Digital cameras vs Real ones

[bogeyman]

Why slides for colour? Many are influenced by professionals using slides, but they do so because their market demands it. For themselves they'd usually prefer negative.

No way!

Compare a brilliant, sparkling Cibachrome made from a decent tranny to a muddy daub made from a C-41 colour neg.

Also, Cibachromes are actually easiler to make and process (although more expensive in materials), and are more consistent than any colour neg to print processes.

[The Clown Beater]

Why slides for colour? Many are influenced by professionals using slides, but they do so because their market demands it. For themselves they'd usually prefer negative.

I can bore the family with a slide projector then

[expat]

Interesting insights. I'd be going for a Nikon F90 / Ilford B&W / Kodachrome colour so definitely high end

Why slides for colour? Many are influenced by professionals using slides, but they do so because their market demands it. For themselves they'd usually prefer negative.

[The Clown Beater]

Interesting insights. I'd be going for a Nikon F90 / Ilford B&W / Kodachrome colour so definitely high end

[expat]

Negatives should last for about 20 years but on the other hand we don’t yet know how long CDs will last and magnetic data is known to fade.

There is a real problem with cinematic film especially Eastmancolor where by many of the films in the 50s and 60s have faded but apparently Technicolor has faired much better.

Slide films probably last longer. Kodachrome and Velvia 100 (as against Velvia or Velvia 100F) should last several hundred years in the dark. If you're going to project the slides a lot (who does now?), Ektachrome has a longer life than Kodachrome.


I use digital for convenience, 120 for quality, and 35mm where I can't afford the lenses for the other 2! Convenience is not to be under-rated: the camera that you actually have with you, and can actually be bothered getting out and using, always takes better pictures than the others.

[DaveB]

Negatives should last for about 20 years but on the other hand we don’t yet know how long CDs will last and magnetic data is known to fade.

There is a real problem with cinematic film especially Eastmancolor where by many of the films in the 50s and 60s have faded but apparently Technicolor has faired much better.

I would suggest using both systems, but at the end of the day, all colour will fade, all magnet data will disappear unless regularly copied. CDs are an unknown.

CD's last a couple of years at best for reliable recovery. You might get lucky and get longer out of them depending on the brand. Blu-Ray is supposed to last longer but hasnt been proven yet.

The only media currently guarenteed by manufacturers for more than 20 years is Magneto Optical. Verbatim guarentee theirs for 50 years, including data recovers from a faild disk if it hasnt been physically damamged, not sure about Sony.

[Paddy]

I'm thinking about dropping the "digital revolution" and going back to traditional 35mm SLR.

Probably the wrong place to ask, but has anyone of the older people on here got any comments on the longevity of 35mm negatives and prints? (decent quality rolls plus paper).

I sold my old 35mm Olympus as some bloody dust mites died in it

I use both 35mm and digital. One reason for 35mm is for use with any legal photographs that maybe used in court, the other is one of my 35mm cameras is a good old tough manual one that does not need batteries. It can always be used no matter what.

The way that digital lenses work is different for 35mm l because of the angle of the light falls on the surface of the film, at the end of the day 35mm will give better colour but the colour is unstable.

Negatives should last for about 20 years but on the other hand we don’t yet know how long CDs will last and magnetic data is known to fade.

There is a real problem with cinematic film especially Eastmancolor where by many of the films in the 50s and 60s have faded but apparently Technicolor has faired much better.

I would suggest using both systems, but at the end of the day, all colour will fade, all magnet data will disappear unless regularly copied. CDs are an unknown.

[expat]

You know what I mean Yes the grain is important but to be fair if he is talking about going back to film I assumes (wrongly) that he would be going top end as I dont know any reasons that point and shoot would want to go back to film it must be for personal reasons and to use the top end stuff.

Indeed, but my point is that the megapixel count is not all there is to it, as demonstrated by the fact that a given film has the same megapixel resolution regardless of which camera it's in, but not all cameras can achieve the same results.

But there does come a degree of enlargement where the grain size is the limiting factor, and to get the best if you are at that point, you need the best film. And possibly a bigger film size.

[ratewhore]

aren't digital cameras real then?

[Sockpuppet]

The "atomic" level of a film is not atoms in the physics sense, but grain size. Any individual silver grain is either exposed & developed, or not (so film is really digital). A good 35mm slide film is reckoned to have about 15 megapixels on 24x36. But Mpix is not the point, it's just the most convenient number for hyping up more sales.

Example: put your 35mm Kodachrome in a Leica: 15 megapixels. Put it in Nikon: 15 megapixels. Put it in a point-and-shoot: 15 megapixels. Wow, aren't those Leicas a rip-off!!

You know what I mean Yes the grain is important but to be fair if he is talking about going back to film I assumes (wrongly) that he would be going top end as I dont know any reasons that point and shoot would want to go back to film it must be for personal reasons and to use the top end stuff.

[expat]

I'd say film is quite nice. I did some work for Jessops streamlining thier testing process for cameras and its amazing how much you learn from guys that have worked with film for 30 years.

I like the quality of 35mm its essentially unlimited pixels (unless you go to the atomic level of the film) so could be rescanned better and better.

However digital is easier overall. With some pro cameras weighing in at well over 15 - 20 mega pixels the pixel limit is no longer an argument in my eyes.

The most expensive camera I handles was I think aroudn £10k value and that was still film so its not dead yet!

The "atomic" level of a film is not atoms in the physics sense, but grain size. Any individual silver grain is either exposed & developed, or not (so film is really digital). A good 35mm slide film is reckoned to have about 15 megapixels on 24x36. But Mpix is not the point, it's just the most convenient number for hyping up more sales.

Example: put your 35mm Kodachrome in a Leica: 15 megapixels. Put it in Nikon: 15 megapixels. Put it in a point-and-shoot: 15 megapixels. Wow, aren't those Leicas a rip-off!!

[Sockpuppet]

Indeed: I'm "semi-digital" now. Shoot on film, scan it, keep neg as 1 of the archive copies.

120 as well as 35mm, though. MF gear is being given away now, wedding photographers have all gone digital.

I'd say film is quite nice. I did some work for Jessops streamlining thier testing process for cameras and its amazing how much you learn from guys that have worked with film for 30 years.

I like the quality of 35mm its essentially unlimited pixels (unless you go to the atomic level of the film) so could be rescanned better and better.

However digital is easier overall. With some pro cameras weighing in at well over 15 - 20 mega pixels the pixel limit is no longer an argument in my eyes.

The most expensive camera I handles was I think aroudn £10k value and that was still film so its not dead yet!

[expat]

processed or unprocessed.

Processed they last forever.

Indeed: I'm "semi-digital" now. Shoot on film, scan it, keep neg as 1 of the archive copies.

120 as well as 35mm, though. MF gear is being given away now, wedding photographers have all gone digital.

[tim123]

processed or unprocessed.

Processed they last forever.

Unprocessed will depend upon how that they have been kept.

In a fridge they will last a decade or two.

In the warm, a few years.

tim

[The Clown Beater]

I'm thinking about dropping the "digital revolution" and going back to traditional 35mm SLR.

Probably the wrong place to ask, but has anyone of the older people on here got any comments on the longevity of 35mm negatives and prints? (decent quality rolls plus paper).

I sold my old 35mm Olympus as some bloody dust mites died in it