Page Summary
malaheed.livejournal.com - (no subject)
vescoiya.livejournal.com - (no subject)
lisa-marli.livejournal.com - (no subject)
tigerfort.livejournal.com - (no subject)
tree_and_leaf - (no subject)
lil-shepherd.livejournal.com - (no subject)
the-marquis.livejournal.com - (no subject)
the-marquis.livejournal.com - (no subject)
philmophlegm.livejournal.com - (no subject)
Style Credit
- Style: by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 06:04 pm (UTC)which do you use? or which is better? or which do you prefer?
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 06:25 pm (UTC)What are you going to use it for? I mean unless you need massive enlargement of pictures the resolution on digital is more than ample. Also, do you have a lot of old lens and if so, which brand? As most of the time you won't be able to use slr lens on a new digital slr body. Unless you've got a canon camera where they deliberately made them compatible.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 11:21 pm (UTC)I thought that too!
Digital all the way here. Film far too much hassle, too expensive, too slow (in terms of being able to see the results and improve technique based on them).
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 06:44 pm (UTC)So I went digital. At least now i can't Not get the pictures to hang around someplace.
Now all I need to do is upload them onto flicker so that the friends can see them.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 07:35 pm (UTC)However, I still have a hankering for doing my own b&w printing (not that I have access to a darkroom just now...)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 08:34 pm (UTC)Film is still higher quality for big blowups. Film does not degrade in the same way as copying digital files does. On the other hand, I've been having my films transferred to disc at the same time as they are developed and printed for years, and its the discs that I use...
I still own my film SLR and will no doubt continue to use it in certain circumstances. However, the digital SLR has replaced it for practical purposes.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-20 05:54 pm (UTC)I suspect that we're talking about different things here, but simply copying a digital image shouldn't cause any degradation at all. However, opening a JPEG image in an image editing application and then saving it again as another JPEG will degrade it as JPEG is a lossy format. (PNG & TIFF don't suffer from this problem.)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 10:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-19 03:28 pm (UTC)Going on my Dad's experience, it seems that while pros often use film, serious amateurs all seem to use digital now. He's a member of a local photographic society and was in another one when he lived in Wrexham, and says that all the serious amateurs he knows use digital almost exclusively now.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-20 05:52 pm (UTC)That's interesting, about four years ago I was speaking with a couple of professional press photographers. They were saying that they'd been using digital for well over ten years while amateurs were only just starting to catch up with using digitals.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-21 12:50 pm (UTC)I also think you're right about press photographers - the ease of getting the photo in to the office from location means that they were probably early adopters of digital. But I think that there are still portrait photographers, fashion photographers, landscape photographers etc still using film. Many of these types probably never went over to SLR and are still using big expensive medium format Hasselblads and the like anyway.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-21 05:25 pm (UTC)