a film mentality all of my photos are done through that program.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DPhotographerunknownImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:07:25 14:19:42Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/10.0Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>29754

the very thing that is holding digital back is the camera companies trying to make them function like film cameras.

they dont need to look and or function like they do at the moment. canon or nikon need to break this habbit.
>> Anonymous
>>29598

yeah,>>29597really made my point alot more clear. it really puts me off spending a fuck load of money on digital equiptment as i know that both in terms of value and build quality it wont last up. i would rather spend 2000 on a film system that i know will be solid for 20 years rather than the same amount on a canon dslr that will be replaced with a "better" one 6 months later.

i think digi just needs to level out to a point where i can feel confident in what i pay for. if i had unlimited money i wouldnt care and i would buy every camera under the sun.
>> des
     File :-(, x)
>>29770
eh, film cameras have a century of UI concepts; failed and successful implementations. While I agree new ideas are always good, it'd be foolish to throw that innovation and research out the window.
For an SLR concept, I'm not sure there's anywhere to go from where we are now save smaller and lighter designs. We're already seeing the only other concept I can suss, personally, which is simply a lens with its sensor and electronics fashoined to the rear. That sony cybershot jobber.
<--this is my favourite of the new style camera. Unfortunately, nikon stopped caring about making it a more than usable point and shoot after the 995. It's been getting worse with every revision. :/

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelP 25Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:09:01 09:28:05ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1600Image Height2151
>> Jal
I like digitalcameras becouse you can se the result directly and then just adjust ór try diffrent things to make it better. I dont like that most system digital cameras cant show the image on the little monitor all the time.

But Id still say taking pictures with a digital camera is soooo mutch easyer that it totaly ways out any other side effects thay have!
>> HIPPY FAGGOTRY AHEAD. des
>>29783
They do show the image in the viewfinder all the time ;)
You've got your eyes, your meter and your mind. Feel it inside before you see it outside.