Which one is better? Which one do you recommend? I'm thinking about taking a digital photography class or maybe a regular photography class. Can someone just give me some information and advice because I have cameras for both but I dont know which one would be more fun.. etc etc. Any information will be helpful.
*Please no comments on just picking which one I like. I'm not sure yet so I'd like some information. THANKS!!
I'd say do both, but probably not at the same time. Film has different qualities than digital. What are you into? What do you want to be into? Biggest question is what kind of equipment do you have?
For me I like digital. Just not having to change film every 36 frames is a big plus, especially if your in a moving environment like chasing the kids around the yard. But I keep the old Pentax K1000 around from 30+years ago even though its 100% manual, not even auto focus. Why? Because its the only camera I have with a macro lens. And its built like a brick. Drop it and what ever you dropped it on is broken, not the other way around.
Digital is new and frankly I think its better to learn with. You dont have to waste your half used roll of film to change from ISO 100 to 800, just for a few shots and go back to 100. You dont have to have tons of filters that you may or may not use to compensate for the color of the light. You dont have to develop your film and have the cost of that. You dont have to choose just which shot to take for fear that you'll run out of film. You dont have guess which speed of film you will need later on (oops I forgot to pack some 400 speed film). More and more things are being made for the digital world every day, and less and less for film (in fact Nikon is currently only producing 2 film cameras, the F6 and the FM10. I am sure that the other camera companies are following suit). Most film companies are drastically scaling back production of the actual 35mm film because digital is so popular.
My vote is go digital first.
digital vs. film
photography digital vs film5 photography digital vs film5
Film Photography vs Digital Photography Animal Experimentation School Uniform
I thought of doing abortion but I think that topic is over used and I'm sure my teacher will have read it so many times.
What do you think of my main choices? I would prefer the photography one, is that a good one to do? Or should I do something else? Do you have any suggestions and tips? Thank you.
Personally, I'd go for the animal testing topic. Photography is an interesting subject - for people who are interested in photography. But for the rest of the world, it's a pretty dry subject - all technical, no real ethical question there.
The subject of animal experimentation, however, is something most people have an opinion on, and there are compelling arguments for andagainst. Up to you, but I think that's the sort of topic that fills the pages, you know? I know if it were me, I'd have an easier time whipping out a paper on something that gets both sides fired up as opposed to a question for tech geeks. But that's me - and that's what I would rather read about, too. Although your teacher is supposed to be impartial, I think you might fare better with a more "hot button" topic than which camera is better.
Just an opinion - you do what you think is best. Hope you get a good grade.
Santa Vs. Santa (short film) - Shay Carl, wheezywaiter, and Corey Vidal (Christmas 2010)
digital photography vs film5 digital photography vs film5
1 Canon A-1 vs Canon AE-1 & making artistic images?
So basically i'm new to traditional SLR photography. My friend owns a Canon AE-1 and produces BEAUTIFUL artistic, grainy, colorful, flawed images (which I want to do also!). They look quite lomographic (I think thats the right word) The guy at the store said if I was going to get an AE-1 that I might as well get the A-1 and that it could do the same and more as the AE-1. Well, basically the A-1 produces images that are "too clear" for me, and even with the same film as my friend uses for her AE-1, it looks almost like a digital photo. I think i'm going to take it back to exchange for an AE-1 instead. Can someone with photo advice help me choose whether or not this is a good idea? Thanks so much for your help.
There is nothing wrong with your camera. If you want flawed images you should just buy a lomo camera or a diana. your friends camera is old and is desperate need of maintaince.
You actually got a well functioning canon a1. (which is an updated model of the ae1.
Really you have two options. One. Buy a lomo or diane two. Drop your camera on the floor and throw it in the wash cycle of your washing machine. That ought to damage your camera sufficiently to get the result you are after.
the canon a1 were percise tools made for serious photographers who were serious about learning their craft (exposure, composition and light). Lomo and diane were toys made for people who find inaccurate, poorly made cameras, artistic
Estevan Oriol Vlog #3: Digital Era Vs. Film Era
film vs digital photography5 film vs digital photography5
1 For digital photography - is "just like film" still the goal?
...or have we surpassed that? I am not trying to start a film vs. digital war, but I am asking whether you think digital photography is still chasing certain qualities of film imagery or if it has gone off in its own directions, with new standards.
"Grain," colors, sharpness, dynamic range...
Whatever you think of is valid, but please try to avoid elevated blood pressures and emotionally charged responses. My point is NOT to decide whether film is better than digital or not! Please don't go there.
My question is whether you or not think that digital has arrived as its own medium, no longer feeling the pressureto "chase after film."
Yes, film is better and will always BE better at certain things, but digital is better at certain other things.
My point is to ask whether digital has matured into its own tree from the tree from which it fell or if it is still just the red-headed step-child, struggling for recognition in the world.
Just like film is still the goal until the prices of digital cameras decline and technology stabilizes, doesn't obsolete itself so quickly. Achieving something just like film is not available to most consumers unless they purchase expensive cameras, I believe in the $5000-$6000 range. I have a NikonD200, already it is obsolete with the D300 that just came out.
Film Vs Digital_MP4 HD 360.mp4
film vs digital photography5 film vs digital photography5 film vs digital photography5
Photography - Understanding Film Vs Digital Cameras
Emulsion film, as a medium for capturing photographic images, has been around in one form or another for more than 150 years. But due to the rapidly growing popularity of digital cameras, newcomers to photography are sometimes surprised to discover that film is still being manufactured and sold for all-purpose photography. Once their first digital camera is in hand, and they have mastered the art of recording images electronically, and storing them as files, the idea of using film seems a strange concept indeed.
So why is film still being used by some photographers?
To understand the answer to this, we will need to take a look at the differences between film stock and the modern image sensors that make digital cameras possible.
Let's start with the newer technology: the light sensitive electronic surface that sits at the center of a digital camera, and which is known as an image sensor. Basically these sensors are a specialized form of microchip. But they do not carry out any computations. Instead, all they do is measure the amount of light that falls on different parts of the sensor surface in a given time window. If you were to zoom in on one of these thumbnail-sized chips, blowing it up to the size of a football stadium, you would see that the surface of the sensor looked a lot like your tiled kitchen floor.
Each one of those square tiles represents a separate photodiode, capable of measuring just the amount of light that falls on it. In fact, sitting just above each photodiode is a colored filter. The filter is there to block all but the wavelength of light that it sends on to the photodiode. These filters come in red, green, and blue, so that any given photodiode will be measuring only the intensity of light for the particular color of the filter sitting above it.
Imagine for the moment that every tile on that kitchen floor is green. Now take one row of tiles and color every second tile blue. For the next row of tiles, color every second tile red, but shift the red tiles across by one space so that the red tiles appear beneath the green tiles of the previous row. Then repeat the process with blue tiles on the next row, and so on, until the entire floor is covered with these alternate rows of green/blue and green/red tiles. This is just what the surface of the image sensor looks like when seen close up.
In point of fact, this particular arrangement of colored filters, with twice as many green pixels as either red or blue, is known as a Bayer array. It is the most commonly used color filtering method employed in digital cameras, but it is by no means the only one used. Because the human eye is more sensitive to green light than red or blue, the green-favoring of the Bayer system actually works to its advantage when the colors are finally combined to produce printable images.
Every time a digital camera is used to record an image, this mosaic of colored tiles captures the various intensities of red, green, and blue light. So every photodiode, or "electronic pixel", has associated with it a color and a number. If a perfectly green lime was being photographed, the red and blue pixels would have the number zero associated with them, while the green pixels around them would carry non-zero numbers. In reality, small contributions of red and blue light would be mixed with much stronger green contributions to produce the hues of green that color the skin of the lime.
All of this information is whisked away from the image sensor and stored in a temporary image buffer, later to be transferred to the memory card used by digital cameras to store images as files. Software is then used to manipulate the images (or not) before they are finally sent to a photo printer.
The resolution of the images is determined by the number of photodiodes (pixels) that can be crammed onto the surface of an image sensor. These days it is not uncommon to find about 4000 pixels along one edge of the sensor, and 2500 along the other. The product of these numbers is 10 million, or 10 megapixels in the digital camera parlance.
So, how does this compare with film resolution?
Well, these days the brand of film stock recognized as offering the finest resolution is Fuji's Velvia 50 RVP. While it is not possible to ascribe a grain size to the emulsion that is used in slide film (there are a number of different sized grains in the dyes that make up the emulsion) an effective number of pixels per inch can be assigned to film stock based on how many closely-spaced "thin lines" can be resolved in the laboratory. The effective PPI, or pixels per inch, for Velvia is about 4000. This translates, assuming a 35mm frame size, to about 22 megapixels of image resolution. For better known film brands, like Kodachrome, the number is closer to 9 megapixels.
Clearly, with current top-end digital SLR models offering resolutions that surpass 20 megapixels, the numerical advantage that film once offered in terms of image resolution has all but vanished. Digital cameras now match the image resolution of even the very best film stocks, and will surpass them as image sensor technology continues to improve.
So now we are back to our still-answered question: why is film stock still produced when digital imagery is on a par with it, at least in terms of resolution?
The answer is that resolution is by no means the full story when it comes to creating a great image. As mentioned, emulsions contain a range of grain sizes and dye components that work together to produce effects that cannot easily be reproduced with three sets of red, green, and blue numbers. Velvia, for instance, adds more warmth to the actual recorded colors, and produces landscape images that look better than the real thing.
Fortunately for us, the makers of film stock, and the makers of digital cameras, are not, by and large, the same people. Otherwise film stock might disappear a lot more quickly from the world of photography. That probably will not happen for a while though. Not as long as film stock can produce images that surpass the quality of digital methods. Until that is no longer the case, photographic film will have a place in the world of photography.
To help you select a suitable digital camera to get started with, I have put together an article for you about how to find the right Beginner Digital Camera.
Whether you need a simple point-and-shoot model, or a more complex digital SLR model, you will find the answers, and greatly discounted digital camera offers, at http://www.bestdigitalcameradiscounts.com/
