Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-04-2012, 06:30 AM   #16
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 268
Original Poster
35 mm vs. digital

I thank you all for your comments on this thread. I'm new to the Forums and didn't know I was flogging a dead horse. Clearly, everybody who responded is 100% for digital and I respect that. My point is that I have shot with film and digital cameras for many years. I'm not a great photographer but I can produce images that fully satisfy me. I found that if I tried to enhance an image from film, my options were limited and I never could produce a significantly better image than the original. With digital, it was far far easier. I could sharpen an image, produce beautiful sunsets when the original scene was uninspiring, easily delete objects that I didn't want in the picture, correct lens deficiencies, and even changed architectural perspectives from what the naked eye sees. All this can be done easily to produce vastly enhanced images. I love it, of course, and wouldn't want to change it. However, as I said originally, I sometimes feel I'm cheating because I often need (and want to) stray far away from the original image.

I have no intention of reverting to film photography. It is less convenient and it would not give me the quality of pictures that I want. To this end I am quite prepared to "cheat", and live with it. My apologies if I offended anybody.

p.s. I still love the mechanical perfection of the early metal-body cameras. Current plasticky cameras don't turn me on.

05-04-2012, 07:58 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pemberton BC
Posts: 238
QuoteOriginally posted by P. Soo Quote
I found that if I tried to enhance an image from film, my options were limited and I never could produce a significantly better image than the original. With digital, it was far far easier. I could sharpen an image, produce beautiful sunsets when the original scene was uninspiring, easily delete objects that I didn't want in the picture, correct lens deficiencies, and even changed architectural perspectives from what the naked eye sees. All this can be done easily to produce vastly enhanced images.
You can do all this with film and a hybrid workflow. All my film is scanned by the lab - 645 frames come out at about 16mp, 6x9 frames about 30mp - and then I edit in ACR and Photoshop. Full digital images are probably technically 'better' but even scanned film has a certain look, particularly B&W - the fine grain TMax and Delta films are beautiful. Plus you get the joy of using classic precision instruments.

It's actually a great time to get into film, I bought an entire Mamiya M645 Pro system for the price of a good modern lens. And the manual was only 45 pages!



That being said, I still probably use my K-5 90% of the time...
05-04-2012, 08:43 AM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 268
Original Poster
Thanks for the info.
05-04-2012, 10:01 AM   #19
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,903
Here is one previous dead horse :-)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-technique/147679-no-post-processing-craze.html

05-04-2012, 10:53 AM   #20
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
QuoteOriginally posted by P. Soo Quote
... I sometimes feel I'm cheating because I often need (and want to) stray far away from the original image...
boy do i hear you. I am riddled with guilt each day when i drive to work in my internal combustion vehicle and it only takes me an hour; I sometimes cannot believe i shaved 6 hours off my best time with the horse and wagon.

05-04-2012, 11:07 PM   #21
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 59
For many people Auto/Green is the perfect setting.
05-05-2012, 09:09 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 864
Right....

QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
Discussed to death in many previous threads :-)

In a word... nope. Images are still mine. Film was/is manipulated as much as digital.
..and it took a LOT more deadly chemicals to do it!

Cheers,
Cameron
05-05-2012, 10:25 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
We have better resolution at high ISO
That depends if you're shooting in colour or B&W, B&W film has a higher resolution then the sensors we use in our DSLR but when we will compare colour film with coloured subject then the digital sensor out resolve it in everyway.

05-05-2012, 11:14 AM   #24
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,341
QuoteOriginally posted by Cambo Quote
..and it took a LOT more deadly chemicals to do it!

Cheers,
Cameron
Yeah digital is really “green”. There is zero environmental impact on all the batteries, storage media, computers, monitors, printers, digital cameras/phones that are discarded around the world. I’d love to see the stats on the digital “trash” that’s created every year!

