Digital Cameras - Did I make the right choice?

Wingnut · May 20, 2002

Hey, cool ... I took that course too ... way back when I thought it might be fun to make a living taking pictures. Unfortunately, the course could do little about my color-blindness ... and I was way too shy to do weddings and stuff ... so I settled for dabbling in industrial photography for awhile. That didn't require color sense ... just a good eye for detail and a lot of patience. Spent more time chasing people for money than taking pictures, though ... so I went back to working only 8 to 10 hours a day.
Film was the tool in SLR's and you had to go through a heck of a lot to make sure you got the shots that sell ... and spend a lot of time in the darkroom fixing composure problems. These electronic gizmos sure make life easier .... take even more shots than you normally would ... take 'em in pretty high-res ... and then all you need to do is open your photo editing software and play around a little bit and viola! Ansel Adams would be so envious!
And if you think the cameras are pretty snazzy but haven't tried the photo editing software yet ... you're really in for a treat. You can really work some magic in there! I don't have the time to really muck around but my brother-in-law took it up as a hobby and he just sent me the results of his diddling. He'd cleaned up a picture of me in taken in 1952 ... and there's no sign of age on it at all ... all the staining and crackling is gone.
Hey, Argee ... still got the encyclopedia? (I do)

Argee · May 21, 2002

Wingnut,
Yeah I still got them. I think their collecting dust in the storage room of my shop. My son expressed an interest in them (he got bit by the bug too) but lives in Berkeley, CA at the moment. He isn't willing, nor am I, to pay the shipping to get them out there, He's finishing up his Masters, when he gets back this way someday, I'll make them a gift to him. That was a fun course. Got half way through it but never found the time to finish it. The encyclopedias alone were worth the price of the course.

My daughter has Photo Suite, says she'll get me a copy of it. I'm getting pretty excited about it. Looking forward to taking pics of the tractor and cleaning up some of the cutting torch goofs I did on the hood so I can see what it will look like when I get a new hood for it. Now only if the camera would get here./w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif

PaulT · May 21, 2002

<font color=blue>I am often taken aback though when I am told how they have superior resolution to 35MM, not so unless we are talking the disposable cameras from the check out lane at Wally World.</font color=blue>

You can finally rest easy. I read an article comparing 35mm film resolution and dig resolution. It pointed out that you have to take the size of the finished print into account. I'm not sure of the sizing exactly, but I think the conclusion was that a 3Mp camera was equivalent at 5x7, and that a 4Mp would be equivalent at 8x12, and that at greater than 5Mp, you actually exceed film resolution in any size format. I will try and find that article for review. It compares the size of the silver molecules per sq in (analogous to ccd res.). It also calibrated the continuous image capture of 35mm vs integral image capture qualities of digital. Couple all of this with the right edit software and printing equipment, and you can "develop" your own portraits without ever turning off the lights!!!

dmccarty · May 21, 2002

Paul,

I would be real cautious on those numbers. I think they are wrong.

The number that sticks in my head is that a 35mm negative/slide
has about 50 megabytes worth of data. Tain't no way a 3 or a 5
megabyte digital camera is going to compete with film data
storage wise.

Now the reality is this, very few prints are made above 4x6. I
think its something like 95-98% of prints are 3x5 and 4x6. So
the amount of data required to fill a 4x6 is pretty small so a
small memory size in a digital camera works just fine. Go to
a 8x12 or 13x17 size is a whole different ball game.

The ease that people will have in using a digital camera and
a color inkjet for printing will eventually kill off most of the 35mm
film market. But it will take some time. People are used to
taking their film to the drug store for developing so there habits
have to change.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://photo.net>http://photo.net</A> has lots of info on photography and the
debates on which is better, film or digital. The answer is that
it depends on what one once to do and accomplish. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
So many people turn digital vs film into a religious war....

What digital will really take a LONG time to conquer is the
medium and large format films. Those films hold a huge amount
of data even on the smaller film formats, I think in the order of
120 megabytes.

I have seen some awesome digital prints though. I could not tell
them apart from film. And I have seen large prints from digital and
medium format. Both look really good. What I would love to see
is the same "picture" taken with digital and film. Print on the same
size paper and compare.

Never have seen that comparison.

Later...
Dan McCarty

TresCrows · May 21, 2002

Paul, I fear your data is over simplistic but don't think I am really knocking the digital cameras. They are fun and you can do all kinds of neat tricks with them. The next poster is correct, 35MM has far more "memory" than a 5 MM digital, in grainy films I can see the clumping of molecules but I and you cannot possibly see a molecule but I can see a Pixel. Take the same shot with a Cannon or Nikon or similar SLR and then with a digi camera and then have them blown up to 8X12, or have them converted to a slide for projection which is usually about --oh--- 6'X8' (feet), I think you will see the difference, viva la difference!
There is a new type of CCD that will start showing up--the Foveon X3 CCD --- it uses a layered aarangement instead of the side by side currently used. This will be more like the color sensitive layers in film. The result will be more sensitivity, higher resolution--according to Fovian literature, the cureent arrangement guesses at the colors at each of two out of three pixel locations, red, blu and green pixels each responding to their particular color. The Fovian X3 has a red, blue and green pixel layered at every location. The prediction is that current digi cameras are obsolete and soon they will all say "Fovian X3 inside" ! J

TresCrows · May 21, 2002

That's right!! /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif , all your fancy shamancy digital cameras are obsolete and none of them including the FoveonX3 are equal to a 30 year old Nikon /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif .
I think digi will replace film for mom and pop point and clickers but film will never be replaced for crucial and professional uses. There are new film technologies available in the future than will increase film resolutions--actually reduce grain size and increase color sensitivty far beyond what we see in todays films, including some new chemical technologies. I would not say good bye to silver halide just yet. When I get old and I am standing on the moon at the first landing site--it will be my Nikon that takes the pic, not some beeping (battery is dead--battery is dead) flimsy digi camera--Nikon---it don't need no stink'n batteries. Well we can dream. J

dfriesen · May 22, 2002

I am grudgingly buying a Nikon CoolPix 995. What is grudging is the idea of putting it in the bag with my 25 yr old Nikon FM2. It is hard to beat the use of a digital camera in a "digital world". I have not seen any posts here however regarding this extremely capable Coolpix 995. If you are open to something other than the widely popular Sony and want the familiar feel of a Nikon, this is a very capable camera with 3.4 pix, USB, 4X optical zoom, built in flash, synch for use with other Nikon flash attachments, and much more. Check it out.

Wingnut · May 22, 2002

TresCrows - I take it that you're not going to accept the nomination for Digital Camera Fan-of-the-Year?

I agree that the resolution hasn't caught up to fast film yet ... but .... for some reason Nikon is selling a professional digital camera, and at least some professionals are using them. Why? Hmm ... could it be because in this increasingly digital world, they can get the proofs to the customer extra-super-gigantic-fast?

I've got several camera bags sitting in my closet with my 3 Nikons in them ... and a half dozen "instamatics" sitting around the house and at least one functioning Polaroid ... so I won't argue the merits of film over ccds ... but I will state, for the record, that the mark of a successful product is the adoption. Digital cameras cost significantly more than good SLRs ... but are being bought and, apparently, used at a much greater rate. I know I carry mine around all the time ... it's permanently resident in my briefcase ... and I actually take it out and use it. On the other hand ... I'm sure I've got some 5 or 6 year old film in my F2 .....

TresCrows · May 22, 2002

Wingnut--what is it about putting Nikons in bags and letting them sit in the closet--I know what you mean. When I was a "real" geologist mine went with me everywhere and back when I was more an active outdoor type one or the other of my Nikons would always be slung sporty over my shoulder. One of them set on top of a mountain in the Bob Marshall wilderness area after a grizzly decided he was interested in the same outcrop I was. Then it rained and sleeted. Well two days latter I sneeked back and recovered it, none the worse for wear. Sometime back I finally gave into point and clicks and I have a Cannon Elph and some other nice Cannon clicker. No, I think digital has it's place I just hear how great they are and what makes them great is the fun of instant pictures and all the neat stuff more technically minded computer folks can do in the digital darkroom, of course film can be scanned also--not the "superior" resolution I hear so many folks mistakenly state.
I would buy a more capable unit--like the Cannon G2 or their digital Elph (it has a wider angle lens) or some of the others but that post about the Foveon X3 chip was not an attempt to pull you guys legs--nope----it is real, it is a huge advancement and it will start showing up soon. The X3 technology will of course improve also--so it is with all this digital stuff but the improvements will be incremental unlike the huge leap the X3 is over all current chips. Make mine Foveon X3 inside. One irratating theing is that film cameras can use the lattest films but digi camersa go in the junk pile when then become obsolete--I wish you could find a nice digi and then as new technology became available I could just snap in a new chip.
Hey would Ansel Adams use a digital camera for his black and white classics? probably not but I bet he would have one for the fun of it. J

bellweather · May 22, 2002

I'm not sure about the DSC S-75, but we own an early SONY Mavica and though we're big SONY fans around this design office, we absolutely hate the stupid lens cap. It's attached to the camera by a string and it's always getting in the way when taking pictures. Love my new Cannon Sureshot with its integral lens cover, a feature which nearly every camera manufacturer has in its products, with the exception of SONY.