A&P Disadvantages of Digital? Specifics I mean

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by whoarnti, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. whoarnti

    whoarnti Guest

    I started like 4 months ago looking for digital camera, then couldnt make myself do it. Now I want a camera for the artistic side of it and have been looking at a N80 or comparable camera. The issue is that I keep going back and forth between Digital and 35m

    What are the major things I cant do with digital that I can with film?

    If ya get a film camera cant you just get a good scanner for the picts you wish to play with?

    I think I will prob get an N80 then wait a while and get a digital eventually. Just a question or so for the people with experience.
     
  2. XtremeSaturn

    XtremeSaturn New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    I don't see there being a whole heck of a lot difference now, especially with consumer DSLR's that are entering the market. You get the same functions out of the digital camera that you would out of a 35mm. The speed(burst) might not be as quick on some models as it would be to film but then again, you don't have to spend money to develop the film once you have digital. With the higher MP cameras you can print out larger prints and still have them looking good. I've printed out hundreds of pictures I've taken with my digital and you couldn't find many if at all that could tell the difference between digital and film.

    I had a 35mm Rebel which was a lot of fun but I grew tired of having to wait to see if my pictures came out. I recently purchased a Digital Rebel so my lenses converted over and already knew the camera's functions. I think with Kodak's recent depature out of making film cameras and going to digital shows you a strong trend. I love digital. It may just come down to personal preferences.

    Digital Camera + Photoshop > 35mm + Dark Room imho
     
  3. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    Since I don't work with digital prints I can't comment on the digital cameras. I've been a film photographer for over 30 years so I do know a bit about film. The one thing I would be concerned about it the digital cameras ability to change sensativity and interchangable lenses. With film, you can choose from a wide variety of film types and a whole world of lenses and other accessories. I guess it really boils down to if you plan on simply wanting to shoot some pics and print them or post them from time to time, a digital camera is better. If you want to expand your photography and perhaps become a professional then you're either going to spend major bucks for a good digital camera that will do everything a professional 35mm camera can do or buy the 35mm in the first place and move up later.
     
  4. My digital camera will do everything plus some that my film camera will do. All the lenses are interchangable. All the accessories are the same. I can choose film types on the camera. It even does the filtering within it meaning no more FLD filters and warming and cooling filters. Printing works just as well. The new Fuji S3 is 1400 for the body. Lenses are the same as the film ones and there are plenty of them to come. The megapixels for that lenses is 12 meaning 20x30s are not even a problem when it comes to printing. I have actually had better looking prints come from a digital than my film. I'm all in favor of digital. The only problem I hate is not being able to cross process. But Adobe Photoshop fixes that for me.
    I personally have the Digital Rebel. So of course I have the TI as well. I love both cameras but when it comes to studio especially, I love the fact that I can setup my comp in front of me and look at the pictures while I'm taking them. Meaning I can get the effects I want then instead of having to go back and reshoot. YAY FOR DIGITAL!
     
  5. XtremeSaturn

    XtremeSaturn New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    Digital cameras still have a ways to go but they are catching up to film at a very rapid pace and are being more affordable in the DSLR arena. The biggest kicker for me has been battery life but the new litium ion batteries hold a charge for a fair amount of time and get me through a day taking 100+ pictures and downloading.

    Being able to choose your ISO and having photoshop to change the color levels seems to give you the same flexibility that film has but might not be as clear in some circumstances.
     
  6. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    Thanks for the info. I need to get up to speed on what's out in the marketplace. I don't shoot 35mm for a living any more (I shoot video instead)
    but it's still good to know. One question, does your digital camera have a motordrive and if so, how many FPS can it shoot? Important for sports photogs.
     
  7. Ballast

    Ballast Cold Heartless Bastard

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Messages:
    7,491
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    The biggest problem with digital cameras is the initial investment. For the same quality, it is cheaper to start with a film camera...

    but if you take a lot of pictures, it is eventually cheaper with digital.
     
  8. elmie

    elmie New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2000
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Willowdale, ON, Canada
    Well for 35mm, the only way pictures come out nice is if you buy good film. Want the best? Gotta pay the big bucks for slide film. In the long run, film is costly as hell.
    Besides with digital you get to see your work instantly!
     
  9. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    Way back when I was in photography school the instructors use to tell us that film is our cheapest commonity so don't be afraid to shoot a lot of it. They were right. If you shoot photos just for fun it may seem like film costs a lot, but when you shoot for a living and you have to be absolutly certain that you got the shot, film is cheap.

    Slide film (transpariencies) doesn't really cost that much money. $5-6 bucks a roll for 36 exposure is about what I pay.
     
  10. SL1200MK4

    SL1200MK4 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO, there are pro and cons to both, the following of list of thing are just some that I can think of at this point. By no means are they complete.

    Film:

    Better quality, while digital camera is caching up fast, film still got better quality IMHO.

    While there are high-end digital camera capable of 11-14MP in 35mm body and over 25MP in midium format body... Film still got a better quality in both formats, but this is JMHO.

    Digital (D-SLR specifically):

    Expensive to get wide angle, most of them have the FOV crop, however this is not the case with some REAL HIGHEND digital cameras, e.g. the Canon D1s. This however is an advantage if you do a lot of telephotos. Because your 200mm is now 300-320mm depends on the camera body.

    Also, while the initial investment cost more, it is a better learning tool IMHO. Because you get to take as much picture as you wanted, good ones and bad ones, lots of them. What you learn with a D-SLR will apply to film as well.

    The disadvantage of digital, is the fact that the camera body loses its value FAST. Because as technology improves, newer camera body will be cheaper, and better. However, the lenses, flash, and other stuff, will hold its value and you will most likely be able to use those on the newer camera body.

    Which brings to another issue, the life that you can expect out of a D-SLR is probably shorter than a film SLR body. So, at most say 3 years, you are likely be looking for a new body for various of reasons. (newer technology, or wear/tear).

    So, if you wanna go digital because of its flexibility, take other factors into consideration. Are you willing to buy a D-SLR body, and be willing to replace it 3 years later? Not that you will have to, but likely I had say? Partly due to wear/tear, also cheaper/better technology.

    Other than the quality, I dont' think there is any disadvantage with digital. If you take enough pictures, the saving on film/processing will save you enough money to justify the need of replacing the body say 3 years down the road.
     
  11. TenzoR

    TenzoR She is hot hot hot

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    4,162
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    go for a film 35mm SLR and a small digital camera with manual control :)
     
  12. SL1200MK4

    SL1200MK4 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not a film SLR and a D-SLR. Since you can use your lens on both body, if you stick to one system.
     
  13. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Why digital is greater than film (from a DSLR perspective)

    Greater dynamic range than slide film
    Speed of turnaround time
    Much greater color accuracy
    Ability to capture action ie. 8fps for 40+ frames
    Ability to change sensitivty on the fly
    You can chimp and get your settings right
    You can evaluate the histogram
    Use white balance as a creative tool
    Ability to change image quality (sharpness, tone, saturation) and use custom curves
    Do infrared photography without the fuss of infrared film
    Increased 'cameraness' - the newest and latest technology is being put in digital cameras, not film
    You can control the camera from your computer (great for studios)
    Shooting information is automatically stored
    Ability to record voice memos and annotate images
    Uber battery life (grips are almost useless at this point)

    I'll think of more later :dunno:
     
  14. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    $5-6 bucks for 36 exposures is expensive in my book considering that I shot ~350 pictures just today and I can easily go through 1.5k exposures a week :dunno:
     
  15. Joe

    Joe 2015 :x: OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Messages:
    116,620
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    nocal
    what are you planning on shooting?
     
  16. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    But are you shooting for fun or for a living? If you're shooting just for fun, then yes, film costs can add up. If you're shooting for a living, then film is a business expense.
     
  17. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    And therein is the greatest advantadge of digital:

    People shooting for fun and take as many pictures as they want for practice or to get the moment and shit without having to worry about film costs.
     
  18. MastaCow

    MastaCow I love cup.

