conventional cameras

  • wookey
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 261
  • Loc: England

Post 3+ Months Ago

was just wondering if any of you guys still used conventional cameras at all,?

reason being it seems lots of people still use them,.. i just wondered what pro's do conventional cameras have over digi cams if any really? what is it that keeps some people with the conventional technology, i only ask as the 'switch' to digital has gone down pretty well with me and i just wanted other peoples opinions on the subject .
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • UNFLUX
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6376
  • Loc: twitter.com/unflux

Post 3+ Months Ago

generally speaking, the printable quality of a traditional photo will never
be beaten from negative to paper. It's irreplaceable.

Some like the overall feel, size, weight, and tones of the traditional as
well. I for one, LOVE my 35mm, but for quick snap-and-go I LOVE my
digital. I think the biggest selling point for digital, even the lower quality
ones, is the no-cost for developing, but the access to printing if you want.

That's just my :my2cents:
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4581
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I agree with UNFLUX, but I prefer digital over 35mm. I taught myself the ins and outs of a camera, with digital. Then went back and played around with 35mm. The ability to take 100's of shots with digital and not have to reload film every 20-30 is great. When I get some more money I will probably invest in a Olympus digital SLR of some sort, but that really depends on how much the lenses are.
  • wookey
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 261
  • Loc: England

Post 3+ Months Ago

yea thats cool, i still have a lot of fun playing around with my 35mm, and it is rewarding, the benefits of digital just seem to overwhelm it sometimes, e njoy using it because it seems somwhat more a challenge, esp seeing as ive fallen out of practice, but overall the digi cam see's far more use simply because of its
  • She God
  • Student
  • Student
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 72
  • Loc: California (Land Of The Cackling Sun)

Post 3+ Months Ago

Ditigal is nice, really nice. I like because once I buy the camera, it costs me nothing more to look at my pictures. I think that once someone gets good at taking pictures, they should go to 35mm (or film or choice)

I really wanted to take a dit. Photography class, but it doesn't count to my AA degree, so I took regular photography. I love it, I really do, but it has cost me so much money. It is the most expensive class I have ever taken. Seems sort of silly to spend the first few months printing out my crappy pictures because I really have no idea what i'm doing. Film and photopaper isn't all that cheap when you're constantly printing.

I love the 35mm, I agree it's better in the long run. But if you want to learn more about taking good pictures, rather then printing good pictures, I'd go with the Ditigal
  • wookey
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 261
  • Loc: England

Post 3+ Months Ago

oh, it is soo nice not to have to develop roll after roll of film any more :wink:
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4581
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I know the print quality is hard to beat, but I use ofoto when I want to get some digital pictures printed. And I have to say, if you were to put one copy of a film print, and the other of a digital, of the same image, it'd be very hard to discern the difference.

I really want to get a nice big 20x30 poster for the heck of it, just to see how it turns out! :-P Maybe someday.
  • wookey
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 261
  • Loc: England

Post 3+ Months Ago

hehe, expense on a complete whim, why not :wink:
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4581
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

ah it's only twenty dollars. Plus their 5x7's and 4x6's were acceptional quality, don't know why their poster sizes would be any different!

:-P
  • wookey
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 261
  • Loc: England

Post 3+ Months Ago

lol, fair enuff :wink:
  • She God
  • Student
  • Student
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 72
  • Loc: California (Land Of The Cackling Sun)

Post 3+ Months Ago

If you're using a 3 megapix. camera I can't see how they can make poster size image look just as good as something you take with a normal camera. And I would think even with a 35mm film a poster sized picture would start to distort just a little (more so depending what sort of film you're using)

Ditigal prints sounds nice if they can make it as good as you say, but it says you can send in actual film and they'll send it back to you printed. Why would anyone pay $4 for one 8x10 (plus shipping) where there are lots of local places that will do it for much cheaper (and faster)
  • UNFLUX
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6376
  • Loc: twitter.com/unflux

Post 3+ Months Ago

you need 5+ megapixels to print a clear poster size. even a 4x6 photo
at 3.2mp isn't a clean print at 300dpi.

nothing at this point in digital photgraphy's short life can compare to
real photos....period.
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4581
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

My 3.3mpx can take 2048x1536 tiff images which I am sure would make great 8x10's. I even think at that quality 20x30's would still look decent. (That resolution isn't even 3.3mpx, more like 3.15 or so)
  • UNFLUX
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6376
  • Loc: twitter.com/unflux

Post 3+ Months Ago

the image dimensions have nothing to do with it. DPI is everything to
printability and it's quality. My Nikon is 3.2mp and prints decent 4x6's if I
need to at 300dpi, but I wouldn't even try to print anything larger with it.

With as much print work I've done, and some of it using my own cameras
I know for a fact it's notworth it if you want pure quailty. If just having
it done for it's own sake is your goal, then by all means it would work.

In terms of absolute professional printing, anything less than 5mp isn't
really worth using at larger sizes.
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4581
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

it depends, ofoto requires certain demensions, and the 6x4s (640x480's) I sent in which were at 72 dpi all turned out great. I know DPI plays a huge factor, but if I can get excellent prints from a 640x480 @ 72 DPI then I am happy, and would be willing to try a 1600x1200 @ 72 DPI for 8x10's or larger.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 15 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: truvahorse and 8 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.