Fri, Jan 10, 3:58 AM CST

Renderosity Forums / Photography



Welcome to the Photography Forum

Forum Moderators: wheatpenny Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon

Photography F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Dec 31 10:42 am)



Subject: Filtering the internet ...


MGD ( ) posted Thu, 25 November 2004 at 4:18 PM · edited Thu, 09 January 2025 at 10:44 PM

Attached Link: Williams Photographic Digital Photography: Is it worth it?

While looking for ... *what* was I looking for? Doesn't matter, as this is on topic, readable and down to earth. Accuracy? ... what's the consensus? MGD


LostPatrol ( ) posted Thu, 25 November 2004 at 6:56 PM · edited Thu, 25 November 2004 at 6:57 PM

Partly true and there are some very good points, but some of it is a little out of date. Possibly 2 years out of date!

I dont agree that a disposable 35mm cam is equal to a 5MP high end digital. Even so much of it will come down to lens quality, it would be pointless to use the best film/digital camera and put a cheap lens on it.

The issue regarding print quality depends greatly on the CCD/CMOS sensor, a 6MP compact has a physically smaller sensor than a 6MP DSLR therefore cant produce as clean an image. I use a 10D ant it can produce A4 @300 dpi photo quality prints and very close to photo quality A3. I have a friend that has a 8MP Nikon that cant match it for quality. (Bigger sensor = less noise) ISO value is also an issue.

Archival is probably the biggest point as digital hasnt been around long enough to offer enough data on that, but I do know that on average digital images have a life span of approx 5 years, due the changing file formats, this can be worked around by re-saving digital images in the newest formats as they become available.

Also tonal range is a big issue with digital, but that can be worked around to some extent.

Film = 35MP max. Well I dont know if that is a fact but I have been lead to believe that it is more like 15MP maybe 20MP (by someone in a high profile digital working environment)

Most photo journalists now use digital, but the hard core pros still dont and still use med/large format.

Just some thoughts, there is just too much on that site to comment on all of it

Message edited on: 11/25/2004 18:57

The Truth is Out There


LostPatrol ( ) posted Thu, 25 November 2004 at 7:32 PM

Attached Link: http://www.williamsphotographic.com/nikon.html

On closer inspection there are lots of pages that say "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" Please call back That is a big no no as far as I am concerned, if you havent written a page dont put it up! What would you thing about a book and got to chapter x and it was blank? With text telling you to buy the next addition! AF SLR section the Canon 1n is billed as Canons top of the range pro film SLR which in fact it is the 1v and has been for at least 3 years. The Nikon page is "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" As are all the other 35mm SLR pages. How much faith have I got about the information on this site? Not much. Just my tell it as I see it opinion! Last update to the site was Feb 2003 (in technology terms that is like the last ice age!) I'm Not saying I could do better because I couldnt, but if you are going to the trouble of doing something then do it properly.

The Truth is Out There


Sylvaine ( ) posted Fri, 26 November 2004 at 3:44 AM

Interesting link...thanks for sharing.


Onslow ( ) posted Fri, 26 November 2004 at 7:15 AM

I will not comment on the more advanced or professional issues this article raises as their are others more qualified to do so. However I would like to say that to the novice hobby photographer digital is great and therefore ultimately advances the art of photography at all levels. I have an inexpensive camera (nikon2100, psp, and a standard pc.). I can experiment and shoot images without any regard for further costs. This as a tremendous aid to the learning process. I shoot far more images with my digital than I ever did with film in the camera. Many years ago when I was at college we only had the option of traditional film/processing. I have owned high spec. 35mm slr cameras. But as a hobby photographer, of limited means, the cost was always at the back of my mind putting a ceiling on creativity. I can still remember lecturers saying: "don't waste film". Of course I would love to own a high spec. digital camera or expensive scanner etc. I can see the difference in the quality of shots people can produce. Yet except for the genres where it is essential to have the higher spec. equipment, I can still vent my creativity and learn in the process. I believe inexpensive digital is good for creativity and learning and will advance the art of photography. It is an old quote "It is the person taking the photograph, not the camera, that counts". Thanks for posting the link MGD I think it is a very interesting topic of debate and will look forward to seing other opinions.

And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html


Privacy Notice

This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.