|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Film or Digital--Which is Better? |
| Film |
|
19% |
[ 5 ] |
| Digital |
|
80% |
[ 21 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
|
| Author |
Message |
idonojacs
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
safeblad wrote:
i dont know much about photography
all i know is that in an episode of 'the office' (us) michael brings a digital camera to work and takes pictures of everybody. When he hits the button there is instant flash and picture. When i push the button on my camera i have to wait for about 2 seconds and hold...steady...steady....steady....
I want a camera like that....do they exist?...someone please tell me they do
|
Shutter lag is the correct term, up to a point. Two seconds is not shutter lag; up to 1 second between the time you press the shutter and the time the camera takes the picture is shutter lag.
If you are using flash, it can take several seconds before you can take the next picture; this is due to the recycling time to reload the capacitor in the flash. Some brands, such as older Nikon P&Ss were miserable in this department.
Most cameras, even cheap point and shoots, have about a half second or less of shutter lag these days, I believe. You can find out the shutter lag of a model in any competent camera review. (CNET.com is not an example of a competent camera review.)
this is a good site for a layman, has lots of reviews and uses a consistent format:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html
But there are other sites that have more technical info.
Steve's calls it shutter delay. Here is an excerpt from a review for a mid-priced advanced point and shoot camera, 400,000 won:
| Quote: |
| The X1234's shooting performance is quite good. From power-on to the capture of your first image takes about 1.5 seconds. Shutter delay, the elapsed time between releasing the shutter and capturing the image, measured a very good 1/10 second when pre-focused, or 5/10 second including autofocus time. |
Here is an excerpt from the review for a low-priced compact point and shoot, $200:
| Quote: |
| As usual with Abcdef models, the XYZ234 offers speedy performance for a consumer digicam. Power up until the first image captured measured only 1.3 seconds. Shutter lag, the delay between depressing the shutter button and capturing an image, was almost instantaneous (less than 1/10 of a second) when pre-focused, and 2/10 second including autofocus. In single frame drive mode, the shot to shot delay averaged 1.6 seconds without flash, and between 2.5 and 3.5 seconds with flash depending on subject distance. |
the second is a slightly newer model. It also has a shorter zoom lens, which may help speed focusing. But mostly I guess it is the speed of the computer processor that counts.
So you have three numbers right there, power on, shutter delay, and pre-focus shutter delay. The last is the key number. All you have to do is press the shutter release button halfway down to focus the lens and lock the exposure. Then when you are ready, all eyes are open, everyone is smiling, press the shutter the rest of the way. Do this and there is only a 1/10th of second delay. (It's in every camera instruction manual.)
Yes, pro models will give you even faster response. You will need this if you are shooting pictures of a volleyball game for a newspaper, for example. But if you learn how to use your curent camera, you may find it satisfactory.
In old fully mechanical, manual focus 35mm SLRs there was virtually no shutter lag. Once they added auto exposure, you got about 1/10th of second shutter lag. So this is not a problem exclusive to digital cameras.
DSLRs are better in this category. Advanced P&Ss that you can set to continuous focus may also help. But simply prefocusing solves most of the problem. It does for me.
Frankly, if aren't a pro, and don't need the unique features of a DSLR, you should not buy one. You will not take significantly better pictures unless you have advanced skills and buy expensive accessories, like prime lenses. 20 years ago, advanced amateurs HAD to buy an SLR over an autofocus camera. Now this is no longer the case. DSLRs have a lot of disadvantages, and are vastly more complex than an old 35 mm SLR.
My guess is some people buy DSLRs as a status thing, like wearing a Rolex. Nothing new there; there have always been people who bought fancy cameras who didn't know how to use them; I used to get great cameras at yard sales that had seen only one or two rolls of film in 10 years.
Oh, shooting without a flash in low light also slows down the response because the camera may focus more slowly. Again, prefocusing is the answer.
And in some cameras it may take two seconds to charge the capacitor if you are taking your first flash shot and have just turned the camera on. But this is not a focusing issue. Recharging a flash capacitor is an issue even with pro cameras.
Oh, and don't "hit" the button. The actors always seem to do that, and hold the camera crooked -- I guess it is a way of telling the viewer, hey, I just took a picture. Press the shutter release gently. That's the way the real pros do it.
Last edited by idonojacs on Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Atavistic
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: How totally stupid that Korean doesn't show in this area.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| idonojacs wrote: |
| Oh, and don't "hit" the button. The actors always seem to do that, and hold the camera crooked -- I guess it is a way of telling the viewer, hey, I just took a picture. Press the shutter release gently. That's the way the real pros do it. |
My first roll of 35 mm film, done when I was nine years old, has vertical STREAKS. I would squeeze the shutter (Dad taught me that) and then be so excited that I'd taken a photo, I'd immediately drop the camera and shout, "I took a picture!"
