|
|
 |
05-24-2004, 08:31 PM
|
#1 of 19 
|
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Local Time: 09:05 AM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 357
|
Digital or Film?
Almost 30 years ago I had my own photo studio and did portraits, portfolios and commercial photography. Now that I am fifty I am considering going back into business doing basically the same kind of photography again. I am tired of working for someone else and I want more job security.
The question is this. I know that I will need something more than my 35mm camera to do this right but I don't know if I should go with a traditional film based camera like a Hasselblad or Mamiya or should I go for a digital camera? I want to be able to offer at least 16x20 portraits, but most of what I will sell will be 8x10s.
\"I reckon I\'d like some of them french fried pertaters. Mm-hmm.\"
Karl Childers
|
|
|
|
05-25-2004, 01:30 AM
|
#2 of 19
|
|
HTF MGM Reviewer
Join Date: May 2002
Local Time: 07:05 AM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 5,970
|
Well, if it's any help my Digital Rebel, with an image captured at maximum size (there is a Small, Medium and Large setting) at 300 ppi produces a 10.24" X 6.827" image. You'd be barely squeeking by, which means if you're going to stay in the digital SLR realm you're going to have to get the camera (I believe it's a Nikon?) with the 11 MP sensor, which is equivalent to the full 35mm frame. It's not cheap, but if you're considering a Mamiya or Hasselblad, that's obviously not a concern. There are probably digital film backs available for them, but that's an entirely different price bracket than I spend time researching. Let us know what you decide. I'm curious to know what's available.
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation. - Edward R. Murrow
|
|
|
|
|
05-25-2004, 11:38 AM
|
#3 of 19
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Local Time: 08:05 AM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 5,000
|
Read these:
Canon D60 vs. Film. The D60 is an older 6MP digital SLR, compared to a medium format film (6"x7" negative!).
Canon D30 vs. Film. An even older digital SLR versus the best 35mm film.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...ke-it-is.shtml
In short: 6 MP is good enough for 13"x19" prints. Maybe even more, if you have high-quality scaling software like QImage (~$50 US) or Genuine Fractals.
Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him...a super-callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
Gameshow host: "Is taking Viagra kosher during Passover dinner?"
Whoopee Goldberg: "Not if it leads to pork."
Kermit the Frog: "Hey, that's my line!"
|
|
|
|
|
05-25-2004, 11:40 AM
|
#4 of 19
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Local Time: 08:05 AM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 5,000
|
For more info:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
You can scroll down to the bottom for more links to other articles regarding digital quality. Pros and Cons...
Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him...a super-callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
Gameshow host: "Is taking Viagra kosher during Passover dinner?"
Whoopee Goldberg: "Not if it leads to pork."
Kermit the Frog: "Hey, that's my line!"
|
|
|
|
|
05-31-2004, 06:22 PM
|
#5 of 19
|
|
John Rice
Member
Location: Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2000
Local Time: 08:05 AM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 8,307
|
Jim, I hope you realize how vague that question is.
If you are looking mostly to do portraits, I would probably suggest going completely digital. You don't need 300 dpi for display prints. With modern image processing you can easily get away with as low as 100 dpi for large prints. Now if you're talking commercial, it's a whole different animal. Magazine ads need 300 dpi and tiff all the way. No using jpeg compression when it is going into an ad.
In the end, I would suggest digital for portrait work and film for most commercial, unless it is only for web use or smaller ads. You can get a top notch film scanner for $2k to scan in the film if you need.
|
|
|
|
06-05-2004, 09:44 PM
|
#6 of 19
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 29
|
Definetly digital. You can enhance your workflow and lower costs. I definetly don't think you need an 11 megapixel camera to print an 16x20. Some good software as suggested can help interpolate and add pixels if desired, but for the most cases won't be needed. I've printed some with my 6mp camera without problems. As for the film for commercial, I would disagree. Many of the ads you see now are taken digitally. I could point you to some articles by an Sport Illustrated photographer who uses digital almost exclusively (as required). Oh and he's not required so they can download them remotely as he mails them to SI, but for workflow purposes in their digital darkroom.
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2004, 10:43 PM
|
#7 of 19
|
|
John Rice
Member
Location: Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2000
Local Time: 08:05 AM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 8,307
|
Of course many ads are taken digitally, but that's only part of the issue. And sports Illustrated photography is not commercial. There are many reasons to have film available for commercial work, but there's not really any reason to try and convince any further. I use both film and digital myself.
They flutter behind you, your possible pasts.
Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2004, 09:32 PM
|
#8 of 19
|
|
Member
Location: Charlotte, NC
Join Date: Dec 2003
Local Time: 10:05 AM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 2,539
|
What exactly are you planning to do? For most services digital will be perfectly fine as long as you're willing to learn the ins-and-outs of a good program like Photoshop. However, I am preparing for a wedding and we specifically avoided several photographers because they only use digital. They offer up to a 40x50 portrait. Now I'm one that jumps on technology early (yup, I bought a 4x CD burner for almost $500!) and I own a digital camera and love it, but I just don't trust it for something like this when compared to medium-format and/or large-format cameras.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
06-09-2004, 01:13 PM
|
#9 of 19
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Local Time: 08:05 AM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 5,000
|
I don't see why you'd reject a photographer because he uses digital...who cares? You won't see a difference, unless the guy uses a pocket-sized point-and-shoot - not bloody likely. 
The skill of the photographer is all that matters - digital or film shouldn't be a factor, all else being equal. BTW, do you really need a 40"x50" poster? IMHO, there is no reason why a photographer wouldn't use a medium or large format film camera for the one or two 40x50 shots, and digital for the rest...
Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him...a super-callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
Gameshow host: "Is taking Viagra kosher during Passover dinner?"
Whoopee Goldberg: "Not if it leads to pork."
Kermit the Frog: "Hey, that's my line!"
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
06-09-2004, 06:28 PM
|
#10 of 19
|
|
John Rice
Member
Location: Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2000
Local Time: 08:05 AM
Local Date: 08-30-2008
Posts: 8,307
|
Quote:
|
The skill of the photographer is all that matters
|
That would be nice, but it's hardly true. You still need quality tools, as well as the skill to use them.
Shooting only digital can be a slippery slope at times. I know some fabulous photographers who shoot only digital and completely incompetent ones who shoot only film, as well as the other way around. If you are wanting huge prints, it won't tend to make much difference if they are from film, if they are only 35mm. The whole "is digital or film better" argument is pretty absurd. there are just too many variables.
I shot a great deal of large format, but I've have never heard of anyone shooting it at a wedding. Not practical at all.
They flutter behind you, your possible pasts.
Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.
|
|
| |
