• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Digital pictures suck

G

glen

Lifer
I think they are as good or better than film right now.
I thought about looking on Nikon and Canon's web pages to find a sweet digital picture, then printing it at Wal Mart on paper so he can see how good they are now.
Does wal mart dumb down the quality so much that it is pointless?
What picture should I use
 
I don't want debate.
I want the good folks at ATOT to link me to some awsome digital pictures that I can print.
 
Originally posted by: ncircle
i know a photographer or two who still swear by film.
they went to school for it.
Click to expand...

that's why they swear by it. they don't want their fine education to be for naught 😉
 
I think digital images are the equal to normal images only with a steady hand. I have a Canon Powershot A95 and i've owned film cameras before. The A95 has awesome images as long as my hand doesn't shake too much whereas film cameras are a bit more forgiving as far as small vibrations. If you either have a steady hand or a tripod then digital cams are easily the equal of their film counterparts. Of course, if you want the best of both worlds, some companies do sell a negative scanner. A friend of mine owns this. It directly scans the photo negative slides into images as large as 7 or 8 MP. Looks gorgeous.
 
Originally posted by: Connoisseur
I think digital images are the equal to normal images only with a steady hand. I have a Canon Powershot A95 and i've owned film cameras before. The A95 has awesome images as long as my hand doesn't shake too much whereas film cameras are a bit more forgiving as far as small vibrations. If you either have a steady hand or a tripod then digital cams are easily the equal of their film counterparts. Of course, if you want the best of both worlds, some companies do sell a negative scanner. A friend of mine owns this. It directly scans the photo negative slides into images as large as 7 or 8 MP. Looks gorgeous.
Click to expand...

slides are still the way to go IMO 😉
 
Originally posted by: glen
I don't want debate.
I want the good folks at ATOT to link me to some awsome digital pictures that I can print.
Click to expand...

Argh... my hosting isn't up right now or I'd have a few for you. People are usually stunned by my zoo pictures when we show them off. We just get them printed at Wal-mart and they look great.
 
Originally posted by: Connoisseur
I think digital images are the equal to normal images only with a steady hand. I have a Canon Powershot A95 and i've owned film cameras before. The A95 has awesome images as long as my hand doesn't shake too much whereas film cameras are a bit more forgiving as far as small vibrations. If you either have a steady hand or a tripod then digital cams are easily the equal of their film counterparts. Of course, if you want the best of both worlds, some companies do sell a negative scanner. A friend of mine owns this. It directly scans the photo negative slides into images as large as 7 or 8 MP. Looks gorgeous.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in a digital camera that makes it somehow more sensitive to vibrations. It all depends on how your aperture and shutter speed; if you leave it exposed for even a fraction of a second too long then it's that much more sensitive to vibrations. Just learn how to control the camera and you need only worry about a tripod at night or when otherwise trying to get a longer exposure.
 
There are aspects of film that digital is only beginning to approach.

There is a "feel", for want of a better term, that film *can* have that digital doesn't yet.

Note I said "can". It takes a true artist to reach it.
 
Originally posted by: DurocShark
There are aspects of film that digital is only beginning to approach.

There is a "feel", for want of a better term, that film *can* have that digital doesn't yet.

Note I said "can". It takes a true artist to reach it.
Click to expand...

Did you look at some of those pictures from my link? Please tell me what "feel" is different between the film and digital?
 
I've found that 4mp shots look great on 4x6 prints. I printed out a bunch using Snapfish two years ago and they looked sharper and more vibrant than photos taken with our regular 35mm point and shoot film cameras.
 
Originally posted by: DurocShark
There are aspects of film that digital is only beginning to approach.

There is a "feel", for want of a better term, that film *can* have that digital doesn't yet.

Note I said "can". It takes a true artist to reach it.
Click to expand...

And vinyl is still superior to CD, right?
 
If you're arguing film vs digital 4x6 pictures, you can tell your friend to STFU. Now if he was talking about banner sized pictures, then I say film will kick the arse out of digital
 
i can tell you for a fact that they are not as good

no 35mm format digital can replicate what you can get when you shoot slide film especially 50 and 100 iso velvia, and kodachrom and no 35mm digital comes close to getting the look of a selenium toned B&W fiber print, even when printed on a pro level printer

they are close but not there yet
 
Originally posted by: Anubis
i can tell you for a fact that they are not as good

no 35mm format digital can replicate what you can get when you shoot slide film especially 50 and 100 iso velvia, and kodachrom and no 35mm digital comes close to getting the look of a selenium toned B&W fiber print, even when printed on a pro level printer

they are close but not there yet
Click to expand...

Cibachrome 0wns j00 😉

My old man is a slide fan and he's got some imcredible underwater stuff happening (Nikonos V) 😀

He is a big fan of velvia and provia, uses a Nikon for land stuff too but i can't remember which one 😛
 
Originally posted by: Anubis
i can tell you for a fact that they are not as good

no 35mm format digital can replicate what you can get when you shoot slide film especially 50 and 100 iso velvia, and kodachrom and no 35mm digital comes close to getting the look of a selenium toned B&W fiber print, even when printed on a pro level printer

they are close but not there yet
Click to expand...
Anubis, I saw some "number support" along the way on this topic. Had to do with the number of positions silver particles can take when making a photo from film, and the different sizes of silver particles available that create the never-ending scale of grays in black and whites.
Someone developed a sensor with both large and small pixels, allowing much greater tone definition.
The number of pixels on the sensor was also dramatically increased.
The argument was that this new setup was damn close to being as diverse as film. Turns out that film, in the next few years, will be a disadvantage.
We'll finally have a digital option that is literally better than film (technically).
I'm excited to hear the arguments when the tech specs of digital actually beat film.
It'll be a lot of years before film falls out of vogue, be it inferior or not.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top