Digital pictures suck

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
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
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Soem say 6MP is good enough for the general populous..diehards say 24MP

We have 24MP Digicams now so they can all stfu:p
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
well there is some debate on what kind of camera you need to approach the quality of film.

 

spaceman

Lifer
Dec 4, 2000
17,616
183
106
i know a photographer or two who still swear by film.
they went to school for it.
 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
I don't want debate.
I want the good folks at ATOT to link me to some awsome digital pictures that I can print.
 

JoeKing

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,641
1
81
Originally posted by: ncircle
i know a photographer or two who still swear by film.
they went to school for it.

that's why they swear by it. they don't want their fine education to be for naught ;)
 

Connoisseur

Platinum Member
Sep 14, 2002
2,470
1
81
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.
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
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.

slides are still the way to go IMO ;)
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,199
18,024
136
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.

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.
 

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
2
0
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.

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.
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
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.
 

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
2
0
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.

Did you look at some of those pictures from my link? Please tell me what "feel" is different between the film and digital?
 

igowerf

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2000
7,697
1
76
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.
 

dderidex

Platinum Member
Mar 13, 2001
2,732
0
0
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.

And vinyl is still superior to CD, right?
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
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
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
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
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
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

Cibachrome 0wns j00 ;)

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

He is a big fan of velvia and provia, uses a Nikon for land stuff too but i can't remember which one :p
 

shilala

Lifer
Oct 5, 2004
11,437
1
76
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
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.