 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / January 2004Thoughts on going digital
Well, I've been digital for a couple of months now (not me, you understand, but my camera) and I thought I'd share my thoughts... I had an aborted attempt to become a digital bod a year or so back, with a Fuji Finepix. We fell out due to Shutter lag (the time between pressing the button and the photograph being taken) I would strongly urge anybody looking at going digital to look into this carefully; reviews tend to hardly mention it, if at all. The plus points: 1. Love it to bits, I always have my camera with me now 2. As the cost of shooting is zero, I take a lot of photos; if I'm at a low shutter speed, I'll take a few, knowing that one is likely to be sharp. 3. Changing film speed between shots is superb, I particularly like shooting without flash in low light. 4. Seeing the shots just after taking them is great. The minus points: 1. Erm, love it, I always have my camera with me (The "camera widow" with whom I live is rather less keen on this) 2. It is much harder to assess and reject shots on the computer screen then with prints 3. For those Killer Shots, I know that they will never blow up as well as 35mm 4. I have far more photos to process, and I spend hours at the computer playing at darkrooms. Conclusion - I love it to bits. I know that I will feel cheated in a year's time whan my camera is a technological doorstop, but I would reccommend transferring to the whole concept.  Signature-Nick G ** Vidi Vici Veni ** <Snipped> Apologies, blame the wine. I left out the main minus point... I miss the wide angle that I used to have Signature-Nick G ** Vidi Vici Veni ** > Apologies, blame the wine. I left out the main minus point... > > I miss the wide angle that I used to have Indeed. Probably the biggest point that has prevented me from buying a 10D is the astronomical cost of good wide-angles when you're faced with a 1.6x magnification. SignatureSomeday we'll look back on all this and plow into a parked car. - Dilbert --------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Waldman, UK email: swaldman@firecloud.org.uk http://www.firecloud.org.uk/simon --------------------------------------------------------------- <SNIP> >Indeed. Probably the biggest point that has prevented me from buying a >10D is the astronomical cost of good wide-angles when you're faced with >a 1.6x magnification. I bought a Sigma EX 17-35mm lens for my 10D and the results are excellent. I know what you mean though. I notice that a lot of new lenses are being made with extreme wide angle which must be to cater for the demand from digital. -- Ian m1flc@yahoo.co.uk >Well, I've been digital for a couple of months now (not me, you understand, >but my camera) and I thought I'd share my thoughts... <SNIP> I have been using digital for a couple of months with both a Nikon 5400 and a Canon EOS 10D. I still have my Mamiya 330F and My Canon EOS 3 so rather than taking any step such as "going digital", I just treat the digital cameras as another tool in the box for use when I need it. Don't go digital but just use it when it suits you. Ian -- Ian m1flc@yahoo.co.uk Sound advice and I would agree. One point to remember is that digital cameras will age and go 'out-of-date' in terms of technology. But a film camera will yield superb results with modern emulsions not matter how old the kit is. there are still some issues with certain types of photography with moir? patterns in fine fabrics and other subjects that clash against the 'screen'. Enjoy duncan > >Well, I've been digital for a couple of months now (not me, you understand, > >but my camera) and I thought I'd share my thoughts... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > m1flc@yahoo.co.uk > One point to remember is that digital cameras will age and go 'out-of-date' > in terms of technology. But a film camera will yield superb results with > modern emulsions not matter how old the kit is. So it will, as long as you can still buy film, and get it processed, at an affordable price. Rod. > Sound advice and I would agree. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > patterns in fine fabrics and other subjects that clash against the 'screen'. > Enjoy Indeed so. It's one of the most irksome parts of the digital process. My camera ownership has run as follows to date (with some extras) Canon AT-1 Canon T70 (Which broke after about 8 years, so back to the AT-1) Canon EOS 600 Canon EOS 5 Canon D10 Now how long will the last one be effectively useable, given that the old AT-1 still works perfectly? I am expecting to write it off over 3 years, not long for eek hundred quid. Signature-Nick G ** Vidi Vici Veni ** I'm still using my Leica M4, Hasselblads and Nikon F2's, F90x and F4's and have no problems with them. Given their age and in comparison to modern digital cameras the investment has been very economical. Whilst I attests to the merits of digital I object to their built in obsolescence. I work for myself and not for the betterment of industrial giants. Duncan > > Sound advice and I would agree. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I am expecting to write it off over 3 years, not long for eek hundred quid. I disagree about them never blowing up as well as 35mm. We have made prints 60" x 40" and they are astonishingly sharp and saturated with no pixelisation. Prints can be seen at my studio and have been done on both Epson and Canon wide format printers. They were shot on Fuji S1's usually through a Tokina 28 - 80 F2.8 ATX Pro lens. I have been invited by a couple of local camera clubs to show these results to disprove such claims as you made. SignatureClive Kaz Studio > Well, I've been digital for a couple of months now (not me, you understand, > but my camera) and I thought I'd share my thoughts... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > time whan my camera is a technological doorstop, but I would reccommend > transferring to the whole concept. > I disagree about them never blowing up as well as 35mm. > We have made prints 60" x 40" and they are astonishingly sharp and [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > > > ** Vidi Vici Veni ** (Sorry about the mispost). I know a professional photographer who specialises in portraiture. He changed to digital a year or so ago. His enlargements are jaw droppingly sharp, far superior to what he was getting from film. Granted, he has invested a lot of money and has the very best equipment (Hassleblads with digital backs, etc) but it does give the lie to the contention that you can only get good enlargements from film. Carrigman For info could you advise how these where scanned and at what settings? Ray -- This E-Mail has been checked by eTrust EZ Antivirus > > I disagree about them never blowing up as well as 35mm. > > We have made prints 60" x 40" and they are astonishingly sharp and [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > > > > > ** Vidi Vici Veni ** They were not scanned, they were shot using my one of my Fuji S1 digital SLR's using the Tokina lens I mentioned and this produces 18Mb tiff files. I enlarged them in Picture Publisher 8 using bi-cubic interpolation and made them 24" wide and 150 pixels per inch. These files were 56Mb RGB tiffs uncompressed. The printer was then set to "Print to Width" which then used the Epson software to expand the images to 36" wide. The prints were each done in about 20 minutes which again is astonishing. My commercial clients love to take our first batch of test shots of their products to the printers who then run a set of test pages of the brochure on to one of these prints as a colour proof. If you are ever near us here in South Essex - call us and pop in to see for yourself. All our tuition photographers have been staggered by these images - hence why I have been asked to go to the camera clubs to show them. SignatureClive Kaz Studio > For info could you advise how these where scanned and at what settings? > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > > > > > > > ** Vidi Vici Veni ** > Well, I've been digital for a couple of months now (not me, you understand, > but my camera) and I thought I'd share my thoughts... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > time whan my camera is a technological doorstop, but I would reccommend > transferring to the whole concept. I bought a DLSR last April. I've kept 2 35mm SLR bodies, but have not shot a single frame with either of them. The truth of the matter is that unless you're a highly skilled darkroom worker you're not going to get big prints from 35mm to 'beat' those from one of the current DLSR's. There's a steep learning curve to take to attain best quality (and some expense) but factor the huge benefits of time and film/D&P cost savings as well. Editing 'down' 462 shots the other evening took me just 30 minutes. Batch processing the 'best' 72 to print quality TIFF took another 20 min's - All done-n-dusted in less than an hour from getting back from the shoot. All capable of producing a 18x12" that even the most ardent darkroom workers have to admit is 'flawless'. With software like C1 and some carefully drafted PS actions editing's a doddle. SignatureSimon http://www.pbase.com/phoenikz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.