h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I thought the digital against traditional 35mm film camera debate was over, ending with impending death of film cameras.
.
But I read an article by a new convert to digital today that casts some doubt on my inevitable change to digital.
Some 30 years ago I bought an Olympus OM1 SLR camera with own make lens, it was a fantastic camera chosen as it was entirely manual giving greater photographic control. It was sadly all damaged by damp so had to be thrown away.
.
The replacement "all in one" olympus SLR film system gives very good results, and at £170 was reasonable, but I keep hearing how good digital is so was thinking about changing.
In the digital converts article he said although digital gives good results there are some negative points too. He said there is a tendency to just take photo after photo and not really think too much about image, so he started using a smaller memory card that only gives around 25 images to slow things down. He also said it ends up being time consuming as he spends so much time sorting out images on computer.
He also said you have to pay alot for a printer that gives high quality prints and the high quality ink cartridges are expensive, so expensive that he sends images to a lab to be printed. High quality, long lasting, printing paper is also expensive.
.
I tend to not use that many films, perhaps 2 24 exp films per year, as I don't take that many when out, I can wander for hours sometimes taking none at all, so I am wondering if digital is for me, I know you can do digital tricks, but I am not interested, and to be honest as soon as I read a photo has been through digital enhancement I pass it by as I have no idea what is genuine photographic skill.
......maybe I will stick with my film camera!

I wouldn't print it on a home printer: its still quite expensive to get a good photo printer, the ink costs a lot and so does the paper. Even really expensive home photo printers have problems with colours fading over time.

The good news is, taking it to the high street and getting prints there is certainly cheaper than with 35mm, mainly since you don't have to buy rolls of film. Cheaper still are the many online printing companies where you send them the files and they post you the prints.

As for tendancy to take photo after photo, there's nothing to stop you from taking a moment to think about your pictures. But yes, myself I will generally take a few photos of the same thing trying to get it right, and then delete the ones I don't want.

I have owned a Nikon D70 dSLR now for just over a year. I started out as a kid with my Dads film SLR. I then progressed to point-and-shoot digital cameras but was never really happy with them due to their lack of manual control and poor image quality. I then decided to take the plunge into the expensive world of dSLR.

I would never go back to a film SLR now.

> He said there is a tendency to just take photo after photo and not
> really think too much about image, so he started using a smaller
> memory card that only gives around 25 images to slow things down.

Well, yes that could be a problem. But that's not a problem with the camera, it's a problem with the photographer. I do find that I take lots of photos, way more than I would do with a film SLR since I don't have to worry about the cost. But I don't do that to an extreme. I still think about my photography and take time over composition. Only you can answer the question of how you would personally work with a digital camera.

> He also said it ends up being time consuming as he spends so much
> time sorting out images on computer.
>
> I know you can do digital tricks, but I am not interested, and to
> be honest as soon as I read a photo has been through digital
> enhancement I pass it by as I have no idea what is genuine
> photographic skill.

This is a common misconception. You have to remember that with digital the processing of the image becomes a task of you the photographer, whereas with film it was the job of the lab technician and you were mostly unaware of their work. Many of the "digital tricks" of which you speak are mearly computer equivalents of techniques that were used during the processing of a photograph by traditional techniques.

It's true that you need the photographic skill as a basis - without good exposure and composition you have nothing. But digital post-processing can turn a good photo into a great photo in just the same way as chemical techniques applied to film. You'll find many of the digital tricks have the same name as their chemical counterparts.

Having said that, it *is* possible to get good printable results straight from the camera. But spending just a few minutes on post processing can, as I said, turn a good photo into a great photo. It's not cheating - it's all just part of photography.

> He also said you have to pay alot for a printer that gives high
> quality prints and the high quality ink cartridges are expensive,
> so expensive that he sends images to a lab to be printed. High
> quality, long lasting, printing paper is also expensive.

