, i really appreciate it when posters do their research(although i dont feel as helpful, sad).
eastcoastarch03 has a good point. there is nothing worse than a dslr user that sets their $3k camera to all its auto settings. please avoid the mountian, the face or the flower setting.
i learned how to play which aperture, exposure and filmspeed on a yashica rangfinder with a selenium cell light meter i picked up on ebay. i feel that shooting film forces you to learn how to shoot an accurate, balanced photo. furthermore, i think its important that a dslr shooter learns a little about censor technology.
I certainly think that digital is cheaper, in the long run. Once you spend money on decent film, processing (if you don’t have a dark room), and prints from a shop, then it can add up. I have a negative scanner, and usually just get the negatives developed without the prints. Whereas I can then put them in my computer and print whichever ones I like, without wasted prints or time. I have a sweet Epson photo printer I bought when I used to work at Best Buy (sorry if that seemed like a plug) so I can just print them out and frame them, etc….
most of the archival inkjet/laser prints i've made have started to fade (some as quick as 2 years)... none of the photo prints (including prints from a cheap one-hour joint) have significantly deteriorated in 20 years. So what lasts longer? digital data or film?
I have files from 2001 that I can't open anymore (who uses quark these days). So what was the last file format to go obsolete? do you take the time to save in multiple formats?
thank god i still have access to my alma maters nikon coolscan5000. All i end up paying for is E6 processing and i have an image on my screen equivalent to that taken on Mark III. film and processing adds up though, and i usually end up throwing out a number of slides when Im forced to bracket--you wont come across that cost with digi. print-it-youself bears the same cost for both the digi and film user in my opinion.
slr vs. non-slr digital cameras
, i really appreciate it when posters do their research(although i dont feel as helpful, sad).
eastcoastarch03 has a good point. there is nothing worse than a dslr user that sets their $3k camera to all its auto settings. please avoid the mountian, the face or the flower setting.
i learned how to play which aperture, exposure and filmspeed on a yashica rangfinder with a selenium cell light meter i picked up on ebay. i feel that shooting film forces you to learn how to shoot an accurate, balanced photo. furthermore, i think its important that a dslr shooter learns a little about censor technology.
can anybody recommend a lab for processing Scala slide film by mail?
I love the 'mountain' setting on my coolpix- grid lines show up on the display screen!
I certainly think that digital is cheaper, in the long run. Once you spend money on decent film, processing (if you don’t have a dark room), and prints from a shop, then it can add up. I have a negative scanner, and usually just get the negatives developed without the prints. Whereas I can then put them in my computer and print whichever ones I like, without wasted prints or time. I have a sweet Epson photo printer I bought when I used to work at Best Buy (sorry if that seemed like a plug) so I can just print them out and frame them, etc….
my sony cybershot has a snowman and palm tree setting.
most of the archival inkjet/laser prints i've made have started to fade (some as quick as 2 years)... none of the photo prints (including prints from a cheap one-hour joint) have significantly deteriorated in 20 years. So what lasts longer? digital data or film?
I have files from 2001 that I can't open anymore (who uses quark these days). So what was the last file format to go obsolete? do you take the time to save in multiple formats?
thank god i still have access to my alma maters nikon coolscan5000. All i end up paying for is E6 processing and i have an image on my screen equivalent to that taken on Mark III. film and processing adds up though, and i usually end up throwing out a number of slides when Im forced to bracket--you wont come across that cost with digi. print-it-youself bears the same cost for both the digi and film user in my opinion.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.