9/23 With all the digital equipments today, what are some of the advantages
of using traditional equipments (e.g. darkroom, enlarger, developing
equipments, etc)? I'm talking about hobbiest equipments, not pros
-ok thx
\_ the snotty art-fags who do photography as "art" will always
make you look like a pro.
prefer analog without bothering to learn about the alternatives.
you could call that an advantage, if you want.
\_ One would be hard pressed to ID the digital (printed on a $150
epson photo printer versus my film prints. For hobby use, it's
in the same ballpark. But consumer digicams still have the
problem with lag, so I use film and a negative scanner too. -jor
\_ Let's wait 2 years and see what your 'photos' look like.
\_ One advantage I can think of is that using traditional equipments
makes you look like a pro.
\_ Only if you know how to use it in which you're a pro, eh?
\_ In terms of the results you can get, there's not a lot of advantage.
Film will provide somewhat higher resolution than mid-range
digitals, but top-end digitals are getting really close, and they
have numerous functional advantages. If you don't already have
a big investment in film, it's probably silly to work much with
it. -tom
\_ In terms of affordable, there's still a big difference. It's
getting closer, but if you don't want to drop a huge load of
cash you get better pictures from film and a good developer.
The main advantage right now with digital is you avoid
developing costs.
\_ digital has enormous advantages, but just in terms of cost,
it's pretty much always gonna be cheaper than film over
time due to the processing issue. -tom
\_ Depends. For personal use I doubt it matters. For my
own use I'd want the best quality and an extra few dimes
a shot is no big deal. At bulk rates, digital is still
a new technology for the big players and not exactly
cheap. --works for film/digital processor
\_ for my personal use it's mattered enormously.
I have taken 5000 shots with my digital camera;
a "few dimes" a shot is greater than the cost of
the camera. If you're doing anything more than
taking occasional family snapshots, digital
will always be cheaper in the long run.
And your photos will probably be better, because
you get better, quicker feedback on what you're
shooting. -tom
\_ 5000 = bulk.
\_ But cheap inkjet prints don't last as long as
traditional prints. You don't want the pictures
you send to your grandma to fade in two years.
Archiveable (sp?) digital prints are more
pictures on paper are more valuable.
expensive. Of course you can send a CD instead
which lasts practically forever and can be
refreshed by copying, but to many people personal
pictures on paper have more sentimental value.
\_ 90% of the shots I take, I don't print at
all. The ones I want to print, I use
ofoto/shutterfly. -tom
\_ shutterfly isn't long for this world. careful
who you trust with your pics. ofoto is kodak
owned so they should be around.
\_ snapfish is also kodak invested. snapfish
can get pretty cheap if you prepay in bulk.
\_ Actually we're owned by District Photo
HQ'd in Maryland. It is my understanding
that no one has lower prices than we do,
but I haven't personally checked. DP is
doing most of the eastern seaboard for
film and all of our digital and film.
They keep up with print technology and
spend considerable effort on keeping
print quality high. --snapfish employee
\_ Beh. New inkjet printers that have
pigment-based inks are on the market now.
\_ gotta love those pigment-based inks!
Furthermore, you can send your digitals to
http://Walmart.com or http://Costco.com and have them printed
on photo paper for cheap.
And you can remove red-eye and gamma-correct
your digitals before having them printed. Oh,
and like tom said, you can throw away the pics
that aren't good before spending a thing on
printing. -emarkp |
http://csua.com/feed/