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    38,335
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Torrance, CA
    Only thing I could come up with is:

    Overexposure is death on digital.
     
  19. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    :werd:

    Well with RAW or Kodak's ERI you can pull some highlight recovery but when you blow them out they're gone.

    This might be changing though, SI Photo's recommend settings for the 1D Mark II tells you to err on overexposure rather than underexposure :dunno:
     
  20. Kinks

    Kinks Sup. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    8,692
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    good point Masta. I remember shooting neg film I took a shot including my LCD monitor, but exposed for the room. LCD came out pure white of course, the correct printing exposure was around 6 seconds. I burnt in the LCD part of the print, though, for about 30 seconds (!!!!) and got a surprising amount of detail out of it (couldn't read the text on screen but you could see it looked like code).

    with digital you'd have to take 2 photos and merge them in PS.
     
  21. heres a great reason of why i'm using my digital over my film camera. I did a critique a couple weeks ago. I didn't have time to spend in the darkroom so I took a chance at printing my digital stuff and turning it in. Well Wal Greens does 8x10s for 4 bucks each using there wet processor for digital. My teacher had no clue that it was digital. She loved the look I got, my color correction was perfect and I didn't have to spend hours in the darkroom. Just five minutes on photoshop. So for you guys saying you can't get the quality of film out of digital i will beg to differ. For being able to put over a digital print as a film print to a teacher that has been studying photography since she was 13 who has her masters and is now 49 years old I think that says enough about digital.
     
  22. its just like shooting slide film...gotta be perfect. But there are ways in photoshop to correct for overexposure and underexposure. With slides theres no going back. Learn how to your photoshop and digital will become your friend.
     
  23. oh yeah one more thing. no more correction filters for me. All my filters for like FLD and warming and cooling are either set or I can set them myself on my digital. Hmm no filters no accessories I have to carry around when I want to shoot. No need to use special film and have to waste an entire roll for just one shot that needs tungsten. Hmm there are a thousand reasons to come up with for digital. BTW. The new Fuji S3 body is 1400 dollars. I think it has either 12 or 14 megapixels...anyone realize what they can do with that. Sure the hell nothing you can do with 35mm film. Anyone wanna go back to using 4x5 cameras. I sure the hell don't.
     
  24. chlywly

    chlywly Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    18,744
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Toronto
    I'll make this short and sweet, with digital at this point and time and its improving constantly, picture quality is much better... what I mean is, use a 4-6 megapixel DSLR camera and you will get sharper/clearer images at all ISO settings then if you would scan film or negative using best scanner. All pro media places use HIGH end quality DSLR's now....

    Digital also reduces developtment processing costs more than 1/2!

    You get your cheap studio in the computer with which you can perform miracles and shape mountains :)

    Digital is the new future no doubt about it.

    I'm only getting a F100 due to school.
     
  25. Mippity

    Mippity New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    oklahoma
    I've never had anything digital except a 2.1 mp with digital zoom (it was new back then!)
    I have my nikon manual slr though .. so I can't offer "experience" advice.
    BUT some of the negs of digital

    -Drop the camera .. you could be out a few thousand dollars instead of a few hundred
    -While bioyuki took 350 pictures - it isn't totally free. He has to have the hard drive space on his computer to satisfy a 350 picture-a-day hobby.I would imagine that with really high-res this could add up.
    -You have to constantly back up your work. With film, you can put your negs in a safe drawer and be relatively secure that all will not be lost. With digital, your computer can crash and you can lose everything.If you burned a CD, it may have had an error when recording or if you bought mega-cheap CDs they might lose quality/decay after 10 years.
    -I imagine the "stock" storage medium used by the camera doesn't support 350 pictures in high-res. Tag on more money for that.

    I'm not saying it can't be a good choice.I just wanted to point out the things that detract from its versatility.

    Also, on a side note, I think that using photoshop to alter their shots can be dishonest.
    You are decieving the public/your viewers about what actually happened and what you took.I guess with a good amount of effort you can make some serious manipulations in the darkroom - but it's much harder.

    ...i want a dslr :hs:
     

Share This Page