Digital or 35mm best?

[ReefRookie75]

I've taken pictures with several different digital cameras ranging from 2mega pixels to 5 mega pixels and still can't seem to get the color right. I want the picture to come out looking like it does in real life, of course! I have an old Manual Pentax camera with a bent lense that I'm thinking about getting a macro lense for. Besides the cost of film, are there any other down sides of using a manual camera. I heard once that the color is much better than digital and that the pro's all use manual cameras...is this true?

[Poseidon]

LOL!

Here is a link comparing an OLD OLD OLD digital camera from Canon to 35mm, this was 4 generations ago too!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

Digital reigns supreme!

[gregr]

Welcome to Reef Central :D
i think someone was feeding you half-truths (at best :p ).
the comment about all pro's using manual cameras is sort of true, but i suspect that person meant that all pros use cameras that have manual controls (along with many automatic features) and i'm sure lots of professionals use manual exposure settings to get the most control possible.
regarding color... it's just not a reasonable comparison. first you would have to select a particular film- and there are dozens to choose from, each having it's own particular color/contrast/grain etc. characteristics. second you'd have to compare it with a particular digital camera because they too have their own particular characteristics. and then... to get a film shot on the computer it needs to be scanned, and photoshopped [edited], just as one would edit a digital shot. and by the time you're done editing... well, i doubt anyone could tell which image was film and which was a digital capture. that is especially true for high end dslr's.
anyhow- aquarium photography presents some challenges to film based photography. the problem lies in the lighting. most film is daylight balanced, and the lights on our aquariums are usually much bluer than daylight, so the pictures are likely to be innacurate color-wise. you could use a filter to make up for all the blue light, but just how strong of a [warming] filter to use is not an easy thing to figure out. another option is to use color correcting gel on the lights- but that is also a pain in the neck and more trouble than most people want to go to.
if you used a flash you could get very good results with your film camera since flashes put out light that is [daylight] balanced for film. just be aware that flashes make most acropora species look brown. but for fish and most lps corals a flash can be great.
hope this helps,
Greg

[wds21921]

I'm not sure were you read that but todays digitals are beginning to outpace the manuals (film) for quality.

A friend of mine who's been a pro photography for 18 years said that with the amount of on site work you can do with these cameras has made manual cameras almost obsolete. The color and quality of the digital photos is equal to or superior to film cameras and the touch up or tweaking that can be done to enhance your photos is endless and very user friendly for even a novice.

Sorry but the manual film camera is a dying breed.

[aberg12012]

I'll post my .02

Gregr said it best... and I'll add that the difference is all in the operator behind the lense. You can acheive (for the most part) similar results from almost any camera. Digital or 35mm, but it's up to the user. GHO has a good example of this, with a $20 walmart digi. Too many people are caught up in the techincal details of photography these days, and not enough in the artistic aspect. Digital, film... just different paths to the same destination. The advantages of a DSLR of coarse are obvious, but both can acheive the same thing. I started out a couple years ago with an old Pentax P3 given to me from my parents, who purchased the camera new in 1983. (Just 4 years after I was born.) Some of my favorite photos I took with that camera 2 summers ago. There is just something about a full manual film body that I love. If it weren't for all the lenses I have for this camera being damaged or too dirty to use... I would still be shooting alot with this camera. It's just not worth the $$ to pay to have the lenses cleaned up. Maybe some day.

[ReefRookie75]

Below are some pictures that I took with a 2 mega pixel camera. It doesn't have a whole lot of bells and whistles. It does a decent job with macro shots but the "whole tank" shot has been a pain! That's the shot where the colors just don't match up - the reason for my question above. Have any suggestions for a good all-around digital camera that can shoot macro + whole tank shots? Is there such a thing as too many mega pixels? Thanks!

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/100233yellowleather1.JPG
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/100233sandworm1-med.JPG
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/100233hammer1.JPG
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/100233clam1.JPG
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/100233candycane1.JPG

[wds21921]

RR75 First of all, EXCELLENT PICS, I mean it!
Secondly, I would check with the cameras mfg to see if they have any recomendations for shooting large type photos.

My old Fuji 865,000 pixels (yes not even 1 megapixel lol) had the same problem but more so with the clarity rather than the color you're talking about.

Usually any color problems or conflicts can be remedied with some good photo software such as Photoshop or JASC. ANother one you might try is Arcsoft which is a little more user friendly (IMO).

There could be a lot of reasons as to why the color isn't working properly for the wide shots such as lighting, which is tough sometimes in a tank. Another reason could be the background light, etc. etc. There could be many reasons or a combination of reasons.
I would contact the mfg first and see if they have any suggestions or tips on there web site. If that doesn't work I'd opt to try a different software package (free trial of course), and in between both of those could be an answer from a fellow reefer with more experience. Hopefully you can resolve this dilemma easily. Good luck :).

[wds21921]

Oh one other thing I forgot to add which might be obvious to some.
When taking a picture through glass (especially with a flash) you want to try to take the photo at close to a 45 degree angle to avoid flashback.

[gho]

Originally posted by ReefRookie75
I've taken pictures with several different digital cameras ranging from 2mega pixels to 5 mega pixels and still can't seem to get the color right. I want the picture to come out looking like it does in real life, of course! I have an old Manual Pentax camera with a bent lense that I'm thinking about getting a macro lense for. Besides the cost of film, are there any other down sides of using a manual camera. I heard once that the color is much better than digital and that the pro's all use manual cameras...is this true?
Well, depends on what you mean by "manual"

I shoot almost exclusively in M mode on my cameras, but that's only because it's faster for me as I know by looking at the scene, and the lighting conditions, where about I want the settings. I wouldn't recommend it for everyone though.

In fact, I recommend most novice photographers start out with P mode, and as you advance, try A or S mode.

Just because a Pro uses a particular type of camera doesn't mean it's for everyone. Pro chefs use walk-in freezers to store food, but you wouln't want one in your home, would you?

As for using film, the biggest downside is that you need to get it digitized if you want to work on it in the computer. The developer can usually do this, but it will be an added cost, and just like ripping a tape to a CD, the quality won't be as good as the original (has a lot to do with the digitization equipment quality).

Also, color corrections on film are done with color correction filters and special films. Special films are going up in cost and getting difficult to find.

On the up side, the dynamic range of film is unmatched by any of today's digital cameras, and only high end DSLRs can match the resolution of good film.

[grim]

I'll probably be the last guy who gives up film. While I love the convenience of editing and printing digital, I love the archival convenience of film (just store the negatives, come back in 100 years). There is just something that is comforting about being able to hold your 'backups' in your hand and knowing they are good with your own eyes, no questions.

I have nightmares about losing my digital photographs. Now granted, my house could burn down, and my safe could melt, and my negatives could be destroyed, however, I'll bet money on the fact a CD-R has a higher chance of failing.

I'm not 30 yet, however, I vividly remember 5 1/4 floppy disks, an less so 8" floppys. I remember loading computer programs off audio tape, and I remember all sorts of incompatible formats. These formats are changing at a blazing rate, sure, they are changing for the better, but with each change comes incompatibility and the risk that your media will be so outdated 10 years down the road, that you might not be able to even find a way to access that media.

My guess is 35mm film has a good 75 years left before digital takes over..

jb

While some of the newest mega megapixel cameras are coming close to acheiving 35mm film resolution, us film guys have a trick up our sleeves, we'll just pull out medium format or even a 4x5.. :) (note, none of these would ever come close to fitting up your sleeve)..

[Poseidon]

Sorry Grim, the newest DSLR SURPASSED 35mm, about 3 years ago! The 1Ds mark 2 is squarely aimed at Medium format! I sold my Hassy after on a month with the 10D, as a wedding photographer the ease of digital, it's 4 stop lattitiude and the cost savings of being able to shoot NON STOP versus shoot 12 and change converted me in an instant. I can't wait to see what happens when the dynamic range matches film in the next 2 years. Heck even today there is a Photoshop plugin that give 14 stops of Dynamic range! I don't think film is ever going to be able to match THAT!

[gregr]

i was at a fashion still shoot a few months ago-- very high end (the photographer had about eleven assistants :p ) and i was surprised to see the photographer using the 1Ds MarkII. i asked him about and he said it was all the camera he needed.
Greg

[fras]

To answer your question about full tank shots vs macro shots and getting the colour right - it's a case of getting the white balance correct, most high end post processing software lets you adjust white balance. If your camera is capable of setting manual white balance, go for it, if it's not try post processing. Paint shop pro is free on a 90 day trial and is more than capable of fixing colour issues.

[Luis A M]

My Cybershots takes several seconds to take the picture and I can´t take a decent shot of a moving fish.I was told that all digital cameras have the same problem,they can´t take an instant shot,like film cameras.Is that true?

