Analog or Digital ?

[Paul_Mc]

So here I am, an amateur photog who's first real camera purchase was the Sony DSC F 707. Not an SLR.

I want to get back into photography on a serious note with an SLR. But beyond deciding which macro lense or tripod to get, I'm beginning to wonder again - do i go analog or digital?

Sure, analog will teach me about exposure and color , etc., and will be cheaper for starters.

But if I want to do it right, I'll want to go with slide film (as i want to print my photos and possibly sell them or whatever) and I wonder how much it will cost to get the slides developed and then how much it will cost to get them scanned (the keepers) and after all that time and expense between film and scanning, eventually i will have spent enough money and will continue spending enough to take me beyond the initial cost of going digital.

Then I think I should go digital and I'll not have to worry about continued expenses , just the initial cost.

I also hear how people say that when you go analog with slides or anything else that scanning the film is copying the image which isn't going to be as good as the original where as with digital you're not "copying" the image.

And then I think about the $ involved in getting the digital camera compared to analog.

So here I am about 2-3 months still without equipment wondering which way to go. Wondering, if its even worth it at all.

It's a hobby. I love nature. But which way do I want to go? Digital? Spend all those bucks? Or analog? Get into slides, learn , get into photography the "right" way?

Or does it really matter anymore? Eek. Hellllp!

[robertwgross]

You will go neurotic trying to reason this out.

I have a digital camera, and I have a film camera. The film cost and processing costs me money, but it gets better results ONLY for when I need to print something very large.

Therefore, I carry both cameras some of the time. When I shoot something with the digital camera and then review the shot, sometimes I am getting something really good. Then I get the film camera out, move the lens from digital to film, and then shoot it with film.

Basically, I keep a foot in both worlds.

---Bob Gross---

[mdebrieder]

Hi Robert,

I've got an EOS 5 since a month and an EOS D30 since a year. You call analogue 'the right way'.. I disagree. I shot my first roll of film on the EOS 5 and there were 30 keepers of the 36! So learning about photography can easily be done with a digital :D I was afraid I'd scr€w it up, but it seems digital is tutor enough :)
Once you've shot digital..... well, I have to really push myself to also carry the analogue! but I will practice it, as it will serve as a backup....
Perhaps this rambling didn't help, but I'd say, if you got the money and want to spend it, go digital!

Cheers!

[Goofup]

Let’s see, buy a cheaper film camera and shoot beautiful slides or get an expensive digital?

With slides you have the processing cost, and you can’t fix them- a slide isn‘t a negative- it‘s the finished product. If it’s underexposed, needs burning, etc. tough. You have to scan it yourself (a decent slide scanner costs as much as a digital), or more money laid out to have it done. Once it’s converted to digital, then you can fix it and print it. You can’t email a slide, put it in your gallery on the web, archive it to CD, or post it here… unless you convert it to digital. (Note the reoccurring theme of having to convert to digital….)

Digital cameras cost more. But once the initial cash outlay is over, it costs the same if you take 5 pictures a week or 500 a day. The only additional money is for those you want to print and you’d have that expense either way.

Pretty simple decision to me….

[Jesper]

Stop worrying. Get a digital SLR!

Before I bought my 10D, I was shooting film with my EOS 30 (Elan 7E) and scanning the slides myself with my Minolta Scan Dual III film scanner.

I had to bring the film to the shop to get it developed, for slides there are here almost no shops that can do that quickly (1-hour service is only for negatives, it takes at least 2 days for slides), then I had to scan them all. Scanning is also tedious work that takes time. Dust and dirt has to be removed from the film as much as possible, because even a small particle will show up as a big blob in the scan. Scanning one frame at the highest resolution takes a few minutes. So that's 2 or 3 minutes for every image. After scanning, I'd have to clone out all the dust blobs in Photoshop, which is also very tedious work.

With the 10D, I push the shutter, look at the histogram on the LCD of the camera to see if the exposure was right and I've got my photo. I upload it into the computer (it takes a few seconds to upload a full memory card). Since I shoot in RAW, I then have to convert the images I like to TIFF, for which I'm using Capture One. So, some post processing is necessary, but it takes far less time than with film.

Also, the images I get from my 10D are much cleaner (i.e. no film grain) than scanned slides. And especially as high ISO settings, the 10D can do things that are very hard with film (for example, if you use high speed colour film indoors, you'll get ugly orange casts because the light is not daylight - on the 10D, you just set the white balance and you're ready).

It's al so much easier, faster and more convenient with a digital camera. Exposure etc. work exactly the same on a digital camera as on a film camera, so that's also not an argument to choose for film.

Also, there's also no difference for the money. With film, you'll have to buy the film, having it scanned costs money (especially if you want to have it scanned at high res on a good scanner), and if you want to buy a film scanner yourself: a really good scanner (such as the Minolta Elite 5400) costs the same as a Digital Rebel / 300D.

[Sam North]

Images scanned by a decent scanner are bigger than those produced by the 300D-20D cameras, so you will get bigger digital prints without resorting to interpolation. No image cropping, no sensor fringing either.

The dynamic range of film is better than any DSLR and slightly overexposed high quality print film is - arguably! - better still all round. You can archive your negs and TIFFs.

Yes, you have to buy the film and process it, but this may just have the edge if you can't afford full-frame DSLRs and you're generally unhappy with digital's highlight problems.

Horses for courses...

