| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 CouldBeAnyone |
film or digital |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 1831 (02/21/2009 15:04) 1st Woman on the Moon
|
This is for those of you who regularly post on the Random Photos threads, are you usually taking digital shots or using film? I'm thinking of pulling out
my old-school film SLR and relearning how to use it. I used to do mostly photomicroscopy and the occasional photo of a hot air balloon race, but it's been
well over 10 years since I've used anything but auto settings. I'd love some tips/moral support/cheap places to have film developed in the US...
|
||
|
chrome3D |
|||
|
Posts: 5291 (02/21/2009 22:10) Faith Healer |
I stopped using film in the early 2000´s. 2002 was the first year I went digital with mighty 2mpix Olympus pocket cam. Since then my film cameras have
collected only dust waiting for a resurrection like vinyl LP´s. I´m not convinced that it will come. I´m also not sure if it will be cheaper to use old gear
and film or get a new DSLR. If you take a lot of photos then $300-400 DSLR will be cheaper quite soon. The film and developing costs some and you get only
24-36 photos/roll.
|
||
|
Hanani |
|||
|
Space Saviour
Posts: 1252 (02/21/2009 22:53) |
You know, I bought my wife a digital camera for her birthday in May 2001, and since then, I've hardly used film at all. In fact, a couple of summers ago, I
sold my SLR at a garage sale cutrate as I didn't foresee a future in developing my own photos, really meaning a future with enough money to support a
pretty expensive hobby. I've hardly looked back and haven't used film in at least 4-5 years. Now, I have dabbled in developing my own photos in the
past (college mainly) and when I moved back statestide in 2003, I took some photos with a Twin Lens Reflex as well as an old Brownie (your basic
'30s-'40s-'50s pinpoint camera) that I had printed locally to mild success. I still have a German import cardboard pinpoint
camera I bought in Japan. I took some interesting photos with that
I really can't answer your question Ann, although to my thinking, nowadays it only makes sense to use a digital camera with any microscope work. Digital cameras might have adapters to attach to the eyepiece (they do, I finally found some). When I lived in Tokyo, I had a couple of places I could go to get B&W/slide/large negatives printed, but that was Tokyo! Mail Order would be cheapest at this point if you are serious. The biggest is B&H, a huge New York store that caters to developers. I googled a few things, and this site has some decent links at the bottom http://www.barrie-tao.com/microscope_photo.html I hope that helps. You have me intrigued now. Because I love macro photography, my interest is piqued....
|
||
|
CouldBeAnyone |
|||
|
Posts: 1831 (02/22/2009 06:32) 1st Woman on the Moon
|
I'm sure labs are using all-digital microscopy now. I just haven't been employed in a long time (and hadn't worked in a lab for the last 7 years I
was employed). I did this sort of work in the late 80s/early 90s. It was also pre-Powerpoint, so we used a film SLR to take photos of our
graphs and charts in order to make slideshows for conferences!
I have a digital point-and-shoot camera that is my main camera. I am frequently disappointed in the shots I get, and am wondering if SLR would give me the images I really want. I can't justify a digital SLR until I learn how to use the film one I already have, though. I'll see if I can find any of my photomicroscopy slides. If I do, I'll have my friend scan them for me to post. Unfortunately, as I was a student at the time, they were property of the university and I didn't get to keep more than a few. |
||
|
chrome3D |
|||
|
Posts: 5291 (02/23/2009 01:32) Faith Healer |
I don´t know if it´s any use to try it out on SLR. It´s yesterday´s technology and you just end up wasting money on it. It´s like getting to know today´s music
armed only with a vinyl player. It´s possible but you miss out a lot of stuff, it takes a lot of time and you end up spending way much more than in digital.
I´m afraid you won´t get much help for film stuff as most people have moved away from it many years ago and there is no going back. If you are disappointed
about the quality of point and shoot then wait for the scanning and then you will be disappointed in another way. It takes a lot of time and the results are
usually blurry and too soft. The image goes through too many stages where it gets worse and worse. From negative to paper to scanner is three stages. If one of
those is of low quality (usually the scanner) then the whole process falls apart. Also with slides to scanner is a tricky process and the results may be bad in
another way. I´m waiting, amaze me!
I know, I have seen the every stage of digitalization of image processing through the dark days of 1995-2004. Noodling with negatives and scanners and the boxy VGA-cameras that cost a fortune. I´m glad those days are far behind as I was never satisfied with the results. Now with Canon EOS1000D I can see the whole thing with LiveView directly on the screen and I have learned a lot more in a shorter time that was ever possible in the past.
Last Edited By: chrome3D
02/23/2009 01:34.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
chrome3D |
|||
|
Posts: 5291 (02/23/2009 23:53) Faith Healer |
I´m sorry if I offered you no moral support. At least I answered honestly to the question ´film or digital?´
|
||
|
CouldBeAnyone |
|||
|
Posts: 1831 (02/24/2009 08:23) 1st Woman on the Moon
|
No worries. I sort of figured the whole film medium was dead except for a few die-hards.
|
||
|
chrome3D |
|||
|
Posts: 5291 (02/24/2009 20:45) Faith Healer |
It´s still possible to learn quite much at reasonable price if you use slide film and you don´t worry about the paper/printing/scanning part of it. Slides
still have resolution beyond the 10 megapixels if you project them on silver screen. Silver screens, slide frames and all that is the kinda stuff that flea
markets are stacked with these days, at least in Finland. Or do you have them already? This kind of working method still requires that all your old gear must
be in pristine condition. It might be that your old unused camera needs fixing, slide projector needs a new light bulb etc.
I used to take some slides but I rarely had the patience to put up the whole system to watch them.
Last Edited By: chrome3D
02/24/2009 20:56.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Remindlessness |
|||
|
Columbus
Posts: 821 (02/27/2009 01:57) Glow Worm |
This has always been my favorite art gallery in Park City, UT that I've been visiting for the past 6 years each Summer...their photo's are incredible
and they still use "film"....
https://www.scanlan.com/ |
||
|
Spirit March |
|||
|
Space Saviour
Posts: 2153 (09/10/2009 05:08) |
Ann, ive just gone to digital SLR and loving it (from my old point and shoot Canon) but Im having to learn it all over again. I own a film SLR Pentax that I
haven't used since The Church last played The Metro
My DSLR is a Pentax as well so the lenses are interchangeable (big selling point). I had to learn about shooting in RAW, there's loads of different settings my SLR didnt have. It seems more complicated but I'll discover all their uses and get around to using the extra filters eventually but I just adore the quality Im getting. You wont regret switching over Ann, if you do. And just think of the savings of not having to worry about film. No more purchasing and developing colour and b/w film separately.
Last Edited By: Spirit March
09/10/2009 05:11.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Spirit March |
|||
|
Space Saviour
Posts: 2153 (09/10/2009 05:17) |
Remindlessness, I helped a friend finish a jigsaw puzzle one day last summer and I'm sure it was of the Scanlan's 'Rose Cottage' image.
|
||
|
Remindlessness |
|||
|
Columbus
Posts: 821 (09/11/2009 13:51) Glow Worm |
I wish I could afford their prints...they really do an amazing job and when seen in person at their gallery are quite impressive. You can have the picture put
onto canvas so it actually looks like a painting. When I'm employed again (someday?) I will definitely buy something.
|
||
