|
Post by nikonbob on Mar 13, 2007 17:30:27 GMT -5
You learn something new everyday or so they say. Today I took some files recorded with the FZ50 in it's highest quality JPEG setting and had 11x14s and a 12x18 inch prints done at Wally World. I can hear the groans already. The original JPEG files were worked a little in PS2 and saved as TIFFs, then burned to a CD to take them to the store. The selection was done on a Kodak Kiosk and I waited 1 hour not expecting any decent results. I was wrong on that score. The resulting prints are good enough to my eyes to frame and hang on the wall. All this from a digital camera that has a small 10 MP sensor that has been run down on the net as having excessive noise. That maybe so, but at the 100 ISO setting that I use I have no reason to grumble. I am seriously considering using digital as my main photo recording media in the future. No I will not abandon film entirely as I have too much film on had and too many fine film cameras to use them in. I just have to find a digital that operates most like my favourite FM2n. Sorry the M8 is just too expensive to put it bluntly. Anyway it was an eye opener for me and I just wanted to share the experience. This is not posted to start any flame wars re digital vs film and YMMV as everyone is an individual with differing standards.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Mar 13, 2007 17:43:20 GMT -5
Hey Bob - As I mentioned once before, I'm convinced digital is the way to go. Curt & Rick convinced me. BUT! What I should have been doing is selling my unneeded film cameras to make up the deposit for the one I want. Sell a camera? Wash your mouth out.
I've just bought another Yashica. Ha Ha Hee Hee, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats......
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Mar 13, 2007 18:27:37 GMT -5
Bob, it's an eye opener isn't it? I carry around a little pocket digicam that hangs in there with the best of my 35mm cameras on normal size prints. And prints from my DSLR are fantastic. Having said that, I keep coming back to film -- especially B&W film. It's a lot more work than digital for me because I develop my own and scan it myself, but there's a quality to it that I can't give up. Plus, like you, I love my film cameras. They're simply nicer cameras to use than any of my digis. In the past six months I've acquired one used DSLR and probably about six used 35mm cameras. And I'm not a collector (he swears though the cameras keep arriving in the mail) Gene
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Mar 13, 2007 20:00:57 GMT -5
John
Sell unneeded film cameras? People actually sell cameras off?
Gene
Yes I agree that film cameras are simply nicer camera than any of my digitals and that is another reason that I am having trouble coming to grips with finding a suitable DSLR. If Nikon ever put out a retro DSLR that had the body and controls of an FM2n I would be sorely tempted.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Mar 13, 2007 21:54:39 GMT -5
I guess I'm getting old... but I can't get past the fact that digital cameras and especially DSLR's look like rejected Spartus designs. They are all pretty much butt ugly.... but I suppose we should be happy that they aren't made from Bakelite.... no, wait! Bakelite can be made in interesting colors instead of that dreary stove black plastic DSLR's use... and that would improve the looks way too much!!
Orlin in SC/USA
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 13, 2007 21:55:05 GMT -5
Bob: You all know from my recent posts that I am a convert. Shot this this evening of our granddaughter. The light was sort of weird but would have had the same situation with film and it would have been at least tomorrow before I knew it (should have cranked up the ISO from 200 to 400). Shot about 40 frames and selected about 10 as keepers. Total cost for film and processing--Zero--a few cents for a couple of 4x6 prints I made for us and Gracie's parents. My goal is to move from the D100 to the D200--not so much because of more megapixels -- 6 v. 10 but because the D200 will meter with a whole stack of manual focus Nikon lenses I have (which I also can still use on my F3 film camera). Maybe by this fall. . . . Sold my Mamiya C220 today.
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Mar 13, 2007 22:05:49 GMT -5
Wayne, excellent picture.. the reflected light from the right illuminates her face (very cute too, by the way) giving good definition to her face without dark shadows.
Orlin in SC/USA
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 13, 2007 22:18:39 GMT -5
Addendum:
I shot my first photograph when I was about 10 years old--about 1955. And except for a gap in the 90s had shot all through my life. When I got back into cameras in 2002 I think it was a much to possess cameras I hadn't been able to afford in the past as it was to shoot. Nevertheless I've been filing away something like 75 rolls of film every year--a lot of the shots simply to test my newest acqusitions.
