|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,440
Posts544,755
Members14,404
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 625
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 625 |
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
R. Craig Clark
jakearoo(at)cox.net
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,082
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,082 |
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?
Last edited by dubbletrubble; 02/27/08 01:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,082
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,082 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,082
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,082 |
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! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 257
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 257 |
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 100 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 36
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 36 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
