Digital or Traditional?

[TT Tim]

I'm a real enthusiast for Digital Photography.

Working in Publishing it has made my job easier, faster and saved a lot of money in terms of Repro houses. But in the same way as the Mac blurred the boundaries when it was introduced, digital photography has also done the same, anyone with a camera thinks they can produce print-ready images and the number of people who fully understand colour for press is deminishing.

But, on a real upside, if like me you love instant gratification you can't beat a digital camera...

...pop outside, take a photo, come back to PC, transfer to disk, upload to web site and hey presto the world can admire your shots all within 5 minutes.

So, lets hear your comments on why DP is great or why the traditional process is still the best.

Tim

[TT Tim]

I guess it's horses for courses.

The ammount of darkroom 'magic' that could be done to a shot was quite extensive. Haven't we simply moved the darkroom onto the motherboard?

I know what you're saying, but I would defy you to tell the difference between two wet processed shots, one taken with a 14Megapixel SLR and the other using traditional 35mm.

Tim

>> Edited by TT Tim on Friday 28th November 16:55

[TT Tim]

You can buy a fantastic 4Mp digital SLR S/H for about £300 on eBay.

Try doing a search for E10

Tim

[TT Tim]

Beano, it really depends upon what you're taking photos for.

If they're for sticking in an album then the traditional route is great.

But, if like me, you work in publishing and everything is geared around what they now call digital-workflow there really is no alternative as far as I'm concerned. The difference in cost both financially and in terms of time is HUGE!

Tim

[TT Tim]

Yes, to get a CCD close to 35mm then you're talking 12Megapixel plus. But a 5MP Digital will give you print quality (304dpi) as approx A5, which is fantastic.

What musn't be forgotten is that it's not just the Megapixels that are important, optics are critical. A £100 Trust 4Mp camera seems like a great buy until you look at the 2mm lens that you're trying to capture the world through.

Tim

[TT Tim]

DustyC said:

Regardless of the quality I prefer being in total control and having an SLR. As soon as Digital SLRs become affordable to me though I will have one. I have a good scanner in the mean time but the quality is flawed during a scan. (Although I must admit I have been too lazy to try the negative scanner part of it as yet). >> Edited by DustyC on Friday 28th November 17:18

I think £350 is pretty affordable these days.

As for scanning, short of spending proper money on a scanner you will not get decent results from a home scanner, having said that there is a Umax 3000 on eBay ate the moment at a rediculously cheap price, I paid £4K for mine! As for negatives, even the best repro houses won't scan negs, the conversion software is just too hit or miss. Just don't do it. Have a print done and scan that.

Tim

[TT Tim]

Nacnud said:

I'm with Barcadi here..... I've had two Sprint front covers with images that weren't full frame and a Sprint double page spread. Quality wasn't an issue, it was more than aedequate! I also regularly blow up to 15" x 10" for camera club usage (so it has to be spot on quality wise) and at this size the results I get from my digital are better than 5 of the 6 lenses I have on my EOS 5. Which digital camera do I have ? Canon Powershot S40; a 4Mpixel compact camera, looks silly on a UniLoc tripod but hey-ho!

Now I think you're on stoney ground.

Whilst I think that Sprint is an excellent magazine, the quality of some of the images is only just acceptable, some shots have simply been enlarged too much.

Tim

[TT Tim]

ehasler said:

TT Tim said: As for scanning, short of spending proper money on a scanner you will not get decent results from a home scanner, having said that there is a Umax 3000 on eBay ate the moment at a rediculously cheap price, I paid £4K for mine! As for negatives, even the best repro houses won't scan negs, the conversion software is just too hit or miss. Just don't do it. Have a print done and scan that. Tim How much would you define "proper money" as? I've got a 4000dpi Canon FS4000 film scanner, which seems to do pretty decent scans, however they never look as sharp as the original slide on screen, although when printed out in A4 look OK. I've never seen a proper comparison between this sort of scanner, and a pro quality one, and would be interested to know what the difference actually is. Also, you say that it's not worth scanning a negative, however I've personally found that I've got better results from scanning the negs than scanning the print that accompanied them, although admittedly most of my print films have been developed on the high street (Snappy Snaps in the main). Would you really get better results from scanning the print, as opposed to the original negativem even if you used a decent film scanner?

I'm sure you can get a sharp scan from a colour neg, but if you re-read my posting, the problem is the software. Things may have changed in the last couple of years, and I'm prepared to hear from a repro bureau who feel that they are confident in producing an accurate colour scan from a neg original, until that time I stand by my opinion.

Tim