• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

One more Digital Vs. Analogue question

i guess i can jump in here. don't know diddly about stereo but i do own several cameras. maybe several dozen. including four or five hasselblads, several old film nikons, leicas, 4/5's, 8/10's a 7/17 and an 8/20. reluctantly i purchased a canon 10d a few years ago, then a 20d and now own a canon 1ds mark2. though i still love my old film cameras, i haven't looked back once. the canon 1ds is clearly better than my hasselblads. i make 20x30" prints for galleries and the quality is simply remarkable! much better than anything i could get with film. and the lenses! wow. carl zeiss made some good lenses in their day, but nothing beats these new canon lenses. with image stabilization, i can shoot a 200mm lens handheld at 1/10 second! even the zooms are pretty sharp and the prime lenses are tack sharp. and having tested the camera using different iso settings, you really can't see a difference in iso up to 640. since i bought this camera last january when they first came out, i've shot about 25,000 images, so the camera easily paid for itself in film costs. no, this canon can't compete with 4/5 yet, but understand that it's not meant to. there are digital backs out there that do outperform large format film. also, not having to scan negatives, the speed which you can work...i take a laptop with me whether i'm out shooting for myself or a client, it's great.

i'll always have a soft spot for my old cameras, i can't seem to part with the old nikon f2 even though i'll never use it again...i love the old machines. but for practical shooting, film is over, at least for me.
 
I must say I have some reservations about digital with regards to archiving the images (which are just data on a medium) and the long-term viability of current storage media, to say nothing of the prospect of being able to read today's formats 50 years from now. Properly-stored negatives or chromes will most likely be readable. That's one thing I still love about film, you have an actual physical image. Silver-halide black&white is the most archival.

I'm aiming at getting a 30D or something similar a few months down the road (though I'd prefer to see a full-frame-sensor camera at a lower price point; the 5D is a start but at $3K it's still too pricey). I've seen stunning images come from the Canon DSLR's, but storage and backup and multiple backup media will be a must. I still feel a little queasy about my images existing solely as potentially-ephemeral 0's and 1's, as an IT worker I have experience with media failure (unreadable CD's, dead drives, flash media corrupting itself and ceasing to function). I keep my slides in dark storage and they haven't eaten themselves yet...

Todd in Beerbratistan
 
I have every single picture I want to archive on my computer and also on an external hard drive. If one fails, I am covered. Many people also burn them to DVD-R. While it is possible for all of them to fail, what are the chances?
One of the other advantages is that you can also load your pictures up on a sites like Pbase, Shutterfly, Sony imaging, or just a service that has a server that offers hard drive space. If your house catches on fire or floods, you will still be able to get your shots from any number of sources. You would have to keep your negatives at home and a duplicate in a lockbox far away from home to get the same level of protection.

say nothing of the prospect of being able to read today's formats 50 years from now
Click to expand...
There will be conversion programs. You can bet money that there will always be a way to retrieve your jpegs and RAW files in the future. You may have to convert them to another format at some point, but since they are digital, it will be very easy for someone to write a program that does it without loss of quality.
 
yea off site and CD backup are wonderful if you only have a few photo's But some of us shoot almost 100 rolls a year and in a year with a good vacation I might shoot 200 rolls. I got to tell you I just plain don't have the time required to up load or burn 3600 to 7200 LARGE files. Yet all those negs will fit in have a shoe box.
 
yea off site and CD backup are wonderful if you only have a few photo's But some of us shoot almost 100 rolls a year and in a year with a good vacation I might shoot 200 rolls. I got to tell you I just plain don't have the time required to up load or burn 3600 to 7200 LARGE files. Yet all those negs will fit in have a shoe box.
Click to expand...
Yeah and if your house catched on fire... bye, bye pictures. Even if you took 7200 photos in a year, you would not be putting them on your computer and external hard drive all at once. You would do that when your CF cards were full. I bring a laptop on my trips so I can move them to the hard drive before the next day (some people use Ipods or other hard drive based portables for this process). It takes very little time and when I get home, I just move them out to the network where I can view them on any computer or TV in the house.

As a test, I copied 100 uncompressed files (CR2) from my computer to my external hardrive and it took less than 2 minutes to copy them. If I had 1000 to move, I could start the process, which takes about 5 seconds and go listen to music or watch TV. I doubt anyone is so busy that they would not have time to start the process and come back in an hour to turn off the computer.
 
digital versus analog.........

I have had a girlfriend for 2 years, over which time we've split up and gotten back together numerous times. We have FANTASTIC good times and CR*P bad times. Much like the ON or OFF of digital. In the digital world these ons and offs amount to an "AVERAGE relationship". But believe me I'd much prefer an analog relationship.

Digital is like a quick and eager to please whore, while analog delivers honesty, dependability, and predictability you can trust.

