|
Shutterbug Strasse A photographer's haven for the lastest in digital or traditional film cameras. |
|
|
|
Shutterbug Strasse A photographer's haven for the lastest in digital or traditional film cameras. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Digital -VS- Traditional posted by Keith on April 21, 2001 at 14:14:45:
Kieth, Romy and other Shutter bugs
I respect your opinions but I must tell you that you need to see some PICs from better cameras. The quality of film –VS- Digital would become clear to you if this was the case. Cameras like the 35 MM are toys to me and Digital are even lower that that. When you compare the two they are light years apart. [35mm vs Digital]
**I suspect your question is on a much lighter-level than my answer, but regardless, it's still food for thought:
Actually it is how you or anyone, as I sees it, perceives what a good photo looks like. A picture is worth a thousand words in this case.
Regardless I have use Cameras that are worth more that some cars. And for the most part I like the film type better than the Digital type. You would too if you saw a few photographs from a good [even a modest camera with a great lens] camera/lens combo and compared them to the Digital out put from even the best Digital cameras.
***It really depends at where you draw your line as to the "best medium".
No not really. An 8x10 negative will have much better resolution than any little pee pop digital camera. Even a 35 mm will beat the crap out of a DC.
Check out Ansel Adams photos and you will see what I am talking about. He used a View Camera. Remember that you are seeing them on a digital format and it sucks.
http://www.sunspotphoto.com/cameras/view.html
Here is a link to AA and some of his pics
http://www.ocaiw.com/adams.htm
*** -- is your purpose just to snapshot pictures of family and friends, and post it online? Or on a photo album?
I have been trained as a professional photographer as well as an Avionics Technician and will leave it at that.
***Until you know exactly what you want to do, both the $1300 digital camera and the $400 SLR may both be the wrong items for you.
No not really. Cost will dictate all. And if you are creative, yes creativity and photography go hand in hand, you can get better results from a standard SLR than any digital Camera.
***Personally, I remain yet to be convinced that digital photography has caught up with traditional film. I am a Canon EOS lover, and in looking at results from the Canon D-30 (digital SLR, $3k), Nikon, and Kodak digital SLRs, I have yet to find the true color and texture rendition that I love so much about true "photographic art". No matter what, these digital cameras still create a "pasty" color to my eyes. And I don't mind using slow film scanners to convert my work to online pictures. So for me, personally, I still think my "best medium" is film, be it 35mm, or larger format.
We seem to agree then.
My way to do things: If you use a traditional camera and have the film developed and have it saved to a CD you will have the best of both worlds and save a lot of money too.
You can print the pics you like best as well as send them over the net.
Your 120 x 220 is an excellent format film [one of my favorites] and will produce wonderful PICs.
***Best wishes in your camera hunt.
I am not hunting for a camera, just providing “food for thought†;o)
***and welcome to the camera asylum.
Thank you!
http://a908.g.akamai.net/7/908/327/24h/images.allposters.com/images/IMA/A142.jpg
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Digital -VS- Traditional - Van 20:02:09 04/21/01 (4)
- The choice is yours... (more) - Steven R. Rochlin 21:55:54 04/21/01 (3)
- Well put. - Van 22:16:07 04/21/01 (2)
- Thanks Van... (more) - Steven R. Rochlin 06:10:03 04/22/01 (1)
- Re: Thanks Van... (more) - Van 11:50:50 04/22/01 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
