Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I'm Now Using Film!  
User currently offlineHkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2
Posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

I've been using Digital all along (Canon Pro90), but have decided that digital is only good for uploads, and no good for prints. So I've just got myself a very nice EOS300 which I hope will let me have some of my shots printed out without all those funny colours!


See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1199 times:

Congratulations on joining the real world!
Analog forever.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineAps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy


 Big thumbs up


User currently offline5280AGL From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1163 times:

The real world huh? I guess the 85-90%+ of pro's who use digital don't know what they are doing? You can't expect to get the results of a D1, D30 or S1 from using a cheap point and shoot digicam. Anyone who says film results are better than the digital SLR results are either blind or on crack.

User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

I also say welcome to the real world!
Dare refuse digital!
(of course my opinion would change if I could afford one of them expensive digitals  Big grin )


User currently offlineScotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1140 times:

Welcome back

A very good press photographer of my acquaintance said to me the other day that he is always scared that he takes his best ever pic on digital. He works in digital for ease of submitting press pics but is adamant that film and analogue is safely the best for a while yet

Scotty


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1126 times:

Good choice!

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offline5280AGL From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

Oh well, I guess opinions vary. All I can say is compare the image quality from Chris', Garys, Andy's, Aric's, Charles', etc, etc, photos compared to any scanned film, slide or print. Everything, color balance, sharpness, grain (lack of) are superior.

User currently offlineAps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1116 times:

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggghhhhhhhh !


well 5280AGL we are back to the same old story !! its NOT all about the camera you are using but what you do with the final product... you remember all the threads dont you ?

that also why all the best cameras and photographers use film ..
 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Im affraid i still am a big ole film fan..

i also think if you ask Chris etc.. about there rejections they will still have them ... cheers


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1112 times:

5280AGL, Photography isn't only uploading digital photos to a.net, of course digital is the easiest for that purpose, or for the press photographer who wants to send off his photos from the football game to have them published 5 minutes after the game ends.
But there is so much more to photography. And if 90% of the pro's use digital, why aren't there more professional digital cameras on the market?






User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1107 times:

"Everything, color balance, sharpness, grain (lack of) are superior."

I still have my doubts about color.

Luis


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1097 times:

The only Pros who use digital are the Pros who care more about speed than quality.
That means mainly newspaper photographers, and photographers catering mainly to weekly magazines.

Anything with a longer turnaround time, print (and especially slides) is preferred for the far greater quality of the produced image.
The only advantage of digital besides speed is the fact that you don't have to scan the slide/negative, thus removing one more step from the process in which data can be lost. This is more than offset though by the lower amount of data in a file produced by a digital (best current digicams have 5-6 million pixels, a consumer scanner introduced almost 2 years ago has almost 10 million, current ones have over 4 times that).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineCcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good Going now you're one of us now

one of us!
one of us!
one of us!



Now you need 100 speed film and you're ready to go.



"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1073 times:

Hkg_clk:
...digital is only good for uploads...

Yep, that's it.

Good to see somebody is also coming back to the real stuff!  Big thumbs up

Mirage:
I still have my doubts about color

Hmm, aren't the K64's colors (for instance) more realistic than those in "digital films"?

-Joge



Bula!
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1073 times:

I was saying that I have doubts about digital colors being superior to the conventional film.

Luis


User currently offlineGhost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5236 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1073 times:

"Everything, color balance, sharpness, grain (lack of) are superior."

I go with you Luis, all the way!!! Digital colors are irrealistic.

Ricardo  Smile APM




Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 16, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1071 times:

Oh, ok, Luis, sorry.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

-Joge



Bula!
User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1061 times:

What's wrong with these colours?


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Jason Taperell



[wink] to Jason!  Nuts



User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1046 times:

I hope you are using Kodachrome! Thats the best stuff, better with a Nikon to.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

-Dmitry


User currently offlineDSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

Well...Everyone has their own personal preference, but there is no doubt in my mind that digital is superior to any film in almost any application, with the possible exception of night-shots. However, this only applies to the high-end digital SLRs like the D1s, S1, and D30. Scanned slides and negatives just cannot compete with the the quality that digital SLRs produce. The reason is very simple, slides and prints have to go throw a second medium (scanner) in order to reach digital format. So, unless you are using a state-of-the-art drum scanner, you are going to lose a lot of quality during the scanning process. It is very easy to see...Just look at a normal Kodachrome 25 slide projected or under a loupe, then take a look at it scanned into digital format. There is a HUGE difference.