Well you're looking at between £100 and £150 for a decent photo printer to use at home. Personally I have my prints done by a lab just as I would with film - 20p each for a 7x5. The difference being I have total control over the look of the image, and I only pay for the ones I want. I don't get a roll of 24 or 36 photos back to find I only have two keepers. Every print is a keeper.

My photography has come on in leaps and bounds since getting my dSLR. The instant feedback is invaluable in the learning curve. I've even recently been doing some professional work, group shots, portraits etc. It's great when you can start earn money from a hobby.

Just remember what you're getting yourself into. The several hundred pounds you spend on the camera is only the start. I've spent pretty much double that on glass since then.

Whatever you decide, good look and enjoy your photography.

Hooloovoo,
cetainly it is possible to manipulate images through old fashioned enlarger tricks, although when I did mine I rarely did, it was only usually as a last resort to correct some sort of technical problem.
But recently I have been buying some photography magazines and there seems to quite a lot of very false looking images, moons in some very strange places, etc, so it is hard to see the real photograph.
.
I find it odd that you say film SLR cameras didn't give as good quality as digital camera you have now, to be honest, although I get my colour prints through a professional lab for consistancy, I have always thought the problem was that digital cameras were not as good as film SLR cameras for print quality all round, certainly the black and white prints I printed were top notch quality at 10x8 inch and above.
.
I would, if I bought a digital camera , take as few photos as possible and think more about each one, as I do now.
.
I was actually thinking of buying a manual film camera to replace mine, Olympus still make one, it has a metal body but costs around £1,500-2,000 so would require some thought just for a body and one lens! Expect a near new one at a reasonable price would be available as people go digital.
.
As for selling photos, my days of that are gone, I can't take photos of rock bands now due to Tinitus.

> I find it odd that you say film SLR cameras didn't give as good
> quality as digital camera you have now

I don't think I said that? Or at least thats not what I meant.

6MP or above is more than enough. I've got some gorgeous 10x8s done from my D70 and I'm told 30x20 is still very good.

Hi there
I got my first digital camera as a freebee with my computer package some years back. It didn’t have too much resolution but it worked quite well for normal running snapshots. The result was that I went over to digital photography and eventually ended up with a reasonable camera that fills all the needs I have.

For the perfectionist I’m sure film will give a better resolution but my latest camera gives as good as I need. I use a photo printer which gives pretty much as good a rendition as any commercially produced photo.

I think that I can frame a reasonable photo and I don’t take any more than I did before, The ones I want to keep I store on a Zip drive, so what I don’t have is an ever increasing pile of folders holding old photos that I don’t look at anymore.

One of the other things is that I can convince myself that I’m not contributing to pollution from the chemicals that are no longer being used in the processing of the film.

At the moment I’m toying with the idea of a flash memory stick to transfer photos between computers. It seems that there are a lot of possibilities coming up that will increase the flexibility of digital in the future.
All the best
DK

I think the choice has got to be digital every time. I did all the traditional stuff in my younger days and happily spent hours in the darkroom. I've only recently come back to photography, and I went for the Canon EOS 20D. I don't do a huge amount of image manipulation, maily because I've not yet mastered Photoshop, but I cant see that making a great picture fantastic will take anymore time than it did in the lab. There are some phenominal tools out there and the market is evolving all the time. If you are looking for a camera that will give you some longevity, digital has to be the way. I doubt if traditional film will be about in another 30 years!

Redundancy is a problem. It's galling when you see a camera you've just spent £1K on being superceeded by better models three months down the line, but then that has always been the way. It just happens faster nowadays.

The flexibility of digital and the resultant near-zero cost of taking pictures once you have made your investment, has its advantages. I took many, many shots in Portugal last weekend of just one subject. I was using a 400m lens, with a 2X extender at full stroke without a tripod. It was imposible to hold onto, even with image stabilisation turned on in the lens. Digital allowed me to review the results I was getting as I took the shots and that had to be a bonus. It didn't get me the shot however, even using my partners shoulder as a tripod, so traditional skills are still necessary whatever the format!

<>

Oh, tell me about it! The camera is just the start...

