Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Flash Ipanema]

Slide film is definitely the best quality, but last I checked it was expensive as hell to convert slides to printed pictures, and a pain to scan them in. It might be easier and cheaper if you do it all at once at the processing center, but afterwards - pain in the ass.

[indytrucks]

[twg]

[indytrucks]

[Jizzo T. Clown]

[twg]

[twg]

Also: I like cropping.

[indytrucks]

[twg]

It's me old eyes. What I think is in focus is blurry for the rest of the world. I must rely on the machine.

[wo buxihuan hanguoren]

[indytrucks]

No lions in Hluhluwe-Umfolozi this time, I'm afraid. I think they were all on vacation. Me and the missus saw a full pride in Kruger the year before though.

Almost got something better than lions in Hluhluwe, if that's possible, on my last morning:



I'm sure I don't have to tell you that these guys are extremely hard to see and get close to. We passed by a group of three at once. I nearly cacked myself, and literally had a bit of trouble keeping the camera steady, I was so excited.

[Flash Ipanema]

[idonojacs]

I didn't cast a vote in the poll because the question is meaningless. If you had asked which to YOU prefer, I would have said digital, of course. What expat in their right mind would want to lug boxes of film and prints - not to mention cameras and lenses - from country to country???

I have done darkroom work, developing and printing my own pictures, both as a hobby and at work. I have used 35, 120 and even some 4x5. In the hands of a skilled photographer, film can produce nuances of light and shade that are quite beautiful. But you need prints on silver paper to see that. And you need 120, as a general rule, to get resolution exceeding a high quality medium priced digital camera.

One of film's great advantages is that it has a much greater range of capturing brightness and darkness. If you look at a print in a museum by a master photographer, you will see an almost infinite range of shade from light to dark. I have been able to bring out detail in greatly over-exposed and moderately underexposed black and white film. With the 8 bit range of most digital cameras, this range is limited. But I have been surprised with how often I can rescue a usable image from badly exposed digital shots. And pro models with 12 or 14 bit luminance will solve some of this problem.

What are most pro photographers using? Digital. Why? Because digital color accuracy kicks film's emulsion. It is like having curtains lifted from in front of your eyes. There is an immediacy to the color of digital, and you don't lose it as you go through the steps of reproduction. You could go direct from film to a scan, and some photographers do, but I think direct digital color is still best. Just look at some 10 year old magazines and you can see the difference.

As to resolution, film's sometimes higher resolution is irrelevant for pretty much all forms of reproduction except for an actual film-type print. Newspapers generally reproduce pictures at about 200 dots per inch. Most pictures are not more than 8 inches wide. A 4 mp camera provides plenty of resolution for that, but more is nice in case you need to crop. A magazine will have higher resolution, perhaps 400 dpi or even 600 dpi. But again, you will probably not need more than 6 mp or 9 mp for most uses if you are working full frame. On the other hand, some high end art functions, perhaps including auction catalogs, might benefit from higher resolution.

There are some pro photographers still shooting film, including here in Korea. Why? When you invest in a pro system you are spending thousands of dollars. Back in the film only days, you made a commitment to that system for 10,20 or more years. With digital, pro cameras can become obsolete in 3 or so years. So I guess some are waiting for more stability before building a pro digital system.

As to grain, I see some posters griping about grain on digital cameras. Grain was a fact of life for 35 mm photography. At least in black and white, the only way to avoid obvious grain was to shoot at 25 ISO. With 120 film, grain was never a problem, though, even at 1,600 ISO.

With some digital cameras, there is too much grain even at 200 ISO; with others, grain is acceptable even at 800 ISO -- you need to do your homework before buying.

I should add that with a good bubble jet printer, a novice can get some remarkably good color prints from digital that would have required very expensive darkroom equipment and years of experience from film.

That's what I like about digital most: Now anyone can share the joys of photography that used to require a darkroom costing thousands of dollars and many, many hours sweating in the darkroom developing film and making prints. And you don't need to lug around a heavy camera bag with several camera bodies (for black and white, color negative, color slide, etc.) and a half-dozen lenses. I find myself doing more casual shooting.

Photography is a great hobby that helps us to see the world around us. Digital opens this world to everyone.

[indytrucks]

[lotuseater]