digital !?

[ymages]

<style type="text/css"

media="all">@import "http://ymages.com/styles/forums.css";</style>

<span id="Container">

<span id="Reponse">

<p class="Para">do you think it is possible with a good

digital camera to get the same quality of photo than with an

equivalent level normal camera ?</p>

<p class="Para">all the photos that I Like on this site are

not digital :-((</p>

</span>

<span id="Footer">

<span id="Banniere"> </span>

<span id="Lien"><a href="http://ymages.com"

target="_blank">Erick Boileau</a></span>

</span>

</span>

[ellis_vener_photography]

yes.

[._kaa]

(1) Yes, it is possible. Not to mention that equipment in general and camera bodies in particular don't have much of an influence on how good the images turn out to be.

 

(2) All the photos that you see on this site ARE digital -- they are computer files sent over the internet from photo.net server to your machine.

[m_.]

Possible? Yes! Do we have that digital camera yet? NO, IMO. I am using both film and digital cameras and the results are very different. Digital still got way to go before the films disappear.

[phule]

search !?

[altern]

I think the phrase "equivalent level" is the key here. Even less than 200 euros (or dollars :) can buy an SLR and a lens that gives results equal to a digital camera system 3-10 times more expensive. Of course, you need to factor in the cost of film and the benefit of convenience and instant feedback of digital. And photography isn't all about technology, talent is required too.

 

Technically and in most cases, I guess not. But it definitely isn't impossible.

[todd frederick]

Yes.

 

I actually prefer the overall smoothness and "feel" I get with my little digital camera over film...in color.

 

I have yet to "master" B/W digital tricks. I prefer my B/W film photography, but I know I will eventually get fine B/W digitals with practice in Photoshop someday. It's a new skill to learn.

 

I also think it is not a matter of "better" or "worse" in this comparison. I think the digital images have a bit of a different look and feel than film, and it depends on what you want.

 

Film is not going bye, bye right now.

[denisbergeron]

Yes you can ! Look at my portfolio I have 17 pictures taked with a digital camera, some of them will be impossible to take with a film camera.

 

I only have a little digicam, not a dslr, and I think that the pictures are better that what I can have with a comparable p&s camera.

[ymages]

thank you to all

[the_macman]

I sincerely tend to believe the opposite. A whole lot of images that amaze me

on photo.net are digital and very often from non-SLR cameras. It leaves me a

little disappointed when I look down for a glimpse at the recipe: lens and film

used, which proves that nobody besides you knows what's the photographic

greatness you want to achieve or imitate.

[the_macman]

>>>>>>> some of them will be impossible to take with a film camera.

 

Why is that?

[ymages]

it depends what you like, I am not crazy of fantastic effects, I like the perfect B.W. photos of Ansel Adams

 

http://www.anseladams.com/

[navarra]

Film cameras usually give better contrasts and colors. For black and white, just shoot film and bring it to a pro-lab.

 

Digital cameras usually have much less grain (noise) than film. You can change ISO on the fly and you have much more control over the final result (you do the "darkroom" work for color, not the lab). For black and white, you CAN get excellent result, but you have to work on it and buy an adequate printing equipment (labs don't print good B&W yet).

 

Needless to say, if you want larger formats than 35mm forget digital.

 

Simone

[denisbergeron]

>> some of them will be impossible to take with a film camera.

>Why is that?

 

Simple : when you go in the field with a film camera it's hard to change film on the fly, with digital, you can have the good film for inside, outside at iso 100 or iso 800, you can take 100 pictures and delete them if you want.

 

The picture of the Lynx (the Bobcat) in my folder was one of more than 20 pictures i take of it, using the "poor man image stabilisator" (burst shoot) in a real poor ligth condition without using flash (wasn't allowed in the Biodome).

 

With an film camera, I won't take 20 pictures of a single lynx for one good one !

 

Same thing with my two night shoots of the highway. I take arround 30 shoots that night and have instant feedback, try a lot of thing that I will never do the same way with a film camera. And it's not only the cost of film and processing, but also the conveniance of the feedback and the good home processing (with The Gimp or PS).

 

To you ever try to process your own color film picture ? It's a real pain. and the quality is there just under your finger.

[the_macman]

>>>>> Denis, all the reasons above are pratical consideration mostly

pertaining to pre-shooting preparation and have nothing to do with the fact

that film can or cannot do what digital does. By the way, we must be really a

generation of lazy bastards if changing film on the fly, as you say, has

supposedly become difficult :)

 

>>>>> Same thing with my two night shoots of the highway. I take arround 30

shoots that night and have instant feedback, try a lot of thing that I will never

do the same way with a film camera.

 

True, however... once you know your film and start using a light meter you can

predict keepers with an amazing accuracy, hence the preview becomes a

nice feature but certainly not a necessity. The only people seduced by

preview are the photographers who haven't gone beyond their camera's

integrated light meter :) and those who DO NOT read the technical papers of

film :)

[the_macman]

Bottom line, yes, digital can meet film quality... but no way you ppl are going to

make me believe that the advent of digital introduced something new and

filled the gaps where film couldn't go before. It's a huge step in terms of

convenience, I'll agree, but on the whole planet there weren't any situations

left unphotographed which waited for digital... Everything digital does can be

reproduced in film, as long as you have the right setup.

[the_macman]

>>>>>>> The picture of the Lynx (the Bobcat) in my folder was one of more

than 20 pictures i take of it, using the "poor man image stabilisator" (burst

shoot) in a real poor ligth condition without using flash (wasn't allowed in the

Biodome).

 

1/30 in poor light at f/4. No wonder IS is needed. Do I really need to explain

how film can do it w/o IS ?

[the_macman]

>>>>>>>> With an film camera, I won't take 20 pictures of a single lynx for

one good one !

 

Well, it's all a question of priorities and love of photography as a hobby, I

suppose. I'd gladly fill a whole roll with the same darn lynx, you can get by

cheap if you shop at L.L.Lozeau :-)

[qdb]

>do you think it is possible with a good digital camera to get the >same quality of photo than with an equivalent level normal camera ?

 

>all the photos that I Like on this site are not digital :-((

 

In areas where colour, resolution, dynamic range and noise are issues, most pros have already gone digital, because high-end digital outperforms film in these areas, and is more convenient.

 

I suspect your question is directed more at price -v- performance.

 

Here, you can buy digital SLRs at reasonable prices that are considerably better than 35mm film, and match or better 645 medium format, such as the Canon 1Ds or Kodak 14n, that might work out cheaper in the medium term if you shoot and have processsed a lot of film. Cheaper still, cameras like the Nikon D100, Fuji S2 and Canon 10D and the even cheaper Canon digital Rebel equal 35mm film. But you are still paying a lot more money that a film camera - how much will you save on processing?

 

Where you might go wrong is trying to match film camera performance at too cheap a price.

 

Pay enough, and film is history.

 

Quentin

[ymages]

I have a Canon PowerShot G3 ... I think it must be good enough ... not the best but good enough...

 

And I like really much digital

 

but can you show me a digital photo with this kind of grey you find in Adams Photos .... ?

[christian_dupuis1]

Man, I sure wish you would fix your mail client; that duplication of text is "assez

fatiguant pour les yeux". ;-)

 

Re: the kind of grey in Ansel Adams photos; camera sensors have their own light

gathering caracteristics, but they're essentially RGB captors. To convert those RGB

values to B&W requires a bit of digital trickery, including a trip to Photoshop, playing

with channels and levels to get the wanted end result, then a trip to piezographic

printing for a decent print. IMHO, it's no worse than working with contrast filters and

chemistry in the darkroom to get that great print, but I'm sure some artists and film

purists will disagree. To each his/her own.

 

There's a slew of options that let you emulate black and white emulsions on digital -

if such things please you - but the medium works pretty well if you already

understand the principles of proper exposure.

 

It's just a different tool. I don't miss those darkroom chemicals, by the way. ;-)

 

If you want to read about piezographic printing:

http://www.piezography.com/

 

If you want to see some plug-ins to make your shots look like the B&W emulsion of

your choice:

http://www.silveroxide.com/

 

Haven't tried the stuff from SilverOxide, but I've read about them on the boards.<div></div>

[christian_dupuis1]

Erick, my apologies. It seems the web site's posting engine is doing weird things to

the text; my last post ends up getting a seemingly random amount of caps at the

beginning of many of my sentences' words.

 

Weird.

[ymages]

Salut Christian tu nombre looks french wie meine

 

je n'ai rien fait du tout et je comprend pas ce que tu veux dire au sujet des mails :-))

 

yes I have Adobe + Corel + .... it is not the question I also do not want to loose my eyes in darkroom , I prefer to loose them with computer

 

thank you for the links !

 

amitie

[denisbergeron]

Look man, I don't know what kind of "bastard" you are to take you own words !

 

I do photography for arround 25 years by now, I have used a lot of manual camera mostly Minolta SRT and X series body. I have also an EOS body and a lot of glass for both system.

 

When I go outside, I don't always want to have two or three body with all the films maybe I will need and so on !

 

Changing a film in a camera take more than 3 minutes and you can loose film and all the pictures on it, even if you take all the attention you can ! Changing iso on a digital body take 2 seconds. in 3 minutes I can take arround 60x5x3 = nine hundreds (900) pictures, one of this 890 pictures will be the one you can not take with the film camera !

 

I you aren't one of this film bastards zelotes you can appreciate the conveniance of having this posibility under you finger !

 

For the IS question, I you ever take a picture with something else than a P%S camera you know that at 300mm of focal lenght you have to be really solid on you leg to take a picture at 1/30 of second this is why at ISO-800 at 1/30 at f/4 at arround 300mm you need an IS solution !

 

Even with the best lightmeter you can't predict when and how car will run on the highway when you take you night shoot that's an other reason to like theses bastards of digital camera !