Old fashion photography vs. digital

I think for the everyday person who wants to create an album of pictures of events such as weddings, birthdays, holidays, old fashioned photography is more efficient and less time consuming. Also most people don't own a printer capable of printing a digital picture at a very nice quality. However for the professional, digital photography is definitely the wave of the future. Although it does take out the fun of the multiple techniques of developing film it does allow for easier editing and publishing in a portfolio whether their "portfolio" be a magazine or an actual portfolio. What do you guys think

The more you run over a cat, The flatter it gets.
The more I hit you, The flatter you get.

true, but many computer illiterate people do not know how to do that. and yes, most digital cameras are point and shoot. but they all require some kind of installation on your computer which to a computer illeterate person may be difficult.

Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's your own life, live it.

those are professional with disgusting pixel ratios and features. a 500- digital camera suits ones everyday needs.....when you go into 1000+ cameras sometimes they record movies as well....otherwise known as a digital camcorder

Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's your own life, live it.

no good analogs run very high as well...my analog cost like 300 i think...i never did tell you i am photographer...whatever i have a manual nikormat with interchangable lenses and all the works.

Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's your own life, live it.

300 is still less than 500 (200 less, meaning u can finally get that rubber dildo ).

Sig of the week.

whoa there...its ok and all if your like that..but i'm not

Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's your own life, live it.

not really. each has its techniques for editing/developing/formatting/etc. while traditional photography is done with solution, magnifiers, which take skill to learn and use. digital photography has its own to learn and use. to get good, professional results with each, you have to know what you're doing, the ole "red eye" button in kodak's cracker-jack software won't cut it all the time.

I run duals because i multitask between notepad, outlook express and winamp

You don't need a 5MP digital camera for CDs or even for regular printouts. 3MP is enough. A good 3MP Kodak can be had for $400.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

one more thing,

pick up any photography magazine,
shoot, pick up any <b> digital </b> photography magazine,
I'll bet 90% of pics and shots you will see in there were shot using analog camera (probably wide format),
in exception when doing reviews and comparing digital cameras.
but majority of the shots where shot using slides, and in most cases medium format film.
I blow my 35mm film prints to 11 x 14 and sometimes larger prints- beyond that the grain starts to be really noticable,

I dont know the actual physical size of a ccd censor in digital cameras, but when blowing up a 3.3 mega pixel image to an 8x10, -some people will say that it looks good, but others will not.


but for the amature photographers, I think digital is better, cheaper, more convinient.


I'm hoping that canon g2 will drop in price, so maybee I'll get it for my wife.

my 2 rubles.

Actually I have Both types of cameras. For quick snapshots a good digital camera is the way to go. At least 1.3 megapixel or better.

Like stated above the quality of photos from digital cameras can not even come close to a good 35mm camera.Especiall if you want to blow them up to 8x10 or11x14. They start to look like games at 640x480, really blocky and blurry.

But when it comes to wildlife ,scenery or important photograaphs I prefer the 35mm.You just cant put a 300mm zoom lens on a digital or filters for uv,haze etc. You can change the exposure to suit your taste and preferance. Such as taking a picture of something in the shade when you are standing in bright sunlight. The digital will read bright sunlight and the object in the shade will come out dark.

Also if you try to take a picture of something in the background and there is something close in the foreground most digitals will focus on the foreground object and the background object you really wanted will be blury.

As far as developing. You can have your 35mm film developed and placed on a cd for about $1us more at most places. And you can also have your digital pictures printed on regular photo paper for about $.35us each at most places. So there is no difference in print quality.

I aint signing nothing!!!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Rick_Criswell on 03/30/02 00:37 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

Apparantly each pixel in a CCD captures one colour tone only. A company called <A HREF="http://www.foveon.com" target="_new">Foveon</A> made a new ccd called x3 that captures all colours in each pixel. This makes its resolution 3 times higher than other ccds of the same marked resolution. The only camera available using this technology is around $3000 though, but all the big manufacturers are showing interest which means prices will come down. And since achieving such quality using other ccd cameras will cost a lot more (i.e. 3 times higher marked resolution), It should be popular.

Just so I don't get flamed or anything, let me say I know virtually nothing about photography, digital or otherwise. I'm just forwarding some stuff someone once told me with a link of sorts.

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>

So true, however, it's the print out quality that I didn't like not the onscreen quality. BTW, the camera I'm talking about is the Kodak DX3215.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

Hehe, I bet you my 7 year old Canon BJC4100 is worse.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

No, I have three other printers, hehe, including a laser printer.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

muha i got you all beat i still have one if those really old printers with the paper that has the holes on the side....

Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's your own life, live it.

An Epson C40 selles for around 70$ at Costco here in Canada.
So you get a 600x600 inkjet printer whit 2 cartridges for less than 100$ now...there is no reason to still have a DOT matrix unless have to do multiple copies.



The faster a computer is, the faster it will reach a crashed state

Sorry AMD_MAN the reply was for No1kung1,I it reply to yours by mistake ,you did say you had other printers in a previos post.




The faster a computer is, the faster it will reach a crashed state

Wtf, u have laserjet? where?

Sig of the week.

its in my study u fool....i can't believe u have never seen it...its the old model of the ones we have at school

Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's your own life, live it.

yeah thats is

Sometimes you have to remind yourself it's your own life, live it.