Welcome to MacTalk Australia

the largest Australian community for Apple discussions and topics

Join the discussions, Register Now!
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,754

    Default

    To those photographical savvies out there, is there is any real use of having CDs created of your negatives when you put in a roll for print? Seems to me that the quality of the CD images is not worthwhile (or, unimpressive) - certainly, at least, in so far as creating additional prints from them (as opposed to the negatives).

    The CD images are too grainy. Is this just whom I'm getting to delevop the pics, or was I expecting too much to begin with? Is this just the equivalent of the 128k audio encoding that iTunes offers - where this suits the average consumer, as opposed to the lossless quality of true audio?

    But then, having said all this, it is nice to have the pics availalbe in iPhoto for slide shows, etc. But should iPhoto really be used to handle and store only digital pics?

    Questions, questions, questions.

    How do you take your photos - film or flash (digital) - and why?
    twitter :|: mwot MT profile :|: mwot

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wine country
    Posts
    3,020

    Default

    Personally, I would do this. Scan your own negs and slides and prints. To do this you need to get advice on the best scanner compatible to your setup.
    OR
    Just go digital... remembering that this is a whole new course of travel.

    iPhoto did not impress me enough to bother with.
    why are you reading this?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Warragul, Victoria
    Posts
    598

    Default

    I agree with AusMac.


    The investment in a decent slide/negative scanner is significant. And then you'll have to learn how to scan well. It's not too easy either.

    Go digital - it's cheaper, sharper and more fun

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    694

    Default

    If the results you have seen of negatives being scanned have appeared grainy etc, it is probably because they didn't scan them at a very high res (dpi). This is good if you want to email pics to family and friends etc, but of no real use otherwise. For emailing etc, 72dpi is all that is needed, but if looking to print those from a digital image you would want 300dpi at the very miniumum.

    The advantage to having your negs scanned onto cd, is so you can easily email them or put them on a website to show people...

    I had this done a few times, and it was much quicker than scanning all the prints myself!! i now have a digital camera, so not really an issue for me these days.
    Pain is temporary. Quiting lasts forever.

  5. #5

    Default

    Yep. Digital is the way to go. You can take picture after picture and not have to worry about chewing up film with bad shots. And you can upload it to your laptop or desktop for free instead of paying for a developer to develope the prints (unless u have a dark room).
    With the problem of printing digital shots, it depends on what MegaPixals the camera has. if you have a 3MP camera then the prints will be ok. 5MP even better. And 7MP and up, well, you can guess.
    I have the Sony 5.1MP HIGH ZOOM CYBERSHOT DSCH and ive had about 20 pics printed at a Kodak store and the pics turned out fine. As good as film, maybe better.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Warragul, Victoria
    Posts
    598

    Default

    I use a Nikon D70 (6.1 mega pixels) mostly and it's sharper than my Mamiya RZ67 (up to an A4 size that is). Thats hard to believe but true.

    So it's awesome and more than you'll ever need probably. Try one.

    But my next camera is a D200 (10.3 mega pixels) which will rock my world for sure!

    Go digital, it's the only way forward.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Not Where You Are
    Posts
    279

    Default

    As a member of ASMP - The American Society of Media Photographers - I was shouting ten years ago that digital would someday overtake film - and it has in ease of use, storage and also in picture quality. However, you need a camera that has at least 10.0 mega pixels to be able ot accomplish professional results.

    With that said - there are still some advantages to film but most of those are in the darkroom.

    I was using digital when Kodak-Nikon had a 1.2 MP system (1994) and I used it primarily in studio for layout proofing prior to the "real" shot. Nowadays, you can just shoot and check and if you are really "focused", you can hook your digital up to your Powerbook and check it out. Nice world, the world of digital photography, now.

    Scanning can be a pain most especially if you are working reflective - too many challanges to really get saturation and hue really right. I always had a service house do mine for me - they have the time and I had more time to shoot photos, which paid the bills.

    The Nikon N200 is worth looking at and the N70 is a great camera for touring, shooting the family and some larger work but you still need the pixals to get the BIG stuff.

    Good luck on your choices. In addition to Nikon also take a look at Canon and Olympus pro cameras - if you decide to upgrade. I love how quiet Canon lenses focus (I shoot quite a bit of wild life photography and things really need to be quiet.

