Making the leap to digital

[MaresMan1]

Mverick,

Forgive me if I misunderstood your statement. However I think the point here is that digital cameras, provide the ability to improve photographic talent (from whatever level) in an inexpensie way.

No one here has professed to being a Richard Avadon, Herb Taylor, the Great Gilligan or Dynamic Dee. Having worked with Herb Taylor, I understand the desire to get that "special" shot. While you may not be able to get that finite resolution with digital yet, it does allow you to practice the craft, reduce errors and get some great shots in the process. All that in a very affordable medium.

Dive Smart; Dive Safe
Enjoy the ride
:cool1:

 

[Dee]

Mverick....I think we all see where you're coming from. And I'm sure we all agree with your specific point about the quality needed for such enlargements. No one is disputing you. No one is trying to compare todays digitals to professional results from Hasselblad or any of the other pro set-ups. I totally agree with the superiority of film for such printing jobs. But understand that few people have your requirements for their photos. The vast majority, for the first time, are getting more than just a few acceptable shots per dive. Remember what that was like? We aren't talking absolutely perfect shots. We're talking making a few 8x10's to hang on the wall and be enjoyed, not held up to examination under a loupe. As everyone gets more photography experience under their belts, their criteria will most likely change and they will get more critical of their shots and their idea of acceptable for prints will change. It's the natural progression of photography. What I considered suitable for large prints 5 years ago won't even make my keepers file today.

For the new or amateur digital photographer, taking more than 36 shots per dive and coming home with 400 acceptable shots is a big deal. They know they aren't all perfect in everyone's eyes, but TO THEM those results are amazing! I'd much rather see folks printing what they've got for their own enjoyment than going through disappointment time and again because their stuff isn't up to perfect professional standards. And ya know what? Those soft focus, not nearly pefect 8x10 and 11x14's that I hung on my wall from my first 4MP digital are still being enjoyed, I just moved them to another room and replace them periodically with better ones. We hang them in our homes for our enjoyment, not anyone elses.

This is the oldest arguments between digital and film and it's getting old. Film people always bring up this printing argument and no one is arguing with you. I know you didn't make such a claim but just because someone doesn't have your same requirements for photos, doesn't make them wrong or inferior, just different. We understand where you're coming from and I'm glad you found what works best for you. Your analogy of the professional wedding photos is a good one, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the everyday U/W photographer, whether they use digital or film. So let's just agree to be different and let it go at that, OK?

 

[friscuba]

Mverick, we can agree to disagree. Changing the subject though, what's your opinion of the new 8080's? Have you had a chance to form any opinions on the image results they produce? If you have, perhaps a little review is in order under a new topic. I personally am curious as to how they compare to the 5060.

Aloha,

Steve

 

[Mverick]

The original point of this thread. Was someone asked

"Currently using Sea&Sea MX 10 with strobe. Getting good results but hate running out of film and cutting the tops off of my pix.

Thinking of digital....

Looking at Olympus 5050 for the camera.

That a good idea?

Also, found brand of housings made by Backscatter.
Anyone used those with success or failure?

Also looking at Ikelite but price is double.

Backscatter uses a Sea&Sea canister strobe with the base.

Any thoughts on this before I spend $1500 and the wife leaves me? "

So, everyone gave him the Glowing review of DIGITAL. Nobody, and I mean Nobody. Mentiond the short comings. I do, and you all jump on me. Sorry, Tell the man the good and the bad. NOT just the good.

I've heard going digital is Relatively cheap.

Oly 5050 $500
Oly PT-015 $180
1 GiG card $250

So for $950 with shipping. That ain't cheap. A Reef master at $190 is cheap. Ain't nothing cheap about $950.

He then asked for thoughts before he dumped $1500. Everyone told him the positives. Nobody gave him the oposing view. I do, and you all cry foul. Sorry, I want people to understand the Differences in them. Because that's what the guy asked for....

And then, you say the argument is getting old. Why, the original post wanted to know. Nobody said the limitations of digital. I did. That was the question the poster asked.




I would love to see someone post. Digital is great. Camera's are expensive and media too. You get instant feedback of your shots. Easier to learn from. But when you go to enlarge. You loose sharpness over 35mm. And 35mm is cheaper for camera. And will not be upgraded. Start with a good camera and lens and you're done.


Tell's the good and the bad. But Nobody on the Digital side say's that. But I do. In almost all of my posts. Unless I'm pointing out a mistake in someones thinking. The person wanted the real information. Let's give him both sides... Which nobody was doing.

I really don't want to post anymore in this forum. It's freakin ridiculous. It's like the Digital crowd takes offense when you point out the Digital's shortcomings... Give both sides of the argument. So the person can make his own decision.

Mverick, we can agree to disagree. Changing the subject though, what's your opinion of the new 8080's? Have you had a chance to form any opinions on the image results they produce? If you have perhaps a little review is in order under a new topic. I personally am curious ow they compare to the 5060.

Aloha,

Steve

Don't know yet. They're still in the mail. Should be in this week. Then, wait for the housing. But I shoot more on land anyway.

Your right. They are good to learn with. But it really sucks when you get a Great shot. And can't enlarge it. To me and any new Photographers. That's a HUGE problem. Remember, I have one. And use it. And like it. But I still bring a Medium format with me. To get a shot I can enlarge if I like it on the digital.

My bag now has a Cannon Optura 100mc, Oly 5060, Bronica GS1 6x7. And I use them all....

 

[MildlyDamp]

As mentioned before, the 5050 is already obsolete. You should really only consider the 5060, which offers several improvements, or the new 8080. If you're willing to spend the money, the latter offers plenty of resolution, even to go to 16x20, as well as reduced image noise over the 5050.

All the points that have been raised are "right." Film offers higher spatial resolution, greater dynamic range, and, perhaps, lower initial purchase price. Digital offers instant feedback, more probability of getting usable exposures (especially for UW use) and lower cost of consumables. You'll have to rate how important these factors are for your own use. However, given that Eastman Kodak just announced they'll no longer manufacture Ektagraphic slide projectors, I think the handwriting is on the wall for film.

 

[Dee]

I really don't want to post anymore in this forum. It's freakin ridiculous. It's like the Digital crowd takes offense when you point out the Digital's shortcomings... Give both sides of the argument. So the person can make his own decision.....

Sorry you feel that way. I don't get offended when someone points out digitals shortcomings, I point them out myself. But there ARE good enlargements possible with digitals and there are lots of examples of it. For the normal, everyday person wanting to get started in digital photography, they will be completely satisfied with the printing results of 4-5MP digital cameras. I agreed that the type of enlargements you described, film is exceptional for it. But the vast majority don't that I've talked to aren't at that stage of perfection yet. IF they get that far, they'll know enough to make the decision to go with SLR's or not.

I just want folks to know there are way more advantages to digital than disadvantages, not that digital is the perfect answer because it's not.

 

[Kim]

Without wishing to stir things up further I think that it is appropriate to point out that it is quite difficult to take a good picture with film - especially slides. Yes - if you know how to do it it's really great - but if you don't, digital is a lot easier. I think some of the point here is the difference between art and utility - i.e. do you want a fantastic picture for your wall and to impress all your friends (definately 35mm film will do this best) - or - do you want a high proportion of shots that turned out very well and therefore provide the visual record of the dives in that very expensive dive location that took you a long time to save up to get to (digital everytime).

One last thing - personally I agree that other peoples wedding photos can be quite boring! On the other hand - other peoples uw photos normally facinate me!

 

[Mverick]

Without wishing to stir things up further I think that it is appropriate to point out that it is quite difficult to take a good picture with film - especially slides. Yes - if you know how to do it it's really great - but if you don't, digital is a lot easier. I think some of the point here is the difference between art and utility - i.e. do you want a fantastic picture for your wall and to impress all your friends (definately 35mm film will do this best) - or - do you want a high proportion of shots that turned out very well and therefore provide the visual record of the dives in that very expensive dive location that took you a long time to save up to get to (digital everytime).

One last thing - personally I agree that other peoples wedding photos can be quite boring! On the other hand - other peoples uw photos normally facinate me!

Not me. I'm not stirred up. But I'm not posting anything to the Photo forum anymore.

Bye....