Hkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1212 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
5280AGL From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 414 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1042 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.
Scotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1019 times:
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
5280AGL From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 414 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1004 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.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 991 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?
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 976 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).
DSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 883 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.
To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 813 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.
Fredrik Hjort From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 770 times:
...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...