Goodnight.
 
burn your 35mm negs!digital closer- 35mm fast and far

I use both 35mm and digital for photographing kids football, my 4MP elph was not very good for the whole field or zoom to the centre. too grainy, and poor low light. On a sunny day it worked well for most shots except distance and very high speed.(I now have a SD550 7MP waiting for this Friday's season start with better low light and so on).
The 35mm T70 shots the camera store printed, of the same game, were even worse than the digital prints from home! Poor processing killed the 35mm prints, standard photo processing seems to be about 250 dpi equivalent or less.
BUT I also had the 35mm negs burned to disc at the same time, and some 110mm zoom shots across the field actually had in fine print the maker of the score sign. The resolution of the ISO 200 film and lens was great :thmbsp: ; the print quality sucked. :thumbsdn:
So what I do for kids games is use both digital and 35mm, the 35mm for fast and far, and then have the negs burned to disc for $4.95, no prints, and print the picks myself at high resolution after cropping.
 
Digital is like a quick and eager to please whore, while analog delivers honesty, dependability, and predictability you can trust.
Click to expand...

Predictability - you need this more with film because you do not know what you got until it is developed. If you guess wrong, you could miss a moment. With digital, you can view it immediately and take more shots for the occasion if something turns out with less than fantastic results. I also find it predictable just like any photo medium. If I shoot digitally with specific settings it is very predictable. It just does not have to be as worried about predictability because I can delete it and take another shot if for some reason it turns out wrong.

Dependable - They now have 8GB CF cards that also do away with the problem of having to change out film while you are missing the action. How dependable is it when you can miss an important moment because you are changing out film? I can shoot all day with a CF card and not worry about changing out film to match different lighting situations or because it is filled up. I can adjust all the settings right on the camera with speed and ease... that is what dependability is all about. Also, similar to predictable, if I take a bad shot or one that does not capture exactly what I want (for instance, I could catch someone blinking), I can depend on the viewfinder to tell me.. I have to wait for film to be developed before I know that!

As far as honesty, digital and film are only as honest as the photographer wants them to be. "Tricks" (filters, double exposures, B&W, etc...)can be done with either medium.

One other benefit of having immediate feedback via the viewfinder and the ability to delete bad shots is the ability to try a bunch of different settings and learning exactly what your camera can do (predictability). I would hesitate to waste film/money with a bunch of experimental shots on film...
 
uofmtiger said:
Predictability - you need this more with film because you do not know what you got until it is developed. If you guess wrong, you could miss a moment. With digital, you can view it immediately and take more shots for the occasion if something turns out with less than fantastic results. I also find it predictable just like any photo medium. If I shoot digitally with specific settings it is very predictable. It just does not have to be as worried about predictability because I can delete it and take another shot if for some reason it turns out wrong.

Dependable - They now have 8GB CF cards that also do away with the problem of having to change out film while you are missing the action. How dependable is it when you can miss an important moment because you are changing out film? I can shoot all day with a CF card and not worry about changing out film to match different lighting situations or because it is filled up. I can adjust all the settings right on the camera with speed and ease... that is what dependability is all about. Also, similar to predictable, if I take a bad shot or one that does not capture exactly what I want (for instance, I could catch someone blinking), I can depend on the viewfinder to tell me.. I have to wait for film to be developed before I know that!

As far as honesty, digital and film are only as honest as the photographer wants them to be. "Tricks" (filters, double exposures, B&W, etc...)can be done with either medium.

One other benefit of having immediate feedback via the viewfinder and the ability to delete bad shots is the ability to try a bunch of different settings and learning exactly what your camera can do (predictability). I would hesitate to waste film/money with a bunch of experimental shots on film...
Click to expand...

Looks like you resurrected an old thread. Also looks like you agree with me in my assertions. To me, there's no point in investing any large dollar amounts in further analog equipment or accessories. It's a sinking ship......
 
Brudha said:
Looks like you resurrected an old thread. Also looks like you agree with me in my assertions. To me, there's no point in investing any large dollar amounts in further analog equipment or accessories. It's a sinking ship......
Click to expand...
I agree. I do not see the point of it except for people that are just into collecting. I mean there are coin and stamp collectors out there, too. I do not get that, either.

Of course, if people want to continue using film, I have no problem with it. However, I do want to let people know that comments like those quoted in my previous post are ridiculous and I want to set the facts straight. Of course, Photobitstream does a better job at that than I will ever do. :yes:
 
Howdy,
Since I know more about computers than analog audio gear, this looks like a good place to post. Even if this thread did get pretty scary earlier. :scratch2:

I'm a member of a Digital Imaging forum and they have a gallery. Let me say that I'm astounded at the quality of some of the images posted there. Some of it is WORLD CLASS and I'm dead serious about that.

Computers and digital cameras have opened the world of photography to the masses unlike anything before.Not even the Kodak "Brownie" camera had so many people shooting photos in so many places.

I think, sometimes there are "Pro" film shooters that feel threatened by digital photography. It must be scary when the technology to take great photos becomes so readily available. Trust me, I've seen digital images taken by 2 or three year amatures that put some "Pros" to shame. Of course now there are up and coming "pros" that may have NEVER shot film!

So, I'm sure film, for the vast majority of people and purposes is in fact "dead".