    Cheers
    h34r:

    BTW: Rememeber that anything you archive on a CD or DVD will eventually degrade and you need to have replacements made prior to that decay. I have some DVDs already going down the tubes.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wine country
    Posts
    3,020

    Default

    Originally posted by new2mac@Nov 15 2005, 01:03 PM
    I agree with AusMac.


    The investment in a decent slide/negative scanner is significant. And then you'll have to learn how to scan well. It's not too easy either.

    Go digital - it's cheaper, sharper and more fun
    Cost me $600 for an epson photostylus rx 510. This does slides as well as prints and negs and does them well. I believe there are higher res scanners about but remember. Get the one recommended by those who sell your computer.
    why are you reading this?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    694

    Default

    Originally posted by fotodivr@Nov 15 2005, 02:21 PM
    I shoot quite a bit of wild life photography
    Around Brisbane? Can I ask where?
    Pain is temporary. Quiting lasts forever.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,754

    Default

    We're using my wife's Nikon F90x for film. Which, to my knowledge, borders mid-range on the pro level as far as film cameras go. This camera produces stunning shots. I know, I know ... amatuers with a semi-pro camera ... it's a long story

    To try out the digital spectrum, we went with a Nikon Coolpix 5400 2 years ago, but it broke about 6 months ago, so we're back with film. The biggest issue we had with the digital was the shutter lag - extremely frustrating! (Oh, not to mention the autofocus, aswell ...) We could take the F90x to the Grand Prix and snap the F1s in action, for instance, but the Coolpix was absolute crap. Though was a fantastic camera for stills/landscapes/micro-photography.

    We are looking at a Nikon D50 to replace the Coolpix. This is the junior to the D70, just not as many manual features, apparently.

    I guess the grainy scans on image Cd provided by the developer is just due to a low res scan, as 964RSCS said. I wonder if they can scan at a higher res? And probably slug you for it, too.

    AusMac - I'm surprised to hear that your scanner for use with slides cost as little as $600. I was frightened off this option some time ago when I was told it would be close to $2k for a scanner that could do this at reasonable quality. I have a couple of drawerfuls of slides that I'd love to convert to digital.
    twitter :|: mwot MT profile :|: mwot

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Qld
    Posts
    704

    Default

    Originally posted by mwot@Nov 15 2005, 04:43 PM
    AusMac - I'm surprised to hear that your scanner for use with slides cost as little as $600. I was frightened off this option some time ago when I was told it would be close to $2k for a scanner that could do this at reasonable quality. I have a couple of drawerfuls of slides that I'd love to convert to digital.
    A few months ago I picked up a Canon MP760 multi-function printer which comes with a special holder built into the cover of the flatbed scanner so you can put negatives or slides in there to scan. Only cost $350 on special so you can get a slide/negative scanner pretty cheaply.

    However, while it can scan at up to 2400 x 4800 dpi it is pretty disappointing when it comes to scanning negatives.

    I use digital now but still have a lot of old holiday photos which I thought I would scan to keep on the iMac as well. The scans I produced still came out grainy even on the highest resolution and if there was even the tiniest piece of dust or mark on the negative this would be magnified on the final image to look horrendous.

    I guess I could get better results with practice but frankly it was far too time consuming (about ten minutes to scan 6 negatives) and the results to poor to make it worth my while.


    Edit: spelling.

  12. #12

    Default

    I go to lots of events with my camera.
    Since were on the subject of cameras and how good a photo you can take with them ive uploaded a pic i took at the Toyota RallySA this year.



    I gave this pic to the RallySport magazine and it was published in the October 2005 Issue 10 on page 38.

    Does anyone else have great photos they took.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,186

    Default

    im a very avid photographer and personally id never go digital untill it can replicate the warmth of film it is far from being there as of yet. to get even near the results of a great film photograph you need an expensive high mp slr camera.. to get equivelent film results a camera around $500 with a good lens will get you amazing shots on film. anyway thats my 2cents worth

  14. #14

    Default

    $2000 for a digital SLR body vs $500 for a film body isn't a huge difference. You'll make up the $1500 in saved film and processing costs, and modern digital SLRs such as the Canon D20 are arguably better than film at this point.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Warragul, Victoria
    Posts
    598

    Default

    mwot - why don't you look around for a used D70 or Canon D20? Either of these would be great.

    As you all know you will be able to produce glossy magazine page quality with either. Do you intend to print bigger than this?

    Scanning with a cheap scanner (thats anything that isn't at least a LCD Nikon or Minolta) is a real waste of time and effort. But horses for courses. Personally I wouldn't do it.

    grorr76 - have you heard of photoshop?

    BTW - mwot I had a F90x too. I loved it! But that was in 1996. The world has moved on.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,754

    Default

    Originally posted by new2mac@Nov 15 2005, 08:23 PM
    BTW - mwot I had a F90x too. I loved it! But that was in 1996. The world has moved on.
    You make me feel antiquated!

    Do you use solely digital now? For everything? I just had some slide film (ISO 800) produced and the images are so vivid, with such a great depth of colour, that I'm hard pressed thinking that a digital could reproduce that. The advantage, I understand, with slide film is that they can be blown up quite a degree - and there's a couple of shots that I'm keen to do this for.

    So, if I was wanting to produce prints larger than an A4 (albeit only occassionally), would a Nikon D50 achieve that? $ diff between the D70s and D50s I think are about $400. Not sure at this point if the extra $400 would be worth it.

    I might trek down to Michael's this week and check out the D70 and Canon D20 as you suggest.
    twitter :|: mwot MT profile :|: mwot

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,186

    Default

    yes i have heard of photoshop but the kind of work i do is all in camera, im a purist.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    694

    Default

    Originally posted by ADAMS77@Nov 15 2005, 05:13 PM
    Does anyone else have great photos they took.
    Nice work!!

    This is one I took recently that i'm particularly happy with.... No p'shoping here except to reduce size for posting here! Currently have it as my desktop image.

    I use a 20D, which I have bought within the last six months or so - this is my first digital SLR. I have kept my 35mm SLR for times when I might decide I really do need a higher quality, to produce a large print from, but to be honest, I can't see that happening very often. At 8.3 megapixels, the 20D will suit me 99.9% of the time.

    I had held off from digital for a long time because I wasn't convinced of the ability/quality of the results from early digital SLR's (read lower megapixel) over a 35mm camera. Taking 19 rolls of 36 prints on a holiday last year, then having them developed, and scanning some to send to people and post on the web, made me think seriously about digital again. These days I often easily take 500 or 600 pics in a day at a motorsport event, and don't have to worry about processing and film costs, or about getting back pics which aren't very good, or carrying heaps of film, or worrying about ISO speed midway through a roll etc etc. Now they all just load into the computer where I can easily view them and delete any ones which don't stack up so to speak. Digital is definately more convenient, but not necessarily cheaper though, until you've taken ALOT of pics.

    Oh yeah, I rate the 20D very highly!
    Pain is temporary. Quiting lasts forever.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Warragul, Victoria
    Posts
    598

    Default

    mwot - I use a D70 (soon to be a D200 hopefully) for most things now. But if I want to go big and if I don't mind springin' for a drum scan (lots of $'s) I'll go for my Mamiya RZ67 with Fuji Provia slide film. I love the craft aspect of this. Mmmmm... nice. BTW nothing beats a slide on a light box - especially a big slide. If I want to go Stupidly HUGE (think billboard) I'll rent a 5x4 outfit - oh wait, how much! No way.

    No really, if someone had told me a couple of years ago that I would prefer digital to film I would of laughted my arse off. But, digital is just too good now with too many tools available to you. I wasn't joking about PS. Your artistic control over the final outcome is today absolute. Thats what all visual artists strive for - complete control of their vision. You obviously have a computer (a Mac even) but do you have a dark room? If not, you surrender the final outcome to someone else. Why would you?

    Besides it seems all of your shoots will become digital, either by scan or origin. So why not just shoot digital?

    Check out www.kenrockwell.com or wwww.nionians.com or www.luminouslandscape.com for further info


  20. #20

    Default

    digital because you get the "raw" stuff, so when you want to edit you don't need to scan etc and thus lose quality in the process.

    plus you never need to buy film and you see results instantly.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •