Skip Navigation

When Traveling, Do you use a Digital or Film Camera

Travel Forums Travel Photography When Traveling, Do you use a Digital or Film Camera

Page

Last Post

41. Posted by roteague (Budding Member 46 posts) 10y

Quoting Q_

Quoting roteague

I shoot nothing but film, almost exclusively Fuji Velvia. I really hate the "digital" look.

What's there to hate ? Clean, smooth images....just being the devils advocate.

No worries. The continuous tonal nature of digital images have a "plastic" look to my eyes. I also perceive the images to not be very sharp, nor with the color depth that I can get out of a transparency film like Fuji Velvia. FWIW, I am a professional landscape photographer, so I am very picky about the results that I achieve.

42. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 10y

Quoting roteague

No worries. The continuous tonal nature of digital images have a "plastic" look to my eyes. I also perceive the images to not be very sharp, nor with the color depth that I can get out of a transparency film like Fuji Velvia. FWIW, I am a professional landscape photographer, so I am very picky about the results that I achieve.

Yes, but you shoot with a 4x5 ! You can't compare the sharpness or colour depth to that. But ultimately, it depends on what you're shooting. The softness is useful in portraiture. And you can't shoot many of the things I shoot in film. Most people shoot weddings these days. So DSLR's are the it thing. Where do you sell your work ?

43. Posted by roteague (Budding Member 46 posts) 10y

Quoting Q_

Quoting roteague

No worries. The continuous tonal nature of digital images have a "plastic" look to my eyes. I also perceive the images to not be very sharp, nor with the color depth that I can get out of a transparency film like Fuji Velvia. FWIW, I am a professional landscape photographer, so I am very picky about the results that I achieve.

Yes, but you shoot with a 4x5 ! You can't compare the sharpness or colour depth to that. But ultimately, it depends on what you're shooting. The softness is useful in portraiture. And you can't shoot many of the things I shoot in film. Most people shoot weddings these days. So DSLR's are the it thing. Where do you sell your work ?

It's all subjective, regardless of how you look at it. I have friends that shoot digital and they like the look and feel of the medium, and they can't understand why I prefer film. That is why I stess that it is subjective.

You are correct, digital is very useful when doing portraiture. Fortunately, I'm horrible at portraiture. Most nature photography these days is done on digital cameras, although the high end stuff is still done on film. These days, shooting digital is the norm, shooting film isn't. However, I do know several people who do both weddings and portraiture with film, because that is the medium they prefer. Again, photography is subjective.

One thing, sharpness and color depth isn't determined by the size of the film - they are the same regardless of size when you are talking film. Every film is different as well, which is why I mentioned Fuji Velvia - transparency film is much sharper than color negative film, for example. The determining factor these days is the size of the image, or sensor, and the quality of the lenses.

I sell most of my work at galleries, and some to individuals. My prints, mostly done on Fuji Crystal Archive, and some on Ilfochrome, range in size from 11x14 to 40x50 (unmatted size).

44. Posted by Travinfo (Budding Member 32 posts) 9y

I prefer digital, because of the very first reason of scanning, if you have rolls and rolls what will you do ?

Since i plan to make a free digital library of rural india pics, the best way is to use digital, to have ready to upload images.

Although i feel digital camera's are bit delicate to handle .. what do you say..

[ Edit: Edited on Dec 18, 2006, at 12:08 AM by Travinfo ]

45. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 9y

Quoting roteague

One thing, sharpness and color depth isn't determined by the size of the film - they are the same regardless of size when you are talking film. Every film is different as well, which is why I mentioned Fuji Velvia - transparency film is much sharper than color negative film, for example. The determining factor these days is the size of the image, or sensor, and the quality of the lenses.

I sell most of my work at galleries, and some to individuals. My prints, mostly done on Fuji Crystal Archive, and some on Ilfochrome, range in size from 11x14 to 40x50 (unmatted size).

On the negative, yes. But on a large gallery frame sized print (assuming proper focus, good lens) 4x5 will kill a DSLR. I'm comparing apples to oranges slightly here. But I think you understand my point. I'm struggling with the pixel count on my camera rightnow. You're up in the 100-200Mb file size range from your scans. I'm down at 3Mb (12Mb if I shoot raw). I just can't get the colours and clarity with my gear rightnow.

Fortunately, for me I'm doing a lot of action and thinking of doing still life. A DSLR is good for that. Do you do your own prints ? I need to start printing more.

You've done well. I've never tried a gallery. But I believe it's difficult these days. Too much supply and too little demand. You need an established "name" and good portfolio to get in. Same thing with the collectors. It's pretty amazing you can make a living off of it. Oh well, I have my day job.

46. Posted by roteague (Budding Member 46 posts) 9y

Quoting Q_

Quoting roteague

One thing, sharpness and color depth isn't determined by the size of the film - they are the same regardless of size when you are talking film. Every film is different as well, which is why I mentioned Fuji Velvia - transparency film is much sharper than color negative film, for example. The determining factor these days is the size of the image, or sensor, and the quality of the lenses.

I sell most of my work at galleries, and some to individuals. My prints, mostly done on Fuji Crystal Archive, and some on Ilfochrome, range in size from 11x14 to 40x50 (unmatted size).

On the negative, yes. But on a large gallery frame sized print (assuming proper focus, good lens) 4x5 will kill a DSLR. I'm comparing apples to oranges slightly here. But I think you understand my point. I'm struggling with the pixel count on my camera rightnow. You're up in the 100-200Mb file size range from your scans. I'm down at 3Mb (12Mb if I shoot raw). I just can't get the colours and clarity with my gear rightnow.

Fortunately, for me I'm doing a lot of action and thinking of doing still life. A DSLR is good for that. Do you do your own prints ? I need to start printing more.

You've done well. I've never tried a gallery. But I believe it's difficult these days. Too much supply and too little demand. You need an established "name" and good portfolio to get in. Same thing with the collectors. It's pretty amazing you can make a living off of it. Oh well, I have my day job.

I understand your frustration. I think you know where you want to go with your photography, which is what is more important than pixel count, etc. From what you outline, I think you probably need at least something on the lines of a Nikon D200 (or D80).

Gallery sales are tough, not so much with needing an established "name", although it can be tough to get into a gallery otherwise. Where I live, I find the biggest issue is one of price. I just can't compete with the guy spitting out prints of an ink jet printer - most people still buy based upon price, and not quality. For example, in one gallery I looked at, I would have to sell my framed 11x14 at $425, while another photographer has a framed 16x20 ink jet (glicee) at the same gallery for $165. The major diffence is quality of materials - I use museum grade board, wood frames and UV glass, on traditional photographic prints. I long ago farmed out printing my color work - color printing is just a drag.

I mostly use West Coast Imaging in California, who prints for me on Fuji Crystal Archive paper using a Chromira (digital LED) printer. I use another printer in Toronto, Elevator Gallery, for Ilfochrome prints (the materials are very difficult to get right now).

47. Posted by mostrim (Inactive 80 posts) 9y

Using a digital since 2002 a Minolta DImage5, very out of date, I know but I am happy with the results, unless in poor light where you can't use the flash.

48. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 9y

Quoting roteague

I understand your frustration. I think you know where you want to go with your photography, which is what is more important than pixel count, etc. From what you outline, I think you probably need at least something on the lines of a Nikon D200 (or D80).

Gallery sales are tough, not so much with needing an established "name", although it can be tough to get into a gallery otherwise. Where I live, I find the biggest issue is one of price. I just can't compete with the guy spitting out prints of an ink jet printer - most people still buy based upon price, and not quality. For example, in one gallery I looked at, I would have to sell my framed 11x14 at $425, while another photographer has a framed 16x20 ink jet (glicee) at the same gallery for $165. The major diffence is quality of materials - I use museum grade board, wood frames and UV glass, on traditional photographic prints. I long ago farmed out printing my color work - color printing is just a drag.

I mostly use West Coast Imaging in California, who prints for me on Fuji Crystal Archive paper using a Chromira (digital LED) printer. I use another printer in Toronto, Elevator Gallery, for Ilfochrome prints (the materials are very difficult to get right now).