I am sure if some of you staunch film shooters were given a D1H or D30 to shoot with for a day you would change your opinions rather quickly. It changed mine so quickly that I have not even touched a roll of film in almost a year. Not only have the results been amazing, I have also saved a ton of money in processing and film costs.

Aric Thalman
Omaha, NE



To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
User currently offlineJasonm From Australia, joined May 2000, 238 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 999 times:

Hi,

I must say that film has got my vote for now too. It's good to have a hard copy of the image and I can still produce high quality images. I'm not knocking digital at all though...it IS here to stay.

As for 'fast image turnaround' my shot of 'Yananyi Dreaming' was the first to be uploaded to the database recently from film scans and I still beat the digital guys to it!  Big thumbs up

Regards,
Jason Milligan
Melbourne Australia


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 934 times:

I'm certainly converted to the merits of digital for many purposes, but I don't think it replaces film as yet.

Within it's resolution limits, and based on an output resolution of 300dpi (best most "consumer" level output devices can do, standard for publication), the digital output appears better in most cases.

However, it is important to realise that with most digicams, we are only now reaching this output standrad with reasonable print sizes, whereas in the case of, say, a carefully exposed K25 slide, the latent resolution is much much higher ... most output forms are actually unable to reproduce the resolution and sharpness inherent in the slide.

Furthermore there is a fundamental difference between the digital and analogue process when it comes to enlargement. After reaching the available resolution of a digital image, further enlargement is only possible by "inventing" data. A slide, of course, can be scaled up endlessly with no invented data (though there are other limiting factors). Which is better at this level, is I think a matter of taste, as the processing method begins to have an effect on the "look" of the final image.

For instance, comparing a Reala portrait (scanned at 4000dpi) to a D30 portrait, I prefer the D30 output up to an interpolated 300dpi A4 size image - beyond A4 size, the film output is preferable, as the edges start to become too soft on the D30 file and out of focus areas start to develop a sort of halo effect.

At some point, though digital will surpass the latent resolution on any film. I think many experts beleive this would happen at around 12mp - assuming of course that the sensor is noise free.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineFredrik Hjort From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 891 times:

DSMav8r,

...digital is superior to any film in almost any application...

I presume you are only talking about 35mm since digital in no way is superior to pro-photography!? For the newspapers yes, but with what equipment do you think all hq photos in some magazines, commercials etc. are shot? Not with a D1 for sure... Pro-photographers in fashion, advertisement etc. or special photography use at least medium format photography or even large format photography.
Besides, those images are scanned for printing.

So yes, a hq digital SLR produces very good results for digital publishing, but right now (and for some time I think) they can't compete with my medium format negatives (not with my hq 35mm negatives/slides either). Digital right now is quite bound to digital publishing...

/Fredrik


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Using Vuescan Again-need Help With Slides Now. posted Sat May 31 2003 03:04:56 by CcrlR
Who's Using Digital And Film posted Mon Oct 28 2002 21:27:45 by Andyhunt
Using New Film - Here Are The Pics! posted Fri Jun 29 2001 20:42:32 by Sonic99
I'm An A.net A380 Photographer Now! posted Tue Jan 20 2009 14:54:50 by Varig767
Canon Raw Processing Using PS3 posted Sat Nov 22 2008 09:45:54 by Rtl
Self-Gloss: I'm An A-net Photographer Now! posted Mon Nov 17 2008 15:16:24 by UltimateDelta
Anyone Using A Sigma 10-20 On Their D300? posted Fri Nov 7 2008 09:26:27 by Damien846
MIA Photogs: Nato B707-300 On The Way To MIA Now posted Fri Sep 12 2008 05:15:33 by EDDL
Anyone Using Abobe Lightroom? Whats Your Workflow? posted Tue Sep 2 2008 03:07:09 by Samuel32
Can You Convert Film Prints To Digital Images posted Fri Jul 18 2008 21:33:50 by 76794p