Sam

[Steven M. Anthony]

I bought my 10D in April. I've taken about 4,000 photos with it so far. That equates to about 100 rolls of film. Decent processing on a roll of 36 is at least $15--plus maybe $5 for the film itself--so call it $20 per roll. My camera and lens kit cost me under $2,000. So in 7 months, I've essentially paid for the camera in money saved by not buying and processing film!

So if finances is an issue, digital is a no-brainer.

There are, of course, other aspects to consider.


BTW: I also have the sony 707. I used to be so amazed with the picture quality of the 707 until I borrowed my neighbor's DRebel. I did a side-by-side comparison of a dozen or so images and there really was no comparison! I went out the next day and got the 10D (I didn't like the plastic of the DReb).

[Jesper]

Images scanned by a decent scanner are bigger than those produced by the 300D-20D cameras, so you will get bigger digital prints without resorting to interpolation. No image cropping, no sensor fringing either.

The number of pixels is not the only thing that determines the quality of an image. My Minolta Scan Dual III film scanner produces 11 megapixel images at the highest resolution, but because of film grain etc. most of the time they are not better than the 6 megapixel images I get from my 10D. The 10D images are cleaner and sharper than what I get out of the scanner.

[Andy_T]

Some more food for thought :lol:

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-to-analog.shtml

Other than that, get a good DSLR (make your choice: DRebel ... 10D ... 20D ...) and some good lenses.

Best regards,
Andy

[chris.bailey]

Youre on a Forum where most (not all I grant) of us have spent a relative fortune on digital so we are hardly likely to be recommending film :?

To my mind the biggest step was the immediacy of digital. In the film days there way a delay between shooting and getting the picture back. I used slide more than print which meant a 7-10 day wait. With digital I can see results within a few minutes of getting home. I also find that digital tends to free you to experiment as if it goes wrong the DEL button costs nothing so from that point of view the learning curve is easier than with film.

Yes there are some downsides to digital but with the current crop of cameras (10D,300D, 20D or 1dMkII) such differences are pretty small.

Slide scanning gives really good results but man is it slow and you need to be scrupulously clean with the way you store your slides between receipt and scan. Scanning seems to highlight the slightest dust or scratch. A good slide scanner will set you back almost as much as a digital camera so what have you gained?

[Sam North]

Hello Chris

Personally, I have indeed spent a small fortune investing in digital, but nevertheless I am recommending film. The point is, I’m not ruling out DSLRs, even those with smaller sensors. After nearly 10 months with only the 300D, I’m currently using both.

Is grain really a problem in scans bigger than images from 300D-20D cameras? I don’t think so:

…grain will be grain, and bigger scans, more of it! I’m reminded of the very large, and very well received, digital prints Galen Rowell made around 1998-99, something like 50 inches across, if I remember correctly. Commenting on the comparison between two prints of the same image, one conventional and the other digital, he wrote:

"... the digital print is amazing, bringing out the detail and color present in the original slide, but difficult to get in a traditional print..."

In the article I have in mind he mentioned how successfully he smoothed out the grain in areas of continuous tone. Grain elsewhere was of no real consequence. The point is, very fine film grain blown up in very large prints need not be a major concern - and more so now than when Rowell first produced his prints.

Finally, another major factor is the distance at which you view a very large print. Will you see Velvia or Reala grain? I suggest not.

Digital images are cleaner, as Jesper points out, but I’ve a real hard time believing that an 18x12 print from my 300D would beat an 18x12 from a Reala negative. Of course, there’s one way to find out. But how close are we going to look at the prints, and why?

Also, as has been said elsewhere, highlight problems with DSLR imaging sensors of all sizes easily present the edge to negative film. A recent conclusion I reached, based on my own images, is that shooting landscapes with small format DSLR falls a good bit behind film, especially negative film. In fact, for dedicated amateurs the truth is that the medium film format is the way to go for landscapes, if they can afford it! :wink:

I'm trying really hard to get my head around all of this, but I'm sure scanned film has much to offer, and it's very interesting listening to the views of others here in what is really a healthy DSLR vs Scanned Film debate.

Sam

[Steven M. Anthony]

Sam:

Why stop at medium format? Why not large? :D

What it really comes down to is that there are MANY considerations on which medium is used--film or digital. For many reasons, I came to use digital 99.99% of the time. Someone else might use the same criteria and end up shooting film 99.99% of the time because of which criteria they weight. There are no wrong choices if you choose what works best for you.

And while one medium might be better than the other one a particular criterion (like how it deals with highlights), that single criterion might not be that important to people. I certainly understand the differences in latitide between digital, slide film and negative film. And I still shoot 99.99% digital (maybe because, in part, I used to shoot 99.99% slide film). Maybe that makes my photos crappy in the eyes of some. But in the most important eyes that look at my work (mine!), lack of highlight detail is never a problem (just to continue the example).

[Sam North]

I certainly understand the differences in latitide between digital, slide film and negative film. And I still shoot 99.99% digital (maybe because, in part, I used to shoot 99.99% slide film). Maybe that makes my photos crappy in the eyes of some. But in the most important eyes that look at my work (mine!), lack of highlight detail is never a problem (just to continue the example).

Well said. I take your point. :D

I wonder what Paul has decided...

Sam

[Paul_Mc]

I have decided to go digital! Thanks for everyone's input. I'll be going with non-digital lenses but a DSLR, the 20D.

It only makes sense, to me. ;-)

[Steven M. Anthony]

Yeah, Paul! You made the RIGHT choice!! :lol: :wink: