35mm film vs digital

Hi,

The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important point.
Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or digital. If we
look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get an
interesting result.

Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax 35mm film
camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some so-so and
some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I scanned
those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting to see
how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.

I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve some/many of
their pictures.

Also, I'm not attacking those film people who use medium and/or large format
film for the splendid output pictures they produce. The information provided by
these formats is outstanding as are many of the pictures. But these formats are
used more by semi-professionals and professional photographers.

The digital realm has opened possibilities for point and shoot camera buffs
that is truly amazing. I suppose that's another reason for the flood of digital
equipment sales over the past months/years.

Happy 2005,

Conrad



Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon

Conrad Weiler wrote:
The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an
important point.
Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or
digital. If we
look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might
get an
interesting result.

If you look at the P&S market then digital has simply swept through. My
colleagues and friends who probably would click 2-3 rolls a year and
that too on special occasions only now click almost everything and
anything. Digital P&S simply mean a lot more photographs and lot more
memories clicked. And the typical P&S shooter is more interested in
capturing the moment rather than the sharpness, contrast, metering etc.


The only thing is the price. Here, in India, a decent digital P&S still
costs about Rs.10,000 and thats a lot of money for people who are more
likely to buy the Kodak KB10 sort of camera. Then again, sales of the
cheaper 2MP CMOS based taiwanese cameras is also strong indicating that
people are happy with the results. Most just see the results on a PC, a
few print 4x6 and still fewer get them enlarged.

Then there are the phone cameras and thats a different rage altogether.
My guess is a large number of camera manufacturers will go the US
railroad way. They've forgotten that people are more interested in
capturing the moment than the quality of it, so phone cameras just
might make dedicated cameras redundant as the quality of phone cameras
improves more and more.

- Siddhartha

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote:
If you look at the P&S market then digital has simply swept through. My
colleagues and friends who probably would click 2-3 rolls a year and
that too on special occasions only now click almost everything and
anything. Digital P&S simply mean a lot more photographs and lot more
memories clicked. And the typical P&S shooter is more interested in
capturing the moment rather than the sharpness, contrast, metering etc.

I walk through Times Square every morning - I wonder how many times a year
I'm captured in a photo by someone (not including the omnipresent security
cameras).

"Conrad Weiler" wrote in message
...
Hi,

The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important
point.
Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or digital.
If we
look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get an
interesting result.

Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax 35mm
film
camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some so-so
and
some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I scanned
those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting to
see
how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.

I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve
some/many of
their pictures.

Actually modern labs will do an amazing amount of correction. But there is a
limit not in the lab equipment to correct these errors. Part of it is
operator skill, an experienced technician will "eyeball" the neg and
manually override the machine settings. A timely example is a child on
Santa's lap, the maching sees lots of red, so it corrects leaving a cyan
faced child. An good tech will see this and compensate, machines can't
determine what the scene is a person can. However in the days of "how cheap"
can this be many labs will keep the machines on full auto and hire a minimum
wage button pusher, as operating costs will be kept low.

At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button pusher, or
their employers.

You have touched the nail right on the head.

"At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button pusher,
or
their employers"
I looking to purchase a new scanner. Can I ask what brand and type of
scanner you are using?

"Darrell" wrote in message
news

"Conrad Weiler" wrote in message
...
Hi,

The past discussions about film vs digital may have missed an important
point.
Most people probably use point and shoot cameras whether film or
digital.
If we
look at these folks as the target group for comparison -- we might get
an
interesting result.

Yesterday, my daughter developed film from her point and shoot Pentax
35mm
film
camera at a local photo shop. Some of the pictures were good -- some
so-so
and
some with problems. She let me have the 35mm color negatives and I
scanned
those and tweaked the digital image results. It was really interesting
to
see
how some of the pictures could be improved in PS 8 using just Curves ,
Contrast, Saturation and Unsharp mask adjustments.

I don't expect a local photo shop to spend time doing these types of
adjustments but certainly a home user in a few minutes may improve
some/many of
their pictures.

