Cameras..digital or analog???????????????

[sumayya]

no doubt that a camera is one of an architect's best friends...but i wonder why analog cameras are still widespreaded..i was told thats because no matter how much you zoom in still there would details to find..while digital ones r controlled some how with resolution..
what do you think?
sumayya

[lekizz]

True, digital cameras are limited by the number of pixels in each image, but these days you can get very high resolution digital cameras where you can hardly tell the difference. Though the images take lots of room on your computer!

I would be lost without my little digital camera! I can go out and take 150 photos of a site and print out only the ones I need. And it is far easier to manipulate a digital photo (in photoshop) than a film photo. I've still got an old SLR film camera at home and there is no way I can afford a digital SLR at the moment. Some people still value the skills of non-digital photography - choosing the right film, filters, lenses then developing and printing the photos yourself...

So in my mind there are benefits of both. Anyway, this thread will get moved soon to DC's 'Photography' forum

[Farmer]

I am into digital Photography and Photography big time. Well why people buy film Camera even now or prefer them is big concept.

When shooting with digital not only stuff like pixel matter but say white balance matters alot i.e. what will camera treat light as i.e. sunlight, cloud, tungsten. Results are not consistent as in case of Film camera using a Natural light Film or any other film

[sumayya]

[color=red]well farmer..thats a good point ..but i think that can b managed with photo editing softwares..[/color]

[Tomek]

It all depends on the scenario for me. For quick reference definetly digital. But when it comes to setting up your final model in a lab, with lights and tripod etc nothing beats analog. I remember in first year, my then girlfreind studied photography and my she took photos of my models. In black and white they captured so much atmosphere and created their own idividual character; impossible with digital.

[Farmer]

Quite true but no doubt digital is gaining ground day after day.If it was not for digital i wont be a photographer today, it helps you kear faster and cheaper. In future only those will stick with film who either cannot afford( say a medium format digital camera) or those who who there is some advantange

[Farmer]

http://gagan8636.fotopic.net/c676254.html , these are some snaps i took with my digital camera( except school group photo)

[Kevin]

Black and white model photos certainly possible with digital, even atmospheric ones, either using in-camera mode or convert-to-grayscale in post-processing. Not the same as having your girlfriend do it, though!

[Valerij]

Digital, only digital. If I am not satisfied wth 10 Mps my camera gets me i'll stitch and get as many pixels as I want. (I have more that 25 years of analog expierence).

[mrLenin]

hmm, but printed image mage from analog camera is better quality than digital one.

[Kevin]

Digital color photo printing seems to now have reached the level where, done well at the high end ($1K-2K for tabloid size printer) on the best paper, it actually surpasses pure optical photo printing in both image quality and even durability.

[pro]

Hello! I'm new to this site. I have been reading a few of the messages that have been written on this blog. Quite a bit of the info being published is incorrect. I am a photographer with a degree in Professional Photography from Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara, CA.

As we all know, photography has been undergoing great chances from film to digital. I was trained in the late 80's and early 90's in the darkroom. I know the "analog" processes very well. I switch to digital two and half years ago. Haven't shot a single piece of film since. I do miss a little bit of the romance of film, but digital as a professional workflow is much superior. Best profession decision I have made.

Digital is really good. Especially the high-end medium format digital back that I use. There are quite a number of them on the market. The smaller DSLR cameras have come a long ways too. Canon's 5D have a great dollar to image quality ratio.

As in the debate between film being better than digital. Film is loosing in a big way. It only takes 12MP to surpass resolution of 35mm film. The medium format digital back are 22, 30 and 39MP! The print quality from these cameras is equal of better than film. Inkjet photo printers have come a long ways too in the last number of years. Also some top professional photolabs have Lightjet machines that make large format prints on traditional photographic papers from digital files. The image quality is outstanding!

One thing to note is Mega Pixels(MP) are not everything. The quality of your lens has a lot to do with your sharpness and detail. I have a 22MP back and I can see the difference in sharpness between lenses and apertures. So, 22MP surpass the resolution of many lenses, especially wide angle lenses that are used in architectual photography.

Working in RAW file format is the best way to go to maintain quality and colour balance. I the old days of film, we only have two choices in colour temperatures. Daylight(5500K) or Tungsten(3200K). For accuate colour balances, we had to "colour meters" and "light balancing filters" to have neutral looking images. Now with digital and shooting in RAW, one click of the mouse in the editing software and one has perfectly neutral balanced images. It is really that easy. Try dropping a RAW image on Photoshop CS, CS2 or CS3. It will open up in a window for RAW processing!

Black and Whites look amazing in digital. I do admit it takes a little work. It has to do with understanding and mixing the "channels" in Photoshop. It can be done and quite well.

It is a myth that film has more image detail. Lenses can only resolve an image to certain point. As mentioned earlier, the latest digital chips meet or exceed lens resolution. What ones seems in film photos is the grain and "perceived" image detail. Not always "actual" detail. We just think it is. I have done extensive test between film and digital at the time I was making my medium format digital purchase.

All in all, digital is the now and future and film is past. Sorry film, loved you at the time, but had to move on!

Cheers!

[sdabbs]

As a photographer who's experienced both aspects of film and digital, from my experience I think what camera or film choices you make can depend on what your subject matter is. For example, using a 4x5, or larger format camera can be beneficial for photographing architecture. That is the larger the negative, the better quaility of detail and the sharper the final image will be and the more flexible perspective changes can be, as opposed to 35mm film, or digital.
Since technology for cameras has changed so much, there are higher megapixel digital cameras that could possibly match up with the one i had just mentioned. But those can be pricey, along with digital backs for medium, to large format.
But if you don't make a lot of money (like myself) a good quality digital camera is very beneficial and a save on money. It helps me with seeing instantly how the quailty of light is working on that 2-dimensional surface. To me digital can be a great tool to prejudge for that final photo, as well as taking good snapshots.
Film can be more expensive with buying and developing it. But the quality (sharpness, colors, different processing) can be wonderful in how it can turn out to be. But, photoshop can also be sufficient for those exact same things...maybe not as well, unless your some sort of digital artist. But i think you learn more about the technical aspects of photography if you choose analog.
One more thing, metering the light is very important in how you want you image to turn out. Any type of hand held light meter is very important, (and maybe an 18% gray card). Although digital cameras have their own internal light meter, that reading that it gives can be very different from using a film camera. I see people who use their digital cameras as a light meter and then take the final image with a film camera, and the outcome was not like digital, but other things can change that.
Overall, digital is a great investment, saves your money more than film and its processing and you don't have to scan negatives, or do more work with digital than you would with film. Photoshop can benefit for a better constructed image, or bring more to the image than you thought you were getting. Learning analog make you a better photographer, maybe? But it may be better if you want to take the time to learn the technical aspects of what your trying to achieve first, than just going out and snapping constantly with digital. Experimenting and trying out various cameras would be good to do. Thanks!

[LAphotographer]

The big difference you'll run in to is. Does the client want to pay the extra cost for film. out of my clients i have only shot once with my film camera other wise everyone wants digital now. At the end of the day the client saves around $800 if i shoot digital

[MO&A]

Making our lives simple is part of not burning out, going crazy and overworking our assignments. The solution is knowing what a high-end image is worth and charging accordingly. Post-production is where the magic begins.

I shoot architectural and it is true, most clients don't want to pay for the film costs but they will if they understand they purpose you shot film in the first place.

My solution is I tell them what is best for them according to the look I think will work best now and for future needs. An enlargement in their lobby will require sharp clean mega file. Longevity is something I also take into consideration. How long am I going to have to keep their images. I would rather do one CD and file the negatives.

It's part of our job to deliver what will work best for our clients now and in the future. Film or digital, either way they will get a CD of the finals and we will have to re-bill them for additional applications.