Shop Talk-cameras, film, lighting, etc.

[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.

[Anoree]

Speaking of archives of photos (or any valuable data), it's allways a good idea to save them more than once. I'd go for two or more different medias, like CD/DVD and external hard disk.

I already got my first complete failure of (cheap) CDs, and have seen external hdds fail, too. My backups to MO aren't accessible anymore because my only MO drive failed and can't be replaced at a reasonable price.
(Those drives actually were cheaper when I bought mine.)