[gregr]

pretty much true with point and shoot digital cameras, but with digital slr's (also known as dslr's, also known as digital single lens reflex cameras) it's not true. they are just as fast as film cameras in terms of autofocus and shutter lag. shutter lag is how long it takes for the picture to be taken after you press the button.
Greg

[Poseidon]

Some point and shoots have less shutter lag then others, you would have to try each out to see the difference though. Greg is right about DSLRs they are VERY FAST. I couldn't imagine trying to do sports with the lag time you are speaking of... Unless I could see 2 seconds into the future! :D

[Luis A M]

Thank you guys:) I see that a DSLR gives me the best of both worlds,with the added benefits of being able to change lenses or adapt the camera to microscopes,etc.Prices are painful,though:eek2:

[grim]

I'll argue till the cows come home about the resolution of 35mm being higher, digital is getting there, but the cost of equality is still very heavily lopsided towards the digital side. Convenience? Digital hands down. Cost of shooting 10,000 pictures? Digital becomes and obvious bargain. Digital has got many many advantages that are quickly pushing it towards being the gold standard, however, it's not resolution, at least not just yet, close, but not yet.

However, the EOS 5D may be changing my mind in the very near future.. I just might need to eBay my EOS-1n while it's still worth something.. :) 12.8mp, full frame sensor (no stupid 1.6x conversion so I can use my wide angles).

jb

[reefrunner69]

Give this a read ;)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

[Poseidon]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=5546030#post5546030 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by grim


My guess is 35mm film has a good 75 years left before digital takes over..

jb



So I was digging through my old subscriptions, and this thread came up..... I wonder if Grim still feels this way today, a mere 3 years later.... LOL!!! :rollface: :D

[breutus]

my .02 as well

until the recent D3 model by Nikon there has not been a sensor made as large as what 35mm frame size is, and if there was no camera with the same size sensor, quality could not have been up to par even if the megapixels were ridiculous.

But the D3 (at only 12.1 MP) is a full frame CMOS sensor that can extremely accurately reproduce any image as well or better than a 35mm camera.

But i shoot digital have for a while and would never go back because even without the same size frame the quality is so close the average person could not tell the difference. and the convince out ways everything!

[MCary]

The 5d has a full frame sensor and well as one of the 1D's. They were before the D3.

[beerguy]

Yup - really old thread but Canon has been shipping full frame sensors for over 3 years. The D3 may be Nikon's first but it's not the first. It's also half the resolution of Canon's flagship sensor but who's counting. Maybe in another 3 years they'll be able to match that too.

:lol:

[Poseidon]

1Ds Mark III = Full frame sensor and 21MP!!!! Yikes!

[MCary]

ANd at only $7000 what a bargain.

[beerguy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12256869#post12256869 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
ANd at only $7000 what a bargain.

Considering what a 21mp medium format digital-back will cost you, that ain't bad. ;)

[maroun.c]

I'm sure most of heavy shooters will spend that amount in 2-3 years for the price of film and processing not to mention the amount of film processed and sometimes printed which is non keeper shots. consdering that this body would last you for more than 2-3 years or at least fetch a good price at resale its not a total loss. pro film cameras were not "cheap" at film days and also high end pro film cameras were/are not cheaper. Funny thing is that Legacy high end film cameras fetch very high prices as collection items and it will be I guess a very long time if ever for pro digital cameras to start selling at higher prices. guess we better wait and see.
As for me I converted to digital years ago starting out with a 1.2 MP Olympus which believe it or not gave me some nice snapshots (sometimes better than what I get with a much better DSLR) then went to a D70s and still waiting to finish my lenses collection before I upgrade to a better body. although D300 is becoming a serious temptation. 2 years ago I found a used Nikon F100 (film body) and although not their latest and best SLR I bought it for 450 Euros. Only used it for 3 rolls of film so far and the roll in it has been in for 2 months now. However I use it for special shots that I have the time to compose... In the end when/if ever, you have the time and patience, nothing beats considering your framing much more, assessing the effect you need and working out your exposure, then taking the shot, waiting for your roll to be full, processing it then opening the bag in a rush to find out your results. No matter how I stress on doing this in digital I always find myself shoting in mass relying on the LCD to assess and then sometimes repeating or relying on PP. in the end I get somehow the same effect however it's always more pleasing when you realize you achieved it with film. I even sometimes look at pics I shot with my Zenit 125 TTL (a fully manual camera with no autofocus) with a 50mm 2.0 and it's really hard to believe I managed to control my exposure and nail my focus to get sharp pics of moving fish that I printed on A4 size paper and bigger... Guess for those who shot film it will always have that special feel and even if in few years I will not find films to shoot anymore I guess I'll just put that old antique film camera on display in 30-40 years and brag about it in front of my future grand children....