Gentlemen, If good quality pictures are taken with 35mm film and scanned, then posted, can they be as detailed as pictures taken with a digital camera? I have two 35mms, but no digital and am wondering if, for this purpose alone, I need a new camera? Thank-you, Kurt
Kurt, As expensive as it is to process 35mm stuff, you will be miles ahead getting a digital. They are getting relatively inexpensive. If someone knows what they are doing, you can get a pretty darn good one for 200 bucks or so. Jake
in a word, yes. maybe even better given the level of 35 mm equipment and your scanner. there are some pretty crappy digital cameras out there that even a pro could not take a good photo with. When you make your scan don't get too crazy about size vs resolution. Big or high res photos load slow and some people still have dial up that will take days to load big or high res photos. Are you scanning these yourself? Do you know how to get them posted?
In terms of total information captured, film wins. However, now you are taking it through a second step that results in a certain amount of loss. In the end, you are cheaper and quicker with a digital camera.
I have 35mm, medium format, 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. When it comes to taking pictures for the web, the digital camera is my choice.
Pete
I agree with Pete. Digital is a much faster process. But if you already have the photos and a scanner, anything over 72 dpi is lost on the web.
Thank you all! I do have a scanner, though I am uncertain of the quality I'll get from it. I have an older one that was quite good, but my necessary "upgrade" to Vista ended its value. I will shoot the photos and see what I get! I am concerned how much I must spend to get good digital images while old technology gathers dust? Thanks again! I appreciate it! Kurt
Yeah it's sad to see an F2 Nikon just sittin on the shelf. I hear ya brother. Just where in w PA are you Kurt? I'm in New Castle, maybe I could help you. I'm good for at least a good chili dog! :-)
Some "old" 35mm lens will work with digital cameras.
This is the case with Nikon and others, you could buy the body of a digital, and use your other lenses
HM
Don't shoot slide film, too slow to get developed and too hard to scan on an average scanner.
Print film should scan fine, tho, from a typical 4x6 print.
That said digital is the way to go for just about anything.
Check what the pros are using- almost all have made the switch to digital except for studio and some landscape pros.
Kurt,
What you're thinking of doing will work fine. Have the prints made to standard size, then scan them. The issue is one of time/convenience more than anything. Sure, a good digital SLR could do better in terms of quality. But as someone above said, web pics suffer from quality for other reasons.
If you can spare a few hundred bucks, take the digital plunge. You'll make out in time and in short order, money. With a digital camera, you can go from taking the picture to having it on this bbs in few minutes.
If you are an accomplished 35mm SLR guy, jumping right to a digital SLR would be easy. However, I recommend that a person's first digital be a midsized camera with all the bells and whistles they offer at relatively low cost. You can buy a new close-out model loaded with features. For gun photog, I'd suggest one with a relatively large diameter lense (light gathering and quality), a macro mode (very handy), a built-in flash, and a telephoto mode of at least 8x (for outdoor/hunting).
If you have an old SLR, the lenses may or may not be of any value for use on a new digital SLR. I have a digital SLR now, but held out on film for a long time. Digital SLR models from the big names (Nikon, Canon, etc) are coming out at a rate of a about 2 new models per year or more. That means people are upgrading and selling their earlier models. The high number of used digital SLRs on the market has made them cheaper. However, one of the most useful lenses for gun photog is a macro lens, and these can be fairly expensive for one that does the auto-focus/auto-exposure coupling to a late model camera. If you post the make and lens models of each, the group here may be able to tell you if they will work with a new model of same make.
Take the plunge to digital, you'll like it.
I took pics with my 35mm took them to Thrift Drugs and they turned them into digital pics I have them on my computer now. Came out real nice.
All the best
Excellent advice from Chuck.
Hello Kurt,
I would recommend getting a pre-owned digital camera which you can do for around
$80. Some very good ones out there (
Pre-owned ). Experiment with it and then decide
if you go the SLR way which will set you back several hundred dollars for just the body.
(hopefully you can use your lenses, otherwise you are looking at least at around
$600.- for the likes of a Sony Alpha).
JMTC.
JC
I can highly recommend this model as it's a later version of one I have. The ease of use and macro/super macro setting coupled with a large diameter lense that assures light gathering and excellent image quality makes this camera a really nice package for our bbs usage and other common uses. This would be the best $125 I think you could spend.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Konica-Minolta-DiMAG...1QQcmdZViewItem
I recommend this model highly:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_/105-...p;x=14&y=19 big improvement over my old G2 Canon!
best regards,
JBP
Kurt,
In a nutshell, posting to a website does not require state-0f-the art digital imagery. Your computer monitor cannot reproduce the detail that a printed, much less projected, slide has.
So, go digital, but you need two components: a digital camera, and a computer with the software to repair/enhance the images. That means something halfway serious in the way of a camera, say close to $600 for a point and shoot; e.g. Canon's G9 (if I've got the model right) or Leica's D-Lux 3 (which is what I have). They come with software for your computer. In the case of the Leica it's Adobe Photoshop 4 and you download the module for the D-Lux 3 from the Adobe website, not at all difficult (I'd guess that more recent sales have a CD-ROM with the new module part of the Adobe software).
Why do you need to enhance your images? Basically with gun photos you need to minimize the highlights caused by lighting and increase detail in the shadows. It's dramatic how you can bring out the detail by suppressing highlights/enhancing shadow areas. You can actually take a noontime shot with scanned slide or print film and produce a decent image out of it without the harshness and lost detail in the shadows. But, you've got to invest a few hours to figure out how to use the software.
Using a digital SLR with your old lenses (Canon, Nikon, Leica) is a different matter and quite doable, but you have to invest some serious bucks which is why I am using the Leica point and shoot rather than going to Canon digital SLR so I can use my old EOS lenses.
Regards, Tim
These two pics were taken....
...using this bouce flash technique with an inexpensive point n shoot with a relatively large lens dia.
This pic was with the same camera, using a halogen lamp for light source and in the "super macro" setting.
Chuck, I'm thinking of moving up. Is my 35mm Nikon lens Micro-NIKKOR 105mm compatible with the new digitals, and which of the digitals would you recommend, Canon, Nikon, please? I'm happy with my first digital five years ago, an Olympus 720 ,but I'd like to have greater flexability.
King,
I believe your 105mm would be compatible with a new D50,40, 70,80,200, or 300 camera. If it is not an AF-D, it would not have auto focus and possibly no auto exposure. Take your lens with you to a camera store or let me know if it's a AIS or AF-D lens.
This picture of a sear was taken with an inexpensive Fuji FinePix, with 3.2MP and
macro capability. Used a table lamp for lighting and a small tripod.
You can go the several hundred dollar way and you will get great pictures (I'd really
like a digital SLR), but for posting photos on the net you don't really need very
sophisticated equipment.
JC
I have had Nikon cameras since I bought my first Nikon F in 1972.
I have a bunch of lenses, I used to buy non-AI Nikkor lenses and have them converted to AI.
I bought a used Nikon D1X off e-bay and had it overhauled and brought up to date. These are fairly cheap today as Nikon have brought out several models which supersede the D1X. But it's heavy, but I can use a lot of my converted and late model AIS lenses from my Nikon FM2T film camera. Really good vasue for money, about $500.00 for a used body.
I'm now looking for a used Nikon D70 body, they are a lot of camera for the money. I buy my photographic stuff from B&H Photo, they have tons of good used film and digital Nikon camera bodies and lenses. I like Nikon and have had good results with all the Nikons I have owned. I have a Nikon Coolpix LC 2 as a pocket camera, it works, but it is a pocket camera after all.
Mike
I'm with Mike on B&H and Nikons. I bought my first Nikon camera in 1967 as a Nikomat (Japan model spelling) FtN and my next was a F2S in 1974. I've since gone thru several later film cameras and finally to this D50 I have now. I am lusting for the D300 after using my neighbor's. But, I'm taking it slow here abit, since the house needs work as well as some project guns. A new model D60 is coming out which is a lower model in their line of SLRs that may also be promising. But the D300 has some features that make it actually capture better color saturation etc.
Personally, I like taking the quick detail pics I put on this site with my midsized point n shoot since it's faster to get a picture and has great quality. The SLR takes a bit of time, change lenses to a macro then get the flash out and all. There's no doubt higher quality is achieveable with my SLR over the PnS, but you have to work harder to get it.
I thank you all for the information and advice. I am going to try the equipment I have now and see how it turns out. I will also do some research on the digitals, but having been spoiled by the SLR feature I suspect I would have to have it in the model I choose. I will for certain be referencing these posts while I work toward a decision. Thank you all again! Kurt
The great thing about the digitals is the instant gratification. I shoot my Canon G3 through the computer, all functions controlled by the keyboard except aiming. I take the shot and if it's not what I want I hit DELETE and shoot again. You can't do that with film.
Sometimes I read a post asking for info on a gun and I have the gun in my collection. I can set up, take a shot, process and have it posted in about 15 minutes. Again, not possible with film. It's the best for the web.