I finally figured out what my boyfriend was doing wrong with the camera. He was autofocussing by pressing halfway down, then lifting his finger and hitting it. I said, "Squeeze it. Gently. Like you're in the bedroom." His very next shot was perfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atavistic
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: How totally stupid that Korean doesn't show in this area.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Background:
My first camera was an SLR with a busted light meter and no autofocus. My father gave it to me when I was 9. By the time I was 16, I had three SLR cameras. None with autofocus, only one with a working internal light meter. Never had a darkroom at home, but was known as one of "the two" photographers in my high school body of 1000 people. I have also worked at photo labs, though not in any really difficult jobs. I mostly used 35 mm but also used some medium and large format cameras. That made me decide I would NEVER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE do advertising photography. 
I resisted digital photography until I was finally given a really crappy digi by a now long-gone boyfriend for Christmas in 2004. In my course of traveling/living abroad, I mostly used it because it fit my needs but I was frustrated by its limitations.
I have now invested in a Nikon D80. I am having a hell of a time getting pictures to my liking, mostly because it has more options than I've ever needed on a camera in my entire life, partly because the weather's been such shit that everything is FLAT lately, and partly cause there's nothing I want to shoot lately. (OK, that last reason is the primary reason. When I found something I really wanted to shoot this weekend, it was great. I've been wanting to work with COLOR and the weather isn't helping. If I had mentally changed my focus to line, texture, then the flat weather would have been great.)
Re: Autofocus
I prefer to manually focus. However, I do a lot of photography at taekwondo tournaments and autofocus is a Godsend. Also, the diopter on my camera (-2 to +1 option) is nowhere near good enough for my -5.5 eyes!! (I tend to focus 10 cm in front of my face. That's just over the depth of my camera's body!) Sorry to disappoint, IndyTrucks, but Looking through my own glasses and then the camera...sometimes I trust autofocus more than my own eye, especially in lower light situations.
Also, if I'm taking street pictures, I don't always want someone to know I'm taking a picture of them. I like using a big old aperture, which means a narrow depth of field. Sometimes, autofocussing under those conditions is preferable to standing there and focussing manually while they realize what I'm doing and glare at me/cover up their faces.
Re: Taking two shots vs twenty
| Quote: |
See, but there I find is my biggest problem with a lot of dig photgraphy and photographers, not singling out you particularly, btw ... it's lazy and uninformed. You shouldn't have to take twenty frames of the same subject or scene. You should understand enough about the way your camera works, what metering mode to use and where to meter from, the lighting conditions, the composition, and most importantly, what it is you want to say with the shot. |
NO WAY. When I go to a taekwondo tournament, I know what I want. I want a great kick, frozen. I want something surprising. (Watching some guys literally bowl over a judge in his chair was classic. Wish I'd had the D80 then, I could've gotten some great shots. I really was limited by my camera.) However, tournaments are fast. I have no idea when someone is going to pull out a great jumping roundhouse. I didn't expect that judge being bowled over. Of course I'm going to take 120 shots instead of 12. It's not lazy--it's what the subject matter requires.
Same when I take pictures of friend's kids. I've got a brother/sister pair that I photograph that cracks me up. And I can't sit there and wait for the perfect shot *I* want of them. By the time it happens, 12 perfect shots have already taken place.
Indy was right about the digi vs film, but it goes back before that. Film vs slide, [current format] vs [old format] (for example, 35 mm vs that ill-fated APS), black and white vs color, and let's not forget AGFA vs Kodak vs Fuji. 
I absolutely prefer slides for quality. But at this point in time, I don't lead a slide-necessitating life. Some of the reasons I prefer digital (SLR) right now:
Printing--
10 megapixels is big enough for me. I am not printing wall sized prints, nor am I cropping and resizing pencil points to points as big as basketballs. I don't do professional photography, my prints are for me. 10 megs gives me plenty of quality. (As for grain, oftentimes I actually really like grain. But I can add grain with PP software.)
ISO--
Yesterday I shot naked pictures of someone, then taught someone how to focus outside in the rain, then took silly shots of my boyfriend "tasting 'smashed' potatoes for the first time." All of those required different ISOs. Yes, I could push or pull if I were printing my own or found a good lab.
Or I could rewind half exposed rolls of film, pray I don't accidentally rewind the end in all the way to be able to use the film again, shoot with the new film, stick the old film back in the camera, stick a lens cap on and double expose all of the shots to get back to where I was, then pray that my two or three extra shots were enough so that I wasn't double exposing every print, and also hope that the lab notices rather than printing half the roll off kilter.... but it's much easier to switch the ISO on my DSLR.
When I go to a taekwondo tournament, I go from being indoors, where a flash popping off would be rude and distracting (not to mention I have some sort of internal hatred for flash), to going outside and taking pictures of teammates sitting around, eating. It's awesome to be able to control ISO so easily.
Space Saving--
I can put hundreds of photos--even shot in the highest quality JPG and RAW on a memory card. That is a very, very nice feature. I never delete anything in camera. I DO make back up disks, regularly. My print photography was never so easy to organize.
Control--
When I was working in a photo lab, the other employees complained that I was printing photos too green. I thought they looked great. Digital SLR gives me the ability to control my own pictures moreso than dropping them off at a lab, with more ease and much less equipment than a darkroom requires. (Also, there was a super creepy man at our sister location who would print doubles of young children and keep them for himself. UGHHHHH.)
Instant Feedback--
This is not so much for me, but because I'm teaching my boyfriend how to use the camera. I think my pictures would have been better, earlier, had I instant feedback and someone sitting there with me to say, "Now look, you focused on her boobs when you wanted to focus on her eyes, here's how you recompose a shot" or "let me recompose this shot with the subject in the thirds instead of smack in the middle and show you why it's more pleasing to the eye" etc. I do use the instant feedback for white balance reasons.
Color vs Black/White--
I don't have to choose. I don't have to hand tint. If I want a hand tinty like photo, I can do it with GIMP or Lightroom or...
Ease of Sharing with Friends and Family--
I have a blog that I update about 3 or 4 times a week. Wow, is it easier to share photos this way.
Yes, some of these things come down to photo processing/imaging software, and I could get CDs made of prints, but the cost, ease, speed, and privacy of DSLR come into play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jizzo T. Clown
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Location: at my wit's end
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lotuseater wrote: |
That is shutter lag, lower cost digital cameras need time to power up the sensor before they can take the photo. Especially older ones. Newer ones are not so bad at this but if you really want to get rid of this go for a digital slr like Canon or Nikon. They are expensive but the quality of the image that comes out of them is incredible. That said, for resolution a GOOD film scanner will produce resolution much higher than most digital cameras, at least ones under $3000, that and a top shelf film camera can be picked up lightly used these days for very cheap.
I'm still a fan of digital though but I don't think films dead yet.
http://lotuseaterphotography.com |
Awesome pics, man! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
safeblad
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thanks for the info idonojacs
i am under instruction to get my dad a 'really good' digital camera in dubai on my way home tonight (ridiculously long flight  ) that will be useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indytrucks
Joined: 09 Apr 2003
Location: The Shelf
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Atavistic wrote: |
NO WAY. When I go to a taekwondo tournament, I know what I want. I want a great kick, frozen. I want something surprising. (Watching some guys literally bowl over a judge in his chair was classic. Wish I'd had the D80 then, I could've gotten some great shots. I really was limited by my camera.) However, tournaments are fast. I have no idea when someone is going to pull out a great jumping roundhouse. I didn't expect that judge being bowled over. Of course I'm going to take 120 shots instead of 12. It's not lazy--it's what the subject matter requires.
|
What I was mostly talking about was taking 20+ frames of a static subject. Of course if you're shooting something like sport action, you'll want to burn away at 4 or 6 fps to freeze the action or capture the unexpected.
Taking 120 frames doesn't guarantee a good shot either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| idonojacs wrote: |
| My guess is some people buy DSLRs as a status thing, like wearing a Rolex. |
My thinking was more along the lines of "Sharp images, versatile, won't fall apart within a couple of years (I hope) like my last three point 'n' shoot cameras, sold"
It's the same reason I got a computer with more grunt than I really need. I wanted my money's worth. Can't speak for others though. You could be right.
Of course, if it turns out I'm wrong and a stiff breeze causes my D30 to fall into a million bits of plastic and glass, I'm giving up on this photography semi-hobby and start etching in stone.
| Quote: |
| (not to mention I have some sort of internal hatred for flash) |
Me too!
I think it reminds me of school picture day.
Not to mention it makes people look like the walking dead.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atavistic
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: How totally stupid that Korean doesn't show in this area.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| indytrucks wrote: |
Taking 120 frames doesn't guarantee a good shot either. |
Of course not, especially not when dealing with moving subjects.
But I hate the egoism of people who think that anyone who needs more than a few shots--even with a static subject--are crappy photographers. I tend to think the crappy ones are the one who shoot one picture once or twice--both with poor composition, bad exposure, etc. Actually, then they're only crappy if they can't see what's wrong.
Last edited by Atavistic on Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atavistic
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: How totally stupid that Korean doesn't show in this area.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Quote: |
| (not to mention I have some sort of internal hatred for flash) |
Me too!
I think it reminds me of school picture day.
Not to mention it makes people look like the walking dead.... |
I can't stand it when articles tell you to use a flash even on bright, sunny days to prevent shadows. Much of that could be fixed by moving yourself or the subject, and fill flash still makes people look too washed out.
For action, I'd much rather have trailing movement or "ghosts" than washed out, harsh shadows.
I really, reallllly hate flash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Atavistic wrote: |
| I can't stand it when articles tell you to use a flash even on bright, sunny days to prevent shadows. |
*phhpbbt*
I never read articles. If I'm gonna suck, I want it to be on my own terms.
Last edited by twg on Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
idonojacs
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you get a camera that accepts an external flash, via a hotshoe atop the camera, you can use bounce flash off a white wall or ceiling to reduce the shadow effect of direct flash.
Fill flash is useful outdoors, pros use it but they also know how to use it, and how to use a handheld flash meter. On the other hand, some pretend pros don't, and the fill flash is obvious because there is a color temperature difference.
Some digital cameras are better than others at blending flash with ambient light. Nothing wrong with shooting the picture twice, each way.
And, there's nothing wrong with buying a DSLR if you are an experienced photographer and are going to use the camera's features. I wouldn't mind one, and would probably get the Sony Alpha. But I suspect I wouldn't use it as much as my advanced P&S. Also, it is harder to shoot candids walking around with a pro camera. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| browneyedgirl wrote: |
| The new digital (top of the line) SLRs are almost the same quality as manual cameras, you can mess around with the f-stop, shutter speed, change to different length lens, etc. It's really the best of both worlds...except for the cost. |
Nope.
Quality of film cannot be beat. Still.
The consensus is that it would take a 18 to 24 megapixel digital camera to come up with a 35mm "quality" image. There are many debates and even more variables. Lens quality, film quality, light...so many factors when doing a 35mm vs digital debate. Some say around 12mp for a "good" shot, some say 6mp for a crap lens and quick shot.
I use digital, but don't argue that film is higher quality. Yes, digital is way more convenient, but that's about it. |
jesus Christ, it really makes no difference. Are you shooting photos to exhibit in fine art galleries in Manhattan? If so, go film, but guess what, 35mm wouldnt be it. You would go large format or medium format. Otherwise, theres no difference. I just got to shoot over 2 weeks with a National Geographic/Magnum photographer. Top of the game. He used a simple Nikon D200 for a book about Korea that is being put together.
Theres no difference. Theres no difference. Should I repeat myself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| indytrucks wrote: |
| twg wrote: |
| I take anywhere from two to twenty pictures of something in the hopes of getting the best shot of it. |
See, but there I find is my biggest problem with a lot of dig photgraphy and photographers, not singling out you particularly, btw ... it's lazy and uninformed. |
Thats just crazy, man. Stop trying to build your tower of ideals on clay.... Ever watch a PRO work? The single biggest piece of advice I got both written and in words was this: when you get into a good situation, shoot the crap out of it. Shoot, shoot, shoot..try all angles, keep shoting till it is finished. Guess why Nat Geo photogs shoot DOZENS of rolls of film (or dozens of memory cards)...for a story that will be something like 20 shots total. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think Indy is more into the zen of photography than anything. Like Japanese archery: Close your eyes, think of England, take the shot. Let the photography flow through you and from you.
Like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atavistic
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: How totally stupid that Korean doesn't show in this area.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| idonojacs wrote: |
If you get a camera that accepts an external flash, via a hotshoe atop the camera, you can use bounce flash off a white wall or ceiling to reduce the shadow effect of direct flash.
Fill flash is useful outdoors, pros use it but they also know how to use it, and how to use a handheld flash meter. On the other hand, some pretend pros don't, and the fill flash is obvious because there is a color temperature difference.
Some digital cameras are better than others at blending flash with ambient light. Nothing wrong with shooting the picture twice, each way.
|
I know how to use flash, I know about bouncing, too, and why people can end up looking freakish color ("hon, what color were the walls?" "Green" "Well that's why they look ill."). I even know how to use a light meter correctly and 18% grey and all that.
I just. Don't. Like. Flash. 
I'm not going to drag grey 18 cards around or hotshoe anything. I hate taking pictures of babies. I am also not a big bird/big game/animals photographer. To each their own.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
