Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!

How long before digital overtakes 35mm?


This topic is locked.

Reason : This topic was started an awful long time ago and has generated a lot of discussion. Many good points have been raised, but I feel we can now draw things to a close, so have locked this topic. Will.

17 Jan 2003 3:06PM
Digital is great provided you can afford it, i mean the digital slr camera are still very expensive.
with filf photography, you can still find medium range camera at a very affordable price.
wuth a view camera, you can have a digital back but it is still very very expensive. we are talking about tens of thousand pounds roughly.

i personnally still shoot with films and i scan my photos.

Make no mistakes, i am not an anti-digital person but i tend to be wallet-wise

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mitchellhatpeg 15 205 1
20 Jan 2003 4:34PM
What a great discussion and how enlightening to hear from people with experience of both film and digital cameras.

I have more than 20 years of experience with 35mm but have only ventured into selling my work since buying a PC and a scanner two years ago. The reason? For the first time I can produce reasonably priced prints which look exactly how I want them to look.

I've never considered a digital camera until recently, for exactly the same reason as Redsnappa, that I thought all prints had to be 300dpi to be any good. Imagine my surpise when I printed off some example images from 4, 5 and 6 mega-pixel cameras (off the manufacturers web sites) using my Epson stylus 870. Whats this? Prints that look great at 150dpi? Skin tones that blow my scanned slides and negs out of the water?

I can't wait until digital SLRs come down to current SLR prices (and why shouldn't they? They probably cost less to manufacture) and also for the sensors to get to 35mm size so that all my wide angle lenses don't turn into standard lenses.

By the way, the couple of images I down-loaded for the Foveon sensor in the SD9 look easily as good as those from the Canon D60, with only half the pixels! Clever stuff. if they make a full size 35mm Foveon, that will be medium format quality!

The furture is Foveon!?

mitchellhatpeg 15 205 1
20 Jan 2003 4:38PM
At least it begins with an 'F'.

photodiver 15 10
21 Jan 2003 1:33AM
I have been a professional underwater photographer for about 15 years now. I have always used regular SLR cameras in my work. About a year ago, I purchased my first Digital camera (1.3mega pixel). Today I own three digital cameras ranging from 3mp to 6 mp. I would never go back to regular film cameras. I get the same if not better results with the digtial systems. My advise to you would be don't worry that your camera will be out of date in an hour. Buy a digital camera that will do the job you need done. The same way you purchased an SLR to do a job. It's like everything else today, if you are tring to own the biggest and the best you will be chasing the moon forever because there will always be something better out there. Digital photography is the way to go for me anyway. Hope this helps.

mitchellhatpeg 15 205 1
21 Jan 2003 7:44AM
Thanks Dave,

How many of you professionals sell images taken on digital cameras to stock libraries?

If you do, can you tell me which ones they are and how big the file sizes are that they require?

The ones I have looked at require 35mb files as a minimum (at 24 bit colour depth) so this would be a very high resolution file if scanning from 35mm.

Dave, are you printing your own work and selling the prints, or selling the image files?


photodiver 15 10
21 Jan 2003 3:27PM

I am doing both. The name of my company is Gough's Stock Photography. you can have a look at my work at www.goughs-stock-photography.com
I currently sell my images as prints, digital files and on photo gift products. I can print on almost anything. (except mugs and plates) You would be hard pressed to tell the difference between my "Digital prints" and chemical prints.

mitchellhatpeg 15 205 1
22 Jan 2003 7:25PM

I looked at your site, very nice indeed! You didn't answer hte question about file sizes though, is this a 'trade secret'?

photodiver 15 10
22 Jan 2003 7:29PM
Sorry Simon.

When I shoot with my digital camera the file size is 17.9m

When I scan slides I scan at 1200 dpi and prints at 600 dpi. (12m file size)

I hope this answers your question???
mitchellhatpeg 15 205 1
23 Jan 2003 2:34PM
Thanks Dave, yes that answers the question. It also suggests that many stock libraries would not accept your material on the basis that the image size might limit the use of it by their potential customers. That was the rational given (in the technical blurb) from several stock libaries I approached last year, for their requirements for file sizes in excess of 35mb.

That is also why I haven't bothered approaching any other stock libraries.

photodiver 15 10
23 Jan 2003 2:54PM

Thats why I started my own stock agency in 1997. This way I don't need to worry about their "Standards". Most stock agencies try to target all markets, so they look for photos that will fill all markets. We don;t do that. We have a specialized market plan and gear our photos accordingly.
Big Bri 17 16.4k United Kingdom
11 Apr 2003 10:56PM
Fake processed pictures ? So all the millions of people who hand in their films which now get digitised and printed on digital minilabs are also fakes right ? Or is it the digital "capture" that makes it fake ?

Digital is just another way of recording information. It's not fake, it's just different. I guess you still use a chisel to write on stone tablets do you ?

I bet you spent as long thinking about this discussion as you did about your user name.
mitchellhatpeg 15 205 1
13 Apr 2003 9:34AM
There do seem to be people that are disappointed when they learn that the beautiful 'photgraph' they are looking at was produced on a computer. They seem to be un-able to believe that the scene in front of the photographer was actually like the final print. Two of my friends take this view. This seems to stem from the old adage that 'the camera never lies'. People who believe this have probably only ever pressed the button on their camera and sent the film for developing. (Some of these folks also think that this makes them a photographer, perhaps in the same way that driving a car makes you a mechanic?) Those of us who have worked in the darkroom know that the camera virtually never tells the truth. It is therefore easier for us to take the digital darkroom as an obvious step forward in our favourite hobby/business.

photodoctor 15 101
15 Apr 2003 12:31AM
Recently I was asked to attend a local Brownie event and photograph the girls. They were spending the afternoon on a crafts project and I was to photograph each girl with their "creation". I decided to shoot digital and did some maths and worked out that if I took my Fuji printer with me I would be able to print the shots so that the girls could take their photos home with them.
Things didn't quite go to plan and I was waiting for the final couple of prints as the parents began to arrive.
One curious father came over to see what I was up to. He picked up a photo and after a good look said, "Are these real photos or digital?". The only reply I could think of (with two dozen brownies listening) was, "If you can't tell, does it really matter?".
His question does highlight the fact that many people do not consider digital photography as "real" photography. How we overcome this I'm not sure.
shooter 15 105 Canada
24 Apr 2003 2:32AM
I'd answer that they're real photos. "I really took them, with a real camera, and they really show what was really in front of my real lens."
With a smile (-:!
macroman 15 15.3k England
21 Jun 2003 2:51PM
(at least in the foreseeable future)