Jobs & Education0 min ago
Film or Digital Photography
14 Answers
Hello all,
I am doing some research about what people prefer when it comes to digital and film photography. I wanted to know ,which technique you use and why? This would be very helpful as it will contribute towards my workbook.
Many thanks
I am doing some research about what people prefer when it comes to digital and film photography. I wanted to know ,which technique you use and why? This would be very helpful as it will contribute towards my workbook.
Many thanks
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AWC4eva. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I've gone digital. No spending a fortune sending rolls of film off to Boots after a holiday knowing that I'll throw away nine tenths of them because they're rubbish. I think the quality of photos is slightly poorer (perhaps it's just the camera), but nothing I can't fix with Photoshop.
Tamborine, I don't know of any way unless your camera has the software. You can do it with Photoshop or other editing programmes, though: you just have to select the subject, or rather everything but the subject, and click on 'remove colour'.
Tamborine, I don't know of any way unless your camera has the software. You can do it with Photoshop or other editing programmes, though: you just have to select the subject, or rather everything but the subject, and click on 'remove colour'.
Like most people, I normally use digital photography for 'day to day' pictures. That's primarily because it's far cheaper. (Non-reusable film costs a great deal more than a reusable media card and their are no processing costs with digital). Further, it's far easier to manipulate images at a later stage.
However if I wanted to teach someone 'serious' photography, I'd always start them with using a film camera (possibly with a hand-held light meter). It's a much better way to get them to understand the concepts of shutter speeds, apertures, depth of field, lighting, etc. (Also, someone who's got to pay for film and processing is far more likely to take the time and trouble to correctly frame and expose a shot, than someone else who can shoot hundreds of digital pictures in the hope that few of them will turn out OK).
Also, if a friend or relative asked me to do some serious photographic work for them (e.g. wedding pictures or family portraits), I'd probably reach for a film camera. A 35mm SLR, equipped with a decent zoom lens, offers far better control over depth of field than any digital camera (within the same price bracket) could ever do.
Chris
However if I wanted to teach someone 'serious' photography, I'd always start them with using a film camera (possibly with a hand-held light meter). It's a much better way to get them to understand the concepts of shutter speeds, apertures, depth of field, lighting, etc. (Also, someone who's got to pay for film and processing is far more likely to take the time and trouble to correctly frame and expose a shot, than someone else who can shoot hundreds of digital pictures in the hope that few of them will turn out OK).
Also, if a friend or relative asked me to do some serious photographic work for them (e.g. wedding pictures or family portraits), I'd probably reach for a film camera. A 35mm SLR, equipped with a decent zoom lens, offers far better control over depth of field than any digital camera (within the same price bracket) could ever do.
Chris
I have been using slide film for more years than I care to remember and transferred to digital about three years ago.
This wasn't because I thought it better, I just found it harder to get slide film.This was always bought in bulk and my supplier stopped stocking through lack of demand.
My equipment has always been Nikon and the digital camera I bought was also Nikon, excellent cameras and the lenses are interchangeable.
However I don't like digital photography for two reasons.
1.It makes me lazy, I quickly joined the "I'll fix it on the computer later" brigade.
2.I don't accept that digital is better,In my opinion the quality does not match slide film.
I believe this is being borne out in America as, I understand,over 30,000 professional photographers have reverted to slide film and I've recently discovered slide film in the UK has become more readily available.
I buy film where I can and at the moment shoot both digital and film.No doubt digital will supersede film but I still prefer slide and will continue to use it until it disappears or I do.
This wasn't because I thought it better, I just found it harder to get slide film.This was always bought in bulk and my supplier stopped stocking through lack of demand.
My equipment has always been Nikon and the digital camera I bought was also Nikon, excellent cameras and the lenses are interchangeable.
However I don't like digital photography for two reasons.
1.It makes me lazy, I quickly joined the "I'll fix it on the computer later" brigade.
2.I don't accept that digital is better,In my opinion the quality does not match slide film.
I believe this is being borne out in America as, I understand,over 30,000 professional photographers have reverted to slide film and I've recently discovered slide film in the UK has become more readily available.
