 Connie Niehaus |
Digital vs Traditional?? I'm a conservative in every sense of the word--even when it comes to photography. But I'm learning how great it is to use my computer to, for example, add vignettes instead of trying to hold a piece of tissue paper with a hole in it over my lens when I'm shooting or smearing Vaseline around the edge of a cheap filter. I can play with trims and colors and tones for hours--but my finished products seem to lose their sharpness (not so on those images I scan and leave as is). Does digital photography preserve the "integrity" of the image better than scanning traditional photographs? Is digital REALLY good enough for a once-in-a-lifetime wedding shoot? Am I hopelessly old fashioned and outdated?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Buddy Purugganan |
Connie, your question is truly DEBATABLE and yet an excellent question. Digital cameras have already reached up to 11 maybe even higher MEGAPIXELS ( especially the digital SLRs ) that digital photos can possibly be enlarged without loss of quality and detail. Its BEST you deploy HIGH MEGAPIXEL SLR type of camera ( i.e. Canon EOS-1Ds, Kodak DCS14N, even Sigma's SD9 ). On the lighter side, a Film SLR camera will capture the wedding with a real fantastic kind of camera ( Canon EOS series, Nikon F100, N80, N90S,Minolta Maxxun 9,7, Pentax MZ-S,ZX-7, etc. )You're not old-fashioned nor outdated---technology just advanced and its now both digital/film world in the shops for the novice and pro alike!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
x |
Is digital really good enough for a once-in-a-lifetime wedding shoot? Hmmm. Well, from the perspective of someone who does this, I would say yes. The reason I don't shoot digital has nothing to do really with the quality, but more with the work-flow. You can get prints from the digital images that are every bit as good. I just did an engagement shoot for a couple. I used 35mm film. I was able to eek out an 11x14 BW image. It was a little grainy, but looked nice. My opinion is that 11x14 is at about the top of the range for 35mm. Any larger and it falls apart. Really 8x10 is about the top, but I like to push it. For the equivalant in digtal, you could go much larger, if you wanted to and not lose the quality. In fact, there is software now that can take a 6 MP image and make a very nice 16x20 out of it with no loss in quality. So, in some respects, I do think digital is maybe a better medium in the long run as compared to 35mm. Now, if you're talking about medium and large format film, then I argue that digital has a long way to go, unless of course, you are talking about a digital medium format back vs a film back on the same camera. I haven't seen that comparison yet with my own eyes, but I understand you get a humongous file from a digital medium format camera back; so large, that it needs to be hooked directly into a PC. I'm sure the digital image also contends with the film image. I think for the freedom that digital has given both customers and photographers, many pros are switching. I rarely do digital, but when I do, I seem to get more sales later because I can do things more creatively, I can sell small image CD's with my logo watermarked across the images for like $20. I can sell larger files without my logo for more. I can sell large image CD's for $250 or more. Or, I can sell individual files without having to print. Just charging for manipulation (like picture within a picture, or something). Jerry
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
x |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
