film vs. digital

[Cecil]

Yes, I did know how to use the Reefmaster and that picture was probably on dive 30-40 with that camera. Steve hit it, the Reefmaster is way to unforgiving. It was my mistake but thats the point, I did not know then I screwed up. So I am blaming the camera for not letting me know I screwed up.

Did I get good pictures with the Reefmaster, only occasionly, maybe 1 out of 10 shots were good. The last trip with my Sony, the ratio was 2 out of 3 good. Some of this is more experience in UW photography but most is the camera.

 

[nlbford]

Not many people will ever want to print photos at 20x30 so what's the point?

And many others will. I print large versions of many of my prints when the image holds up. For those who want to see some of their stuff in a gallery, 4x6 or 8x10 won't really cut it.

For those who don't need that option, enjoy the digital end of it. What's the point of ignoring the aspect of large prints simply because some don't want to print those. If you don't want to don't.

I have yet to see a person who is "pro-film" state that film MUST be used by all photographers.


Use what you feel works for you and try to shoot quality images you enjoy and all wil be fine regardless of format.

I guess I am puzzled as to why this can be such a heated debate all the time. From what I have seen there is no legislation in the works that states photographers MUST use on or the other.

 

[grafphoto]

I suppose I am coming in late to this one - but has anyone noticed the 'look' of digital u/w images vs. film? I am not saying it's good or bad - just different. (hows that for being PC? ) I am not quite sure how to explain it, and certainly there are some that I can't tell at all - but many just have this crisp, less saturated feel to them.

I am probably 80% digital for my land photography now - but not sure about when I will change for u/w - but it certainly has its pluses and minuses. The old film = 50 MP camera I think is now becoming a myth. Digital images can be enlarged and retain quality a bit more than film I think - making the 'equivalent' MP like comparing apples and oranges. Quite a bit of the information in scanned 35 mm film isn't useful to the overall shot. For the time being - I pick both!

 

[mjnansen]

I just got back from Roatan with a new c5050 (yes, I joined the cult- thanks Dee!). My husband has a MX10 and has always been pro film. We are waiting for processing to compare some of our similar shots, but one benefit to digital that we hadn't considered is the social aspect of being able to look at your photos immediately- everyone wants to see them! We had a lot of fun "showing off" and made lots of new friends because everyone wants to know more about the digital camera or see pictures of that cool whatever they just saw on the dive.

 

[Dee]

....but one benefit to digital that we hadn't considered is the social aspect of being able to look at your photos immediately- everyone wants to see them! We had a lot of fun "showing off" and made lots of new friends because everyone wants to know more about the digital camera or see pictures of that cool whatever they just saw on the dive.

That's also why I take my laptop on every trip. Not only to download to CD's for safe keeping, but I do a slide show every night of that days photos. Last year the bartender made popcorn every evening for the 'movie' upstairs.

 

[GoBlue!]

Forgive an u/w photo newbie, but I've just recently started to think more seriously about taking my interest in land photography (grew up with darkroom in the home, photo classes as a youngin', comfortable with manual cameras) underwater. I've read the debates on here with interest after a quick search, and realize that my yield for takehome pics would be much higher with a digital camera than film.

HOWEVER, my goal in u/w photography would be to go for the photos that will make it to 8x10 or 11x14 or 20x30 type enlargements on the home/office walls. I'm not looking to create digital or print albums of a thousand 3x5's. I fully realize that it may be fewer than 1/500 shots (even if all turned out decent) that may qualify for this type of enlargement.

It seems to me that if I'm going for the enlarged, showcased shot, film is going to provide topnotch quality. Am I mistaken that digital will likely suffer at these sizes?

Jim

 

[Scubatooth]

go blue

doing enlargements with digital(consumer) takes alot of time and software todo enlargements that you are looking to do. the 8x10s are easy with very little interpolation its the 11x14 and larger that will require very sophisticated programs like Genuine Fractals, s-spline pro, neat image, q image.

but enlargements beyond 8x10(film or digital) are always going to depend on the quality of the orginal image/negative, but with digital you have to do a little more work to get it to the final form.

if you have anymore questions feel free to ask

tooth