Phil
05-06-2012, 10:59 AM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
For some folks...maybe. For others, it's not even close. Digital is manipulated much more.
And for others, there is no difference, and for others still, it's film image they manipulate more. This is a statement about diffeences between *people*, not diffeences in *media* - some people do more PP than other. It is also a statement about people in another way - some people make a bizarre and completely aribtrary distinction between things they do to influece the look of their pictures *before* they press the shutter versus the things they do *after* pressing the shutter. don't me wrong - I make that distnction, too. But at least I recognize it as being bizarre and arbitrary, and don't pretend I am better or more skilled than someone else because I make more of my technical and aesthetic choices before pressing the shutter rather than after.
05-06-2012, 11:12 AM   #26
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
QuoteOriginally posted by P. Soo Quote
I thank you all for your comments on this thread. I'm new to the Forums and didn't know I was flogging a dead horse. Clearly, everybody who responded is 100% for digital and I respect that. My point is that I have shot with film and digital cameras for many years. I'm not a great photographer but I can produce images that fully satisfy me. I found that if I tried to enhance an image from film, my options were limited and I never could produce a significantly better image than the original. With digital, it was far far easier. I could sharpen an image, produce beautiful sunsets when the original scene was uninspiring, easily delete objects that I didn't want in the picture, correct lens deficiencies, and even changed architectural perspectives from what the naked eye sees. All this can be done easily to produce vastly enhanced images. I love it, of course, and wouldn't want to change it. However, as I said originally, I sometimes feel I'm cheating because I often need (and want to) stray far away from the original image.

I have no intention of reverting to film photography. It is less convenient and it would not give me the quality of pictures that I want. To this end I am quite prepared to "cheat", and live with it. My apologies if I offended anybody.

p.s. I still love the mechanical perfection of the early metal-body cameras. Current plasticky cameras don't turn me on.
In reading the previous posts there was at least one that said they shot both. I shoot both, preferring shooting film and working in the darkroom for black and white and digital for colour. The only reason I am adding to this is the term cheating, what ever does this mean? It still for the most part GIGO and good light is still the starting point. How far one strays from the original is a personal preference and if one does not wish to stray far one can choose to do this, which is why so few of my images go beyond Lightroom and why other people's work hardly look like photographs at all. Cheating in my mind is when one uses a filter or action in PS and then declares they have a bromoil or a watercolour when all they have is an image that looks like one made those ways.

Off to have lunch and then a little darkroom work. Chemicals are not that nasty and although they do cause some pollution so does digital the real difference is one is local and the other is totally removed from the user, one should be considerate of the environment using either.
05-07-2012, 11:30 PM   #27
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
Depends upon what you were doing with your images. "Back in the day"....if you were submitting them for publication, only slides were accepted. Negative film need not apply. There may have been some manipulation when the image went to print, but that usually occured after it left the photographer's hands.
Sorry, but this needs explication. "Back in the day", SOME publications required slides. Others wanted low-contrast prints. My work was published world-wide without a chrome to be seen. Yes, it's good to have Kodachrome skills, but for much camera work, other proficiencies are necessary too.
05-08-2012, 04:18 AM   #28
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Sorry, but this needs explication. "Back in the day", SOME publications required slides. Others wanted low-contrast prints. My work was published world-wide without a chrome to be seen. Yes, it's good to have Kodachrome skills, but for much camera work, other proficiencies are necessary too.
It's more like "some" publications accepted prints, but "most" accepted slides only...for color work, I mean.
05-08-2012, 04:26 PM   #29
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Not sure which day or which world you mean, but all professional print uses I have ever submitted to required color-separated film (eg, separate C, M, Y, and K transparencies).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cameras, computer, days, dslr, exposure, image, level, pentax, photography, print
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital Foci - Digital Porter 35 not compatible with DNG and K-7 PEF. raider Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 4 02-22-2012 04:34 PM
Metz CL45 digital vs Metz 58af 2 digital adwb Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 11 11-13-2011 07:19 PM
Digital Camera (UK Magazine) Digital Edition? Scottie137 Photographic Technique 0 06-02-2011 12:34 PM
Digital Sensors tehSancho Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 07-27-2010 09:29 PM
Digital Filters in Pentax Digital Camera Utility 4? lawsonstone Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 0 07-19-2009 04:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:21 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top