Soz, but I am going to stick with film for the while, I am not interested in manipulating images, I would rather rely on me.
.
Sure film might be a little more expensive but I know that the pro-lab I use provides me with archive quality prints that will last years and years. That is one very good reason for using film.
My Olympus SLR film camera produces as high quality images as the man in shop claimed. For £170 I get everything I need.
I don't have to worry about buying archive quality digital paper, latest software, high quality printer (wouldn't buy a cheap one), computer, expensive Digital camera, memory cards, etc.
.
I am quite happy to take a few rolls per year and really think about what I want before pushing shutter button. Yes film may appear more expensive, but by time you account for computer cost, camera cost, printer cost, etc maybe it isn't that differnt. I can get professional Lab 9x6 inch archive quality prints (including film cost) for 60p each.
......had my Olympus OM1 system not been damaged beyond repair I would happily have carried on using my 30 year old camera with its high quality images. Sure it didn't have flashing the lights of today, but it had a metal body, metal bodied lenes, and even had glass lenses unlike the plastic used in place of glass in some lenses nowdays! Autofocus, auto exposure, no way did it have those...that was why I chose it , but by God it was easy to use, you could guarantee that it focused on what YOU wanted.
......I shall carry on using my present film camera until beyond repair or film is stopped being sold.
Heck, I may even buy another manual film camera and carry on in my own sweet way, much to annoyance of camera shops.

I think that's fair enough SS. You've obviously thought about what's right for you and what you say makes perfect sense. I already had the PC technology and printers etc, so Digital seemed the correct route for me, rather than re-equipping for film format.

I deliberatly bought the best I could afford and I have gone for the highest quality lenses my budget would reach too. I've stuck with Canon lenses (hell, they are expensive) but I've had problems with other kit being 100% compatible with the camera body. I enjoy the bells and whistles, but that's just me. I can well understand you feeling differently. For the moment, there are still at least both choices. I think that choice will be there for some time as it's a big cost consideration for most (professionals included) to go the digital route. My own feeling is that eventually, digital will become the norm.

> Soz, but I am going to stick with film for the while,

No need to apologise...... I don't care what you do either way!

> I am not interested in manipulating images, I would rather rely
> on me.

Or rather, you'd rather rely on your pro-lab to post process for you....... you still need the same "me" to rely on whether it's digital or film.

> Sure film might be a little more expensive but I know that
> the pro-lab I use provides me with archive quality prints that will
> last years and years. I can get professional Lab 9x6 inch archive
> quality prints (including film cost) for 60p each.

That's great. My digital 9x6 prints are only 40p each that are archive quality and will last for years and years. That's proper photos printed on light sensitive paper developed using real wet chemicals.... not ink that might fade.

> and even had glass lenses unlike the plastic used in place of glass
> in some lenses nowdays!

I don't think I've ever seen an SLR with plastic lenses. But naturally, if you buy cheap you get rubbish. My new lenses are good old fashioned glass and are sharper and faster than any lens I ever used on my old film SLR.

But like I said...... you do what pleases you.

Certainly go for Canon lenses if possible, as good quality, and will be usable on another Canon replacement body.
Don't really think it is necessary to buy say a 500mm Cannon mirror lens though, I bought a Makinon one for a fith of Olympus price as knew I wouldn't use it that much.
Think there is a tendency for some people to buy too many lenses though and end up not using some, which just bumps up overall cost.
.
They new systems of just a camera and inbuilt printer base are a good idea as cuts out all the computer malarky, if they made them that gave larger sized prints they would be even better though.

Hoovooloo,
we have already been through the manipulation of images bit, and as I made quite clear already, I meant putting in fake moons, twisting images, etc. My prolab just prints from a machine and does not manipulate image in that sense.
.
And I fail to see why a digital camera lens should have a sharper image than an equivalent lens from a modern Film SLR camera. There is no magical digital camera glass, and it would hardly be surprising if same glass were used in digital/film cameras. There will always be better lenses used on more expensive cameras, be they digital or film.
Indeed, you can get converters to fit old film lenses to a digital camera, although clearly some mechanical funtions may not operate.

> And I fail to see why a digital camera lens should have a sharper
> image than an equivalent lens from a modern Film SLR camera.

They wouldn't. I was mearly making the point that my modern lenses are better than the old lenses I used to use on my film SLR. So your comment about modern lenses being plastic rubbish is not valid. At least, provided you don't by cheap tat.

<<"They new systems of just a camera and inbuilt printer base are a good idea as cuts out all the computer malarky, if they made them that gave larger sized prints they would be even better though".>>

I'm going to recommend again not to home print digital or scanned film photos. Its more expensive than professional printing and the colours *will* fade, and probably won't be that great in the first place. Plus you won't have a stored copy. Go to a shop or order them off the internet.

To be honest the comment about all in one camera /printer was just a general comment, if in the distant, distant future I am forced to buy digital and the camera/printer combination was SLR and the printing quality was top notch 9x6 archive quality I would think about it.
.
But if it is as bad as the prints they produce on computer/digital camera at work, I would rather buy a Polaroid.
For some reason Digital cameras seem to be improving quickly but the print making process seems to be getting left behind.
I would love there to be a simple to use SLR digital camera/built in printer combination giving large long lasting prints. Just a simple system would be cheaper and ideal for my use.
.
Even better, although not possible on 35mm, would be a system like some larger format cameras which, I believe, can use a film or digital, "film" back, meaning the main body is multi use, keeping down costs.

There are larger format digital cameras, but the back is a scanning back, so its only useful if there's absolutely no motion. I don't understand why they can't just get lots of sensors and put them next to each other (think video wall). Maybe they can, but I haven't seen it.

If you have a digital camera, you can take the filled memory card into any high-street printing shop and they will be happy to print from that, and in many places to burn the photos to a cd for you as well. Actually they scan your film before they print that anyway. And then they print analogue and digital alike with an exposure process using lasers.

The *only* real drawback I have had with dSLR's is the sensor size. Coming from a traditional 'film' background, I've been used to focal lengths being as stated. If I swap lenses now, I have to compensate for that factor, which makes one think at times.

True, there are now dSLR's with a sensor size equivalent to 35mm or professional backs, but these are way beyond most amateurs' budgets, and this is one area I really hope will improve in the next few years.

But that will mean a new body - do I really want it??

Of course I do!!!!!!!!

I've got used to the sensor size.

I just remember now that 18mm is wide angle, not 27. It's just a question of getting the "feel" for it. The problem I have with the sensor size really is it means the view finder is smaller.

I doubt that full frame dSLR are really going to take off. Manufacturers are putting so much time and effort into their DX sized image circle lenses. Plus it's easier to produce a quality lens that only has to project a DX image circle compared to 35mm.

By the sound of it, I'm certainly not such a keen photographer as you, but I thought you might be interested in my experience.

I have a versatile Olympus SLR which I have enjoyed for many years, taking mostly holiday snapshots & just a few shots for low key competitions. What put me off using it more often was the weight & bulk to carry around.

Last year I bought a fairly basic (not too expensive) digital 6MP Nikon for portability. I now find it really odd to use the SLR & not be able to look straight away at what I've taken. Personally I do think that overall I get better photos with the SLR, but it may be that it has more flexibility (certainly in terms of wide angle/zoom) or I'm just not always using the best settings with digital.

Certainly there are times when I the capabilities of my Olympus & I guess that eventually I'll buy a digital equivalent, but for the moment, I'll use both.

I did use a non SLR digital once, and found it strange looking at the screen at back, expect I would get used to it though.
It is odd you talking about weight of SLR camera equipment being too heavy, which is true, but one thing I have found is the Olympus all in one SLR camera I bought a couple of years ago having a plastic body, is more prone to camera shake due to light weight..
Olympus do a digital SLR which seems to come out well in tests, although expensive, I believe there is a metal body version.