"Film is dead, long live film..." :thmbsp:

Mike
 
As someone who has been a professional photographer and audiophile for about the same period of time, where I would really make the comparison between analog imaging and digital imaging and sound is in the tonal range and compression.

When a tube amplifier (or preamplifier) goes into compression, it usually does it gently at first and then gradually more aggressively. Solid State amplifiers "clip" more harshly and if you are recording digitally, everything after 100%VU just chops off without any kind of compression.

Same thing with film vs. a digital sensor. A digital sensor gets to 100% white and stops. If you are shooting in RAW, you are capturing more data, but there is still a maximum light point which can't be exceeded. Film's tonal range compresses gently just like a tube amplifier, which often times, especially in the case of shooting negative film gives you a bit of a safety net. Again, it results in a different "feel" in the final product.

When making color prints, the best digital printing devices really outperform analog because they have a wider color gamut. BW digital is really good, but when I have produced prints with identical tonality on silver paper and digital, the silver prints are pretty gorgeous, yet printing bw digitally on watercolor papers is a completely different medium altogether.

The main reason film is going away in the pro market is that no one wants to wait anymore and clients don't want to pay for film, polaroids, processing and scanning.

Thanks to the increased dynamic range of a good digital camera, they now offer better results, but that wasn't always the case.

Even though I don't have time for film anymore, I really hope it doesn't go away, because shooting in film (I feel) really forces you to concentrate on your images a bit more. When you can shoot 6fps in digital, many photographers just shoot the hell out of everything.

I still shoot with digital like I did with film. I rarely come back from a shoot with 9000 images. All that time editing useless pics really kills the convenience advantage of digital! Not to mention that most digital cameras have a specific lifespan of how many exposures they will produce before needing service...

In the end, while I do think that a high end digital camera can capture more information than a film camera can, analog images have a unique beauty all their own. Very much like sound. I really hope that enough interest remains in silver
based imaging, so I can at least have the choice....
 
If I was shooting strictly color and printing them myself I would give the nod to the digital format but primarily as a b&w photographer for over 30 years (mostly medium format and 4x5) there is no question for me that, hands down, film is my choice. T-Max 100 is beautiful and who can question the countless beautiful images produced since 1839. There is a certain "look" that a wonderfully printed silver print (no matter the format used) conveys that is hard to beat. I have seen some very nice (professional) b-w prints printed with the latest Epson Professional Inkjet Printers but the tonalities (although better than previous results) cannot, IMOP, match the qualities of a silver print. My 2 centavos worth.
 
I guess what I see as a big part of the trend in the professional arena is the time factor. No clients want to pay for the film, polaroids, processing and scanning anymore and there are very few people left that are masters of this craft.

As someone who grew up with film, I will miss it on one level, but I just don't have the time for film anymore.

As for the artists that are all grumpy about digital and proudly display their little "no digital imaging here" signs, I think its pretty silly and definitely the mark of someone who has really kept their head in the sand.

To me, it's about the images. If its an engaging image, I don't care what you used to shoot it.. One of the things that Ansel Adams and many of the other masters were always talking about was previsualization.

It's the same in the digital world, just different tools and materials. When Im taking a picture, Im thinking how Im going to capture it, what post processing it will need to make it what I want, what paper Im going to print it on, etc. It's really all the same process just a somewhat different media.
 
systemerror909 said:
1. a good roll of kodachrome or tmax will put the file's resolution to shame.
2. Differences in color balance: As a film shooter I love taking slides, Kodachrome 64 and Velvia 50 are my favorites, but the latter is well known for reproducing colors quite inaccurately. As a personal preference, I often enjoy the bright, highly oversaturated colors that this film produces, similar I suppose to how some audiophiles prefer the increased distortion that single ended tube amplifiers provide.
3. opinion that digital images look much more like mediocre print film than slide, natural and probably alright but not the "wow" you experience when you either watch a slide show or view a chibachrome print.
4. The simple fact that 95% of todays pros use digital is in no means an indication that digital is a superior technology.
5. but digital has reached a level of quality that we as photographers are willing to accept in return for some of the inherent advantages of digital. Digital for me has mean much more versatility (variable isos, not limited by film on hand) and has allowed me to take many more photos than I would have in an only film world.
Click to expand...
1. :D indeed
2. i agree. i love kodachrome's palette but I also love the punch velvia gives
3. very true
4. yep
5. I realised that when playing with our new Rebel XT
 
i think one of the important pieces to this puzzle is output. there is no question that my canon 1ds mark 2 makes better files than my hasselblad negs scanned. no question. remember that unless you're printing images in your own darkroom chances are that you're neg will be scanned and printed digitally. for color prints epson printers are far, far better than traditional darkroom color prints. and as far as b/w goes, it's true that a traditional b/w print is a beautifult thing. and printing b/w using an ink printer is a different beast all together, but i would defy anyne to be able to control an image in a darkroom as well as the average person can using photoshop, making an ink print. there is just no way to control areas of an image as you can in photoshop. and that includes ansel, who would no doubt shoot digitally. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom