Shop Talk-cameras, film, lighting, etc.

[CK1]

if you are going to take nude pictures, i would recommend using digital. although i personally still love using 35mm film, digital gives you some advantages.

1- it is cheap. i mean. you can take one picture or a hundred and it doesn't cost you any more... unless you print out every picture you take. with 35mm you have to develop the pictures to see what you got and what you will keep and what you will toss.

2- You don't have to worry about getting it developed and "copies" ending up in the wrong hands.

3- you can edit, correct, etc before printing out. if you use 35mm and you want to edit you would have to scan the pictures and then edit them. more time, and more equipment is needed.

4- you are only limited by the size and number of memory cards you carry. film takes a lot of space to carry around and can be damaged over time and conditions it is kept in.

5- Digital can be more forgiving when it comes to image corrections. in my experience, if an image is too dark but digital, you can salvage it more times than if it is a 35mm. at least digitally. there are plenty of things you can do in a dark room but most people can't afford the equipment and chemical needed for that.

[eastbill]

i still enjoy film cameras but dont use mine that often. have gotten very used to digital. right now i use an upper point and shoot cannon that i love.
what kind of cams do you all use? i am using currently the Canon S2IS it has taken about ten thousand pics and am thinking of upgrading to the s10IS i have been very happy. i also have a smaller point and shoot canon that i carry with me each day. What i like about what i have is that they use regular AA batteries. Convenient for sure.

[geolarson2]

I'm using a Canon 35mm with autofocus now. A couple years ago I had to finally retire, after 20 years of faithful service, my trust Minolta X-370. What can I say? My reflexes and eyes aren't what they used to be, so capturing anything moving, or just getting the frame in focus has become more of a challenge, but its one I still love.

[eastbill]

my fave cam of all is my nikon fm2

[geolarson2]

Originally Posted by CK1

if you are going to take nude pictures, i would recommend using digital. although i personally still love using 35mm film, digital gives you some advantages.

1- it is cheap. i mean. you can take one picture or a hundred and it doesn't cost you any more... unless you print out every picture you take. with 35mm you have to develop the pictures to see what you got and what you will keep and what you will toss.

2- You don't have to worry about getting it developed and "copies" ending up in the wrong hands.

3- you can edit, correct, etc before printing out. if you use 35mm and you want to edit you would have to scan the pictures and then edit them. more time, and more equipment is needed.

4- you are only limited by the size and number of memory cards you carry. film takes a lot of space to carry around and can be damaged over time and conditions it is kept in.

5- Digital can be more forgiving when it comes to image corrections. in my experience, if an image is too dark but digital, you can salvage it more times than if it is a 35mm. at least digitally. there are plenty of things you can do in a dark room but most people can't afford the equipment and chemical needed for that.

It is possible to convert your older 35mm film & slides to digital. Nikon makes a unit that plugs into your PC that you can scan your negatives through and create digital copies at up to 4000dpi (other companies, Canon, Pacific Image) make scanners with varying degrees of resolution. Then again, if you have a nice photo lab/supplier in your neighborhood, you might even find them with an even better scanner. I converted most of my images from film to digital that way with the end result as images of 1000x1500 ranging in size from around 300-400kb in size. Its good for up to 11"x14" or 12"x18" with acceptable grain, a generous amount of which can be edited out. But, having said that, converting to digital with something along the lines of a Canon 10 or 12mp body (since I have some decent lenses & filters already) is something I'm looking to do, eventually. Oh, one good thing about the 35mm-digital conversion is that you then have 2 copies of the image, an original imprinted by the sun's own rays on celluloid, and a digital image burned into an aluminum wafer that can be played with.

[CK1]

the problem with conversion is that the original is NOT digital. however the final print comes out, that is what you have to work with. unless you go back to the negatives or use slides, what you see is what you get.

Slides were more popular with photographers for that reason. you could could improve the quality of the image as you procesed it into an actual print. and why slide scanner are still very popular and much more expensive (compared to flat bed scanners) because is a nitch marget and you get better results.

[geolarson2]

Originally Posted by CK1

the problem with conversion is that the original is NOT digital. however the final print comes out, that is what you have to work with. unless you go back to the negatives or use slides, what you see is what you get.

Slides were more popular with photographers for that reason. you could could improve the quality of the image as you procesed it into an actual print. and why slide scanner are still very popular and much more expensive (compared to flat bed scanners) because is a nitch marget and you get better results.

With conversion you are still able to use any of the programs you would use if the image was purely digital, from Picasa to MS Paint to PhotoShop and so on, so adjusting saturation, sharpness, contrast, cleaning up red-eye, digital airbrushing, and other image manipulations are still applicable. And with the scanners I'm not talking flat bed, strictly back-lit scanners that would be used on either 35mm film or slides, or in some cases on up to medium-format images (120 or 220). If you do convert from film to digital, going with the higher resolution is almost always the best way to go, especially if its something you really care about (just as using a camera with higher pixel resolution is always the better way to go if you really want to capture an exceptional image). As an example, I offer Rob's earliest work which, if memory serves, was done using 35mm (I'm not sure if film negative or slide) and converted to digital. Its been a long time since I used Kodachrome, but to be honest when I used it, I used it primarily because the colours were richer, but then to show them you needed access to a projector (and I was never satisfied with prints made from slides as opposed to from negatives--different formats, different papers, different results. When I carried around my first portfolio, it was comprised of 8x10 transparencies, but that wasn't as easy to show as 8x10 prints from negatives, or 8x10 prints from digitally converted negatives are--it was harder for someone else to visualize the end product, I guess. Nowadays, I noticed, many photographers carry around multiple formats in their portfolios--prints, transparencies, slides made either direct or printed from digital & on a master CD--that way the prospective client can see an image in whatever format they find easier, and it also shows the client that the photog knows her/his way around a lab, traditional dark room as well as the PC "darkroom".

[CK1]

I think i over explained my opinion. just, once an image is digitized (scanned) it is a digital image. only point i was trying to make, you can't make a lost picture a perfect picture. you can make a good pictures great or even perfect. if it has some imperfections, then of course you can fix it. but that applies to digital too. just saying that if you are already digital, you can save steps.

[geolarson2]

Originally Posted by CK1

I think i over explained my opinion. just, once an image is digitized (scanned) it is a digital image. only point i was trying to make, you can't make a lost picture a perfect picture. you can make a good pictures great or even perfect. if it has some imperfections, then of course you can fix it. but that applies to digital too. just saying that if you are already digital, you can save steps.

Yep, precisely, I gotcha now. And with whichever format you choose to start, whether digital or film (negative or slide), it helps to start with higher grade equipment. I don't think I'd bother with digital less than 8mp (I'd rather go with 16mp, but I'd be happy with 10 or 11), and with film I don't use anything higher than 200ASA--400 has too much grain for me. I'd like to switch to digital myself, simply because it would save on lab costs, and as you said CK1, it does save steps and that means time. In the interim, getting your old family negatives, or your older work-product digitally scanned with a good, high-powered, high-resolution scanner and burned to CD does make sense to me--film can break down fairly quickly if not stored properly, and while the aluminum that makes up the CD wafer does corrode, its at a very slow rate--just saying if you have some photos/negatives that are irreplaceable, you might want to make that little investment (the place I go to can scan up to 100 negatives/slides onto a CD for under $5.00US) then stick them someplace safe (i.e., safety deposit box) so if the worst happens (i.e., fire, flood), you still have those memories.

[CK1]

and you bring up a great point. its best to start with great quality and have to reduce the size,resolution, etc of an image because you won't loose quality. but you really can't go the other way around. and again, the best MP (mega pixels) you can afford the better. that gives you the flexibility of making large or small prints. now if you just want to print 4x6 pictures then you can go with the lower end of the mega pixels (again, around 8 would be a good starting point... no less than six if you just want family pictures) and i agree with backing up old pictures to CDs, DVDs, etc. because of things like environment and time can destroy pictures over time.