I buy film where I can and at the moment shoot both digital and film.No doubt digital will supersede film but I still prefer slide and will continue to use it until it disappears or I do.
Tamborine:
While I'd accept that modern digital camera can outshine traditional SLRs in many fields, they can't change the laws of physics!
A digital camera focusses the image onto a much smaller area than a 35mm camera (or better, a 'medium format' camera) does. If I take a 'bride and groom' picture, outside a church, with a 135mm lens on a 35mm SLR (and taking care to use a fairly slow film), I can open up the shutter to, say, f/2.8 to ensure that their faces are in sharp focus, as are the flowers in the bride's hands. At the same time, I can ensure that the church behind the couple, and the foreground, are thrown out of focus.
If I was to use a '135mm equivalent' lens on a digital camera, even using 'aperture priority' with the widest available aperture, it would simply be impossible to gain the same control over the depth of field. (i.e. both the church and the foreground would also be in sharp focus).
Chris
While I'd accept that modern digital camera can outshine traditional SLRs in many fields, they can't change the laws of physics!
A digital camera focusses the image onto a much smaller area than a 35mm camera (or better, a 'medium format' camera) does. If I take a 'bride and groom' picture, outside a church, with a 135mm lens on a 35mm SLR (and taking care to use a fairly slow film), I can open up the shutter to, say, f/2.8 to ensure that their faces are in sharp focus, as are the flowers in the bride's hands. At the same time, I can ensure that the church behind the couple, and the foreground, are thrown out of focus.
If I was to use a '135mm equivalent' lens on a digital camera, even using 'aperture priority' with the widest available aperture, it would simply be impossible to gain the same control over the depth of field. (i.e. both the church and the foreground would also be in sharp focus).
Chris
there's also the matter of convenient storage. I have half a cupboard given over the 30 years of prints and negs. My digital photos fit on an external hard drive the size of a paperback, and will still do so even when there's 30 years of them too. Ok, I know storage ranks somewhere below aesthetics in photography... until you run out of cupboards.
I don't find the concepts of shutter speeds and apaertures particularly hard to grasp, but I almost never use them - you'd have to be seriously into art of professional photography to do so, and I'm just your average amateur. For me to learn them all would be like learning to crack a whip as part of driving a car.
I don't find the concepts of shutter speeds and apaertures particularly hard to grasp, but I almost never use them - you'd have to be seriously into art of professional photography to do so, and I'm just your average amateur. For me to learn them all would be like learning to crack a whip as part of driving a car.
Chris, I've occasionally had to deal with that and while it takes a few minutes photoshopping, you in effect do what I recommended to Tamborine: highlight the bits you want in focus, blur the rest. I got a couple of photos printed in national newspapers that way, so the pros obviously had no problem with the way they worked out.
tamborine
If you have Photoshop you do that effect in layers. Make a copy of your photo and then convert to grayscale and then back to RGB or CMYK. On the original, cut out the the outline of the picture you want in colour, and copy it. Paste it to the other picture, then flatten the layers.
Before
After
If you have Photoshop you do that effect in layers. Make a copy of your photo and then convert to grayscale and then back to RGB or CMYK. On the original, cut out the the outline of the picture you want in colour, and copy it. Paste it to the other picture, then flatten the layers.
Before
After
Tamborine:
Gromit's technique might be the 'text book' one but this is quicker:
Use the lasso tool to draw round the area which is to remain colour. Right-click and select 'Feather'. Choose a suitable value (try 5 or 10 to start with). Right-click again and choose 'Select inverse'. Go to Image>Adjust and click on Desaturate.
Job done.
Chris
Gromit's technique might be the 'text book' one but this is quicker:
Use the lasso tool to draw round the area which is to remain colour. Right-click and select 'Feather'. Choose a suitable value (try 5 or 10 to start with). Right-click again and choose 'Select inverse'. Go to Image>Adjust and click on Desaturate.
Job done.
Chris
-- answer removed --
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Trump's Cabinet Picks. What Do We Think?
News13 mins ago
News19 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
