When you burn your original photos to a CD, they are safe and sound from hard drive crashes.
digital or film??
- Thread starter beeman
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
When you burn your original photos to a CD, they are safe and sound from hard drive crashes.
As a confirmed film user (housed SLR), I would have to say that digital is the only way to go - don't fall into the "film gives better quality" trap - good (i.e. expensive) slide film gives better quality -but a roll of velvia F100 incl processing costs me about 9 USD for 37 ATTEMPTS at a decent shot. And if I get a decent shot I usually end up scanning it into a digital file anyway!!
As soon as there's a new release from Nikon over 6.x MP I am going to see my bank manager.
If I was just entering U/W photography (i.e. did not have ports, lens, "experience") I would go for 5050/60 without a doubt.
As soon as there's a new release from Nikon over 6.x MP I am going to see my bank manager.
If I was just entering U/W photography (i.e. did not have ports, lens, "experience") I would go for 5050/60 without a doubt.
Well, since CD's are only guaranteed for 10years. They aren't completely safe and sound.
I have negs that I took 28 years ago. And ones of my fathers that were taken up to 40 years ago. And from my Grandparents that were taken. I don't know how long ago.
And yes, I can still print any of them out.
I have CD's that didn't last 5 years. Not because of breakage. Just a bad manufacturing problem that allowed them to oxidize inside there protective cover.
cmdasia once wrote...
"As soon as there's a new release from Nikon over 6.x MP I am going to see my bank manager."
Negative film has more resolution then a 6.x MP. The Kodak that was released at 14MP was close. But then I heard they scrapped it...
If I were you, I'd do a little research on the actual verses claimed achievability of CDs. Allot of negative information is coming out on the "actual" life span of CDs. Even the some of the Premium higher priced ones have been known to die in less than a year. If youve been buying and using the cheap 30 to 50 packers you are safer keeping your pics on your hard drive.
DesertEagle
Contributor
I wouldn't worry too much about storing images with digital or film. Digital users can always pay an outside service for digital asset management if need be.
Personally, I shoot slides (now using Velvia 100F and Provia 100F). I have the entire batch scanned into high res TIFF images before the slides are mounted. Then to Photoshop...
My plans are to continue with slides for wide angle. I would like to shoot digital for macro.
Personally, I shoot slides (now using Velvia 100F and Provia 100F). I have the entire batch scanned into high res TIFF images before the slides are mounted. Then to Photoshop...
My plans are to continue with slides for wide angle. I would like to shoot digital for macro.
I respectfully disagree. There are digital cameras available with much better quality than 35mm film; however they are very expensive. An extreme example is the camera on the Hubble telescope. Everything else being equal dollar for dollar film cameras still provide better quality (ignoring the cost of media). However this is changing.
The media, film or digital, has less impact on the quality of pictures than the optics. So if you are concerned about quality pay more attention to the quality of the optics than anything else. In digital cameras the number of mega pixels is much less important than quality of optics. A 5 mega pixel picture taken with poor optics is a high resolution fuzzy picture! The number of pixels is used as a comparison only because it is easy to quantify as opposed to optics quality which is not.
At this point you pay a premium for the convenience and instant gratification of digital. Additionally the optics options are more limited. I want instant gratification so I have a Sony DSC-F717. It has good Carl Zeiss optics but with a list price of $800 I could have purchased a better film camera with changeable lenses while this camera has a fixed lens.
Also keep in mind that the underwater housing can cost more than the camera. I paid $700 for the camera and $800 for the Ikelite housing.
Mike
Really? I'll have to do some research on that...thanks.
Back to the original question. My 2 cents.
You never said what your experience level is. If you are a professional photographer you might want to stick with film. If you are just a hack like the majority of us, go digital.
A lot of poeple have said that film gives you better quality than digital. That's quite frankly a bit of hoo-ha. Film OFFERS an opportunity for somewhat better quaility images, but it's up to the photographer to get the composition, exposure and everything just right to get a great photo. Getting these right is extremely tough with a film camera underwater. For the average Joe, digital is goint to give you a lot better chance at a "decent' photo. The camera pretty much takes care of exposure and focus most of the time and the LCD screen gives you a good view for composition. Film is going to require a bit of knowledge, a lot of work and shots and a fair amount of luck to get a great photo.
just a thought,
Steve
divebomb
Contributor
I've used film for 20 years. Had all the best equipment.....and LUGGED it all around. I went digital a couple of years ago. My digital has all the functionality of a point and shoot, but I don't care. It's about the size of a pack of cigarettes, I never buy film, I never drop off film and fill out forms, I never wait for film to come back or get lost. I just point, shoot, upload and enjoy.
Just my 2 cents.
Beck
Just my 2 cents.
Beck
Gilligan
Contributor
There is a lot of validity over the lifespan issue of a burned CD ROM. I doubt anyone has the answer as the individual manufacturers of CD ROM's vary. Equally important is the care of them. One surefire way to NOT contribute to their premature demise is DON'T put those homemade sticky labels on them. What will happens to them years down the road if they dry out and start to peel off? It's much safer to use a Sharpy, or better still nothing. Mark the envelope or jewel case instead.
- Status
Similar threads