Since acquiring the D100 a little over a month ago I probably have shot more photos that really have some significance to me than I have in most of the past five years. With film I might take a couple of shots, then wait a week or month before exposing any more frames on the roll because it meant hauling the film to the store, paying to have it processed, then scanning in a few of the negs. This evening Grace was standing outside waiting for her mom to pick her up, I pulled out the digital, fired off 40 frames and an hour later had 10 of them processed and filed. It has really rekindled my enthusiasm for actually shooting pictures. I will admit that I hated my digital point and shoots because I couldn't stand the lag between the time you press the button and the camera fired--plus most P&S viewfinders aren't worthy of the definition--you have to peer at the LCD when shooting. But when you get a camera where the shutter is instantaneous and there's a buffer that allows you to fire three or more frames without stopping and a decent viewfinder it makes digital a whole different experience.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Mar 14, 2007 9:01:11 GMT -5
Wayne, it's been fun to follow your progress into DSLRdom. It's parallel to mine. It has put the zest back into my photography, for the same reasons. And it's also made me appreciate my film gear and spend time with it as well. But that came a little later, once the newness of the experience wore off a bit.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by herron on Mar 14, 2007 9:07:30 GMT -5
Wayne: Excellent shot of your granddaughter...such an expressive young lady! I've been reading the film/digital comments, and have to admit that I've started carrying my DSLR with me at least as often as one of my film cameras...and I probably shoot more frames with it when I do. Still, it's not the kind of thing I'm likely to start collecting any time soon....
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 14, 2007 9:47:38 GMT -5
Ron: Absolutely right. Digitals are a long way from being collectible IMO, although a some point there may be some demand for some of the very early models (maybe there already is?) But personal computers have been around for something like 30 years now and there hasn't been any rush to collect them although I'm sure some folks do. I ran across an example of the first Radio Shack computer a few years ago--which was really the first mass market home computer. But I ended up selling it, promarily because of the space required to store it. That's what makes cameras easier to collect. They don't occupy a lot of space. Of course, since they are smaller you end up getting more of them and pretty soon you have a room full.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Mar 14, 2007 11:55:49 GMT -5
Wayne, your granddaughter is a beautiful subject and her expression in that shot is priceless. She'll look back on that picture with fond memories many years after we're all gone. I took my first wedding in almost 32 years last Saturday and I used my Pentax DS for the whole affair. I set the ISO for 400, used auto-focus, and took the entire wedding with a Sigma 18~50mm lens. The chapel was entirely made of pine inside and bounce flash wasn't an option. Of course the wedding dress reflected way too much light, blowing the highlights. Pre-wedding and the Reception shots are much better as I used bounce flash for those. My camera has 6MP and gives a 41x27 (rounded) image at 72 dpi. I resized the shots I selected to 12.2 x 8.113 inches and 300 dpi. They will make an exact 4 x 6 print and I left enough extra in each picture to crop for 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 prints. The image below was taken at the Reception. It's been cropped and resized for display here. I can live with digital for weddings if I must. The 42 year-old gown is real satin and ivory color. Walker
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Mar 14, 2007 12:26:13 GMT -5
Walker:
Nice work. And you didn't have to wait for a custom lab to process the film and ship back the proofs. A lot of folks don't realize what can be done with a 6 megapixel DSLR. I didn't until I got one. The white makes it tough whether you are shooting film or digital. I shot weddings years ago. The only thing I liked about it was the money:)
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Mar 14, 2007 13:47:46 GMT -5
Walker: Nice work. And you didn't have to wait for a custom lab to process the film and ship back the proofs. A lot of folks don't realize what can be done with a 6 megapixel DSLR. I didn't until I got one. The white makes it tough whether you are shooting film or digital. I shot weddings years ago. The only thing I liked about it was the money:) Wayne Wayne, I was paid but it was done more as a favor than anything. It also reminded me of why I don't do weddings on a regular basis.... it was 3 1/2 hours of non-stop work before I could slow down.. So far, everyone who has seen the pictures have commented favorably and that's good. I have another wedding to do in June - another "favor" - and I hope that ends it. Walker
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Mar 14, 2007 16:36:50 GMT -5
You should average three per month from Mar. to Oct.
|
|