Well, I still don't know what to do to make money from it. I've gotten most of the training I need. I've had to move in the last year so I left some things incomplete. I've got the gear. I've got the beginnings of various portfolios. But I wouldn't say I know exactly what my direction is. My strategy has been to invest in lenses. The 24-120mm VR and 80-200mm/f2.8 are my mainstays. The 70-300mm ED and the new 15-30mm sigma fill out my range but only see occasional use. I do a lot of hiking and camping, but southern ontario just isn't exotic enough to sell.

I'm waiting for the replacement for the D200. I estimate I need around 12megapixels or more. I do a lot of low light stuff, and you drop clarity very quickly once you run it through photoshop to get rid of noise. I mostly need the pixels to maintain clarity when I print.

Elevator Digital. Not too far from where my parents live in Toronto. A lot of great photographers' studios in that area. They're in the midst of building a large film studio there as well. Which will no doubt increase business for the photogs working in the area. I hear what you're saying about quality not selling very well. Photography doesn't have enough pull as a "true" artform, I think. Most people are just interested in something cheap for their living room. Not the same as investing in a good oil painting which will pay off 20 years from now. The other thing at work, and I might be alone with this point of view, is the emphasis on "message" being taught in photography schools. It makes sense for commercial work, but much less for fine art. A message has shelf life. Mind you, you can create great images based on universal themes, but that doesn't seem to be the emphasis in schools.

49. Posted by roteague (Budding Member 46 posts) 9y

Quoting Q_

Well, I still don't know what to do to make money from it. I've gotten most of the training I need. I've had to move in the last year so I left some things incomplete. I've got the gear. I've got the beginnings of various portfolios. But I wouldn't say I know exactly what my direction is. My strategy has been to invest in lenses. The 24-120mm VR and 80-200mm/f2.8 are my mainstays. The 70-300mm ED and the new 15-30mm sigma fill out my range but only see occasional use. I do a lot of hiking and camping, but southern ontario just isn't exotic enough to sell.

I'm waiting for the replacement for the D200. I estimate I need around 12megapixels or more. I do a lot of low light stuff, and you drop clarity very quickly once you run it through photoshop to get rid of noise. I mostly need the pixels to maintain clarity when I print.

Elevator Digital. Not too far from where my parents live in Toronto. A lot of great photographers' studios in that area. They're in the midst of building a large film studio there as well. Which will no doubt increase business for the photogs working in the area. I hear what you're saying about quality not selling very well. Photography doesn't have enough pull as a "true" artform, I think. Most people are just interested in something cheap for their living room. Not the same as investing in a good oil painting which will pay off 20 years from now. The other thing at work, and I might be alone with this point of view, is the emphasis on "message" being taught in photography schools. It makes sense for commercial work, but much less for fine art. A message has shelf life. Mind you, you can create great images based on universal themes, but that doesn't seem to be the emphasis in schools.

All good lenses, I've got the 24-120 myself, but in the long run, equipment isn't really the answer. It's more about what and who you are - in other words, what your vision is. It took me 20+ years to really understand what my vision is, but now that I understand it, I know what direction to go with my work. I wouldn't want to see you spending that much time trying to find yours. Unfortunately, I don't have any formula to help you, however, I would suggest that you look at as many different photography books as you can - the type of images that draw you will make themselves known.

Southern Ontario isn't as bad as you think - I was in Toronto last May, attending a photography conference held at Elevator Gallery. I have a couple of 20x24 Ilfochromes at the gallery - images of Hawaii.

I don't know if we are allowed to publish our website address here on this forum, but I have a good list of photographers and photography books which may come in handy. If publishing address isn't allowed here look for a forum called PhotographAustralia and just look for me - you will find the address in my profile. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you may have about photography.

50. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 9y

Quoting roteague

I don't know if we are allowed to publish our website address here on this forum, but I have a good list of photographers and photography books which may come in handy. If publishing address isn't allowed here look for a forum called PhotographAustralia and just look for me - you will find the address in my profile. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you may have about photography.

You're right. It's all about having a vision.

And since I'm one of the moderators I would have to delete your post. But feel free to send me a private message via the message center. Look under my name and click on "send message".