Any reason for using argentic (non-digital) camera in 2006?

Question

And if it is to have more control over picture development/processing, is it still photography or could it be just another form of painting?

Answer 1

cyanne2ak doesn't really have a clue. When using a professional digital camera, there is no difference in printing. The color and contrast (an amateur argument) are exactly the same.

However, to answer your question. Photographing with plain old 35mm film is still a lot of film. On a professional level, I only shoot digitial. But I don't mind getting my old Canon AE1 out just because I enjoy getting into the darkroom every now and then. There is something nostalgic (sp?) about it.

Plus, using film to start is a ways cheaper than a professional grade digital camera which can easily cost you up to $5,000.

If this is something you plan on doing as a hobby, then a film camera is just as good as anything.

As far as effects, thelukeandrews just doesn't have the experience with Photoshop CS2. I've duplicated every fine art effect produced by the old master printers at some point. Whether you are using a diffuser, soft focus, star-light filter. Or you are using fine art edges caused by showing part of the photo frame, it can be done in Phothoshop CS2.

Answer 2

Oh dear - feel really like an old fossil now, admitting that I still love my 35mm SLR... And the reason is - a digital SLR is just too expensive for me at this point. And another reason - even if you have to develop the film, you can have the pictures transferred onto disk at the same time, so you get digital images all the same! No need for digital then...

Answer 3

1) Dynamic range. Ever tried to make something decent out of an overexposed digital shot?
2) Resolution. That's primarily for medium and large format. Very important for professionals when large prints are required.
3) More bang for the buck. DSLRs are still a few times more expensive compared to similar 35mm SLRs.
4) Reliability. With a mechanical camera, you don't need battery power, and the construction is more sturdy.

Answer 4

Although argentic cameras a more exensive in terms of the developing and materials you need, digital on the whole is much cheaper because you can just load the photos onto your computer.

Answer 5

Despite all the obvious advantages of digital the pictures still look better on a 35mm than on a cheap digital. It's the same as the vinyl vs CD argument. There are a thousand logical reasons why CDs are better but vinyl still refuses to die.

Answer 6

Reason:
You have the process under control.
Development and focus variations are more flexible usign it, because you will not have to fight against the primitive inteligent and image interpretation from Digital Cameras.

Of course, you can use creativity during development phase to increase your responses, but you can do it also using Photoshop and even on a better way.

Yes, but better process are marked to die. vinil (better sound) betamax (better images) digital camera. Things survive not because are the best, but because are affordable, easy to be used by the mass and cheaper.

its capitalism.

Answer 7

I don't use a digital camera. They just don't take pictures as well as the old ones do. The contrast isn't nearly as good and the color development tends to be rather bland.

Answer 8

I still love my 35mm SLR! You have more control over the images plus it's so exciting when you get the pics back from the developers. Also, how many digital users actually print their pics?

Answer 9

lens control for very close shoots is betrer in nondigital cameras than the digital ones

Answer 10

i use digital