A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

below $1000 film vs digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 3rd 04, 11:30 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


Wait, I forgot a Real Life example. Ask me about any picture I've taken
and I'll show you how it works.

Okay, so I get a call, "J, how about a photo of a bunch of radicals
rioting in Chicago in 1968, preferably a night picture? We need cops in
the picture, too." "Sure"!, I say. 1968 Chicago riots and demonstrations
- in the picture library, third shelf from the bottom, in the next-to-last
bin on the right.

So, I get up and walk into the library and .... and .... help me out. What
did I come in here for?
  #22  
Old June 3rd 04, 11:35 PM
Michael Benveniste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:18:09 +0100, "bagal"
wrote:

Earlier posters are quite correct. If you go digital you will need to think
about having a good computer and certainly if pro standard is your overall
aim pro standard equipment in not without cost, You will (may? should?)
consider some image processing software too.


Remember, I'm talking about the cost to preview the image. Not the
cost to produce a final print. The computer requirements just to
view an image are fairly modest by 21st century standards. It's also
a quasi-fixed cost. The incremental costs per image viewed is
effectively zero.

To process or manipulate a digital image requires considerably more
computer power. But if you want, a local lab will do that for you,
just as they will starting with a negative or slide.

Will the savings in variable costs (film and processing) outweigh the
fixed investment? That's a calculation one needs to make based on
their own shooting habits. Today, I can't justify purchasing a DSLR,
but that will change as quality improves and prices drop.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

  #23  
Old June 3rd 04, 11:42 PM
bagal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

lol yep, been there too

or the hard disk decides to have a break a very long one

dB

"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
...
bagal wrote:
Here is a scenario Nick:

email from publisher: we have been let down by witheld copyright on

image
and needs shots of montains with snow. Can you get some to us by 9pm
tonight?

1 - search through a couple of thousand prints, find a few that are
suitable, get the original plus negs to publisher using courier express

2 - search the database, find pics, send images in appropriate format by
email.

which, if any, wins in the 21st century?



Find out the database is corrupt and none of the images can be saved.

Find
out the image is in a format that isn't accceptable. Fact is it can't

even
be read. Find out the image isn't high enough quality.

The OP asked about best quality for the $$. Not the most crap for the

$$.

Nick



  #24  
Old June 4th 04, 12:53 AM
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

In article , Nick Zentena
wrote:

bagal wrote:
Here is a scenario Nick:

email from publisher: we have been let down by witheld copyright on image
and needs shots of montains with snow. Can you get some to us by 9pm
tonight?

1 - search through a couple of thousand prints, find a few that are
suitable, get the original plus negs to publisher using courier express

2 - search the database, find pics, send images in appropriate format by
email.

which, if any, wins in the 21st century?


Find out the database is corrupt and none of the images can be saved.


restore from backups.

what if your studio has a fire and the negatives are destroyed? with
digital, the backups can be kept offsite, completely avoiding this
problem. and unlike film, copies are 100% identical - no generation
loss from a 'backup' of a negative.

Find
out the image is in a format that isn't accceptable.


conversion is trivial, often with no loss of quality. in the event a
new image format becomes popular, then the entire image library can be
converted in an automated fashion, unattended.

Fact is it can't even
be read.


why not?

Find out the image isn't high enough quality.


that can happen with film too. many times images are shot in a smaller
format than what would have been ideal for the size of print desired.
not everyone lugs around a large format camera.
  #25  
Old June 4th 04, 02:47 AM
Chris Loffredo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

David J. Littleboy wrote:

For your budget, a $500 used Fuji GS645S and an Epson 4870 (4800 dpi, but
real resolution is more like 2000 dpi) for another $500 is exactly on
budget. That provides a 13MP (3000 x 4400 pixel) scanned image that will
beat the pants off either scanned 35mm or 6MP digital. Of course, that's a
fixed 38mm lens with a funky rangefinder. But if you are printing at A4 on,
say, an Epson R800, your prints will look a lot better.


How good IS the Epson 4870? I assume you have one.
With MF, Does it really beat 35mm on a good film scanner?

Thanks!

Chris

  #26  
Old June 4th 04, 03:09 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Mike Henley wrote:


Additionally, within that same budget, i'm also considering a Medium
format camera, such as a 645 rangefinder


For your budget, I just bought a mamiya 645 with a 35mm f3.5 and a
55mm-110mm zoom from KEH in excellent condition. It will beat anything else
you're considering.

--

Stacey
  #27  
Old June 4th 04, 03:14 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:

For your budget, a $500 used Fuji GS645S and an Epson 4870 (4800 dpi,

but
real resolution is more like 2000 dpi) for another $500 is exactly on
budget. That provides a 13MP (3000 x 4400 pixel) scanned image that will
beat the pants off either scanned 35mm or 6MP digital. Of course, that's

a
fixed 38mm lens with a funky rangefinder. But if you are printing at A4

on,
say, an Epson R800, your prints will look a lot better.


How good IS the Epson 4870?


http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~longnose/scanner_test.html

I assume you have one.


No. I had the 2450. That one was a dog compared to the Nikon 8000. The 4870
looks a lot closer.

With MF, Does it really beat 35mm on a good film scanner?


I'm quite sure it would. At A4, 645 Reala + 2450 looked very good. I'd
expect superb 11x14s from 645 and the 4870.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #28  
Old June 4th 04, 03:27 AM
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital



David J. Littleboy wrote:


I'm quite sure it would. At A4, 645 Reala + 2450 looked very good. I'd
expect superb 11x14s from 645 and the 4870.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



David,
What is your take on the newly announced F-3200? It seems to me like an
HP S20 on steroids.
I wonder if it will exceed the 4870 "real" resolution.

Cheers,
Jeff Tokayer.

  #29  
Old June 4th 04, 06:55 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Jeff" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

I'm quite sure it would. At A4, 645 Reala + 2450 looked very good. I'd
expect superb 11x14s from 645 and the 4870.


David,
What is your take on the newly announced F-3200? It seems to me like an
HP S20 on steroids.
I wonder if it will exceed the 4870 "real" resolution.


I've not heard of the F-3200.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #30  
Old June 4th 04, 07:12 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Martin Francis wrote:


Of course, I only know which cameras I need because I tried them first! I
looked up spec sheets, weighed opinions, made myself aware of everything's
shortcomings and how they related to the style of my shooting, and then I
tried out some cameras.


Exactly. I "figured" a GSW6X9 fuji would be the cats meow. I ended up
hateing using it. I just couldn't get use to the rangefinder even though
the optics were outstanding.

Sometimes I made mistakes- I bought a Bronica
ETRSi kit on the assumption that the prism kit would be lighter and more
compact than a 6x6cm, and that i'd need TTL flash. In both cases, the
opposite was true, which led me to sell my Bronica and buy a 'Blad.


Yep again! I was afraid that using a WLF on my mamiya 645 would be
"useless", but I guess since I've shot with a 4X5 some, even shooting
verticals with the upside down image isn't hard to deal with shooting
landscapes for me. Can you tell I hate prisms? :-) of course for other
people they'd hate it so it's a personal thing what works.

--

Stacey
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM
below $1000 film vs digital Sabineellen 35mm Photo Equipment 8 June 15th 04 07:13 AM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 09:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.