Actually modern labs will do an amazing amount of correction. But there is
a
limit not in the lab equipment to correct these errors. Part of it is
operator skill, an experienced technician will "eyeball" the neg and
manually override the machine settings. A timely example is a child on
Santa's lap, the maching sees lots of red, so it corrects leaving a cyan
faced child. An good tech will see this and compensate, machines can't
determine what the scene is a person can. However in the days of "how
cheap"
can this be many labs will keep the machines on full auto and hire a
minimum
wage button pusher, as operating costs will be kept low.

At home the photos mean more to you than some minimum wage button pusher,
or
their employers.

I have seen a tremendous improvement in the quality of pictures taken by
many P&S photographers. The digital cameras allow them to practice more, as
well as get instant feedback, though not many are taking advantage of the
ability to digitally correct their pictures. My wife, for example, just
hands me a memory card and tells me to "fix them."

The downside, of course, is the enormous flood of really terrible
photography. And some people just don't seem to improve; all they do is take
lots of bad pictures, myself being a notorious case in point. :-)

The one I don't understand is camera phones. All kinds of people with high
quality cameras will instead take pictures with the terrible camera phone.
This is partly because they have the phone with them, but I have seen them
do it even while the camera sits in their pocket. Then, of course, they have
to use the phone to send me a copy of the cool picture they took. Perhaps
when more P&S cameras get Bluetooth or Wi-Fi people will start giving up on
the crappy cell phone camera.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

The downside, of course, is the enormous flood of really terrible
photography. And some people just don't seem to improve; all they do is
take
lots of bad pictures, myself being a notorious case in point. :-)


The downside to digital is the time it takes to tweak all the images.

When I have one or two really important ones, I enjoy working on them, but
film still offers advantages when shooting lots of photos, in that the lab
does much of the post-shoot work.

Of course, it requires that we use good labs, not those generic types that
hire minimum-wage employees, if we are to expect decent results.

I just hate having to edit 50 or more shots at a time. I'd rather be doing
something else, instead of going cross-eyed watching a monitor. Just one of
my personal peeves.

For me, digital will not replace film, it will add to my current
capabilities.

The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to tinker with
the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make prints at all
they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that paradigm
for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That is the
market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be respected.

How many people want to fix their own cars?

However the process is not automatic, at either a commercial film lab or
home digital darkroom. That is why there is so much disappointment when
unsophisticated consumers are misled by all the advertising, buy digital
cameras and printers, then post on this newsgroup how they get better 4x6
prints at Walmart than they can make at home.

"bmoag" wrote in message
m...
The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to tinker
with
the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make prints at
all
they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that paradigm
for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That is the
market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be respected.


That is true. The Kodak EasyShare cameras I gave away this Christmas were
very well received. The only thing recipients new to digital photography
wanted to know was where they could get their pictures printed. I told them
Costco or WalMart and they were happy.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"bmoag" wrote in message
m...
The majority of people who take pictures do not want to have to tinker
with
the image in any kind of imaging program. If they want to make prints at
all
they want it to be push button automatic. Kodak has marketed that
paradigm
for over a 100 years, "You push the button, we do the rest." That is the
market that keeps all of photography solvent and it should be respected.


That is true. The Kodak EasyShare cameras I gave away this Christmas were
very well received. The only thing recipients new to digital photography
wanted to know was where they could get their pictures printed. I told
them
Costco or WalMart and they were happy.



Kodak seems to have automated the printing process, via their PerfectTouch
process. The algorithms are now so sophisticated that they can even
identify and remove red-eye. They also use this on prints made by their
online OFOTO subsidiary.

Frankly, this may give better overall results than having to rely upon the
skill of an underpaid technician operating a high-volume printer. I still
remember that moron at Sam's Club that printed my photos with tree leaves
and grass coming up Kelly Green.

I'm looking for another online lab that does not interfere with my edited
files. PerfectTouch may be great for consumers that don't edit, but it
completely defeats the purpose of editing for those of us that do our own
and do not require being second-guessed.

Anyone know of any online labs that print on real photo paper (not inkjet or
dye sub) and that do not "improve" the customer's file?