Digital or film? What's your preference?
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Joined
·
1,710 Posts
I like digital better simply because I can view the pictures immediately and it doesnt cost anything to shoot however many pictures I want.
photos
I've never been able to take a really good pic of my tanks with a film camera, but have had much more pleasing results with digital. Like Kevin says, you can try over and over again until you get what you want.
One thing everyone should be aware of though, If you want a picture on paper for a scrapbook or albumn and you want the pic to last a lifetime, have your digital pics developed professionally. The ink in most of our home printers is not archival ( it has acids in it ) and the pics will eventually deteriorate and may even harm the albumn or scrapbook you've put them in. I believe the companies who supply our inks are becoming aware of this problem. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we won't have to worry about our treasured pics fading away
Shannon
I've never been able to take a really good pic of my tanks with a film camera, but have had much more pleasing results with digital. Like Kevin says, you can try over and over again until you get what you want.
One thing everyone should be aware of though, If you want a picture on paper for a scrapbook or albumn and you want the pic to last a lifetime, have your digital pics developed professionally. The ink in most of our home printers is not archival ( it has acids in it ) and the pics will eventually deteriorate and may even harm the albumn or scrapbook you've put them in. I believe the companies who supply our inks are becoming aware of this problem. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we won't have to worry about our treasured pics fading away
Shannon
Joined
·
1,710 Posts
Thats a great tip Shannon! I wouldnt have thought about it. I normally dont print any of my pictures, I like to burn them to cd or dvd and store them that way, but it sure is nice to print out some of the better pictures for my own enjoyment. Once they are on a disc I usually forget about them
Joined
·
40 Posts
Digital, because of the immediate results and being able to experiment with no film developing cost. Not that digital images are any cheaper than film when you take into consideration all the places to spend $-) ... new cameras...printers...memory cards...faster PC processor...and on and on and on.....
I am on my 3rd digital and looking forward to #4 within a year.
Regards,
Jay
I am on my 3rd digital and looking forward to #4 within a year.
Regards,
Jay
Joined
·
40 Posts
One other thought about printing pictures - I have kept a journal relating to the aquariums over the years. It is a good writing exersize and sometimes I have even drawn some pics :lol: With the digital camera I sometimes print the pics on plain paper and paste them into the journal - it just adds another dimension to the process. I buy the artists spiral books at art supply stores and have some favorite mechanical pencils and it makes the journaling a pleasureable part of the hobby.
Regrds,
Jay
Regrds,
Jay
I think digital for the immediate results, film for the quality but mostly due to better lenses. Digital SLRs would be the best of both worlds.
Still, for many a good manual SLR can produce photos that truely are amazing. It's harder to do however. For special occasions or when looking for that "perfect" frame, I still take my old F2 out of it's case, snap on the portrait lens and load up the film... In fact, my better photos were taken on film, but so many were wasted...
If cost and patience is not an issue for you, then medium format film cameras really do give stunning results. But for the aquarist, not the aspiring photographer, digital will probably give you the best results with far less time and money invested in it.
Giancarlo
Still, for many a good manual SLR can produce photos that truely are amazing. It's harder to do however. For special occasions or when looking for that "perfect" frame, I still take my old F2 out of it's case, snap on the portrait lens and load up the film... In fact, my better photos were taken on film, but so many were wasted...
If cost and patience is not an issue for you, then medium format film cameras really do give stunning results. But for the aquarist, not the aspiring photographer, digital will probably give you the best results with far less time and money invested in it.
Giancarlo
Re: photos
Something that not everyone is aware of these days, photo labs no longer use traditional methods for printing a photo, at least not the updated ones. Your film is developed, then the negative is scanned and converted to a digital image. It is then printed by the photographic printer from the scanned image, this is why most places today offer services such as red-eye reduction.
All this means that bringing your digital pics into a developing center actually avoids them the trouble of developing the film and scanning the negatives. The remainder of the process and quality is identical to printing photos from film (resolution aside). Most places will accept CDs, memory cards, floppies and even email/website submissions.
Once the novilty is gone, digital prints will be more economic than film. At the moment they cost around the same. I pay $0.22 per 4x6 print, a little less if I bring 20 or more to get printed at once.
Even now however, considering you get to choose the photos you want printed, getting your digital shots printed is often cheaper than having to buy ink and photographic paper for your own printer. And the results will convince you for sure.
Giancarlo
Shannon makes a great point, for your better photos definetly get them processed.shannon said:One thing everyone should be aware of though, If you want a picture on paper for a scrapbook or albumn and you want the pic to last a lifetime, have your digital pics developed professionally. The ink in most of our home printers is not archival ( it has acids in it ) and the pics will eventually deteriorate and may even harm the albumn or scrapbook you've put them in. I believe the companies who supply our inks are becoming aware of this problem. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we won't have to worry about our treasured pics fading away
Shannon
Something that not everyone is aware of these days, photo labs no longer use traditional methods for printing a photo, at least not the updated ones. Your film is developed, then the negative is scanned and converted to a digital image. It is then printed by the photographic printer from the scanned image, this is why most places today offer services such as red-eye reduction.
All this means that bringing your digital pics into a developing center actually avoids them the trouble of developing the film and scanning the negatives. The remainder of the process and quality is identical to printing photos from film (resolution aside). Most places will accept CDs, memory cards, floppies and even email/website submissions.
Once the novilty is gone, digital prints will be more economic than film. At the moment they cost around the same. I pay $0.22 per 4x6 print, a little less if I bring 20 or more to get printed at once.
Even now however, considering you get to choose the photos you want printed, getting your digital shots printed is often cheaper than having to buy ink and photographic paper for your own printer. And the results will convince you for sure.
Giancarlo
I think it's all been said...but I'm a newbie to the site and I want to make a post ....SO....
For the tanks I've never even botherd with film (yet :wink as I can see from the shots that I've taken with digital that alot of them would come out blurred if I tried....wastting film, developing time, money and that many more chemicals down the drain....
I just upgraded the lighting in almost all of my tanks an am looking forward to actually being able to get a few more decent shots.
I prefer digital especaily when working with the web because there is little need for super high quality and great need for "get that shot up there ASAP and tell me what's wrong with my ____". Also of my cameras one of the digital has a better macro focus (unfortunatly that's the one I droped in Isreal and haven't gotten fixed yet :roll: ).
However it is still of my opinion that digital cannot compair to print in color and contrast and a million other ways (who remebers screw mount lenses, the solid click of the mirror returning, wrist flicks with manual advance and ruining your clothes with developing chems).
^_^
....SO....For the tanks I've never even botherd with film (yet :wink
as I can see from the shots that I've taken with digital that alot of them would come out blurred if I tried....wastting film, developing time, money and that many more chemicals down the drain....I just upgraded the lighting in almost all of my tanks an am looking forward to actually being able to get a few more decent shots.
I prefer digital especaily when working with the web because there is little need for super high quality and great need for "get that shot up there ASAP and tell me what's wrong with my ____". Also of my cameras one of the digital has a better macro focus (unfortunatly that's the one I droped in Isreal and haven't gotten fixed yet :roll: ).
However it is still of my opinion that digital cannot compair to print in color and contrast and a million other ways (who remebers screw mount lenses, the solid click of the mirror returning, wrist flicks with manual advance and ruining your clothes with developing chems).
^_^
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Join the discussion
