PhotoBanter.com - View Single Post

**Robert Peirce**

In article .com,
wrote:

My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab.

I don't think digital is up to the range of 35mm film yet. However, I
much prefer digital over negative film for color work. I could never
quite get color to come out right from film, but digital seems to do it
with no problem. OTOH, B&W still seems to be better on film (although
digital is catching up fast) and 4x5 color slides are quite remarkable.
Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.

A related issue is what you can get in the print. My old rule-of-thumb
was not to go over 8x10 with 35mm film, although many did with good
results. With inkjet printers, the rule-of-thumb seems to be to go
around 300dpi, although many go less with good results. If you want an
8x10 at 300 dpi without upresing, you need 3000x2400, which is 7.2Mb.
However, I have produced some decent 12x16 prints from a 4Mb camera.
The point is you can probably do better color work on the print in
digital.

Possibly an even more important point is that color prints from negative
film seemed to fade before your eyes. Color inkjet prints from pigment
inks may last as long as silver B&W prints.

Film is relatively more expensive than digital. Some people don't print
digital at all and when they do they can choose one or two images out of
hundreds.

So, for everyday use I prefer digital. For critical color work I would
use 4x5 slides, which can be scanned and printed if desired.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]