I am wanting to get into portraiture photography, I was going to buy a Nikon D50 digital, but I have advised to start out with film. What do yo think?? Any & all advice would be greatly appreciated....
2006-10-09 04:58:48 · 15 answers · asked by jmbmk 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
You will save SO much on film costs if you just go digital in the first place. My sister was a professional photog for about 20 years and the digital revolution made her decide to retire. You just have to have digital. The clients demand it. She was dedicated to Hasselblads and their digital stuff cost mega-bux. She is "quite comfortable" financially, so she is not a lady of leisure.
Get the Nikon D50. It has a few "consumer friendly" automatic modes, but still offers total photographic control when you are ready to take charge. Get a "decent" lens, such as their Nikkor AF-S 18-70 f/3.5-4.5G ED DX lens and not the "kit" lens. This pair will cost you less than $1,000 and you will be very happy with it. If you want more lenses for the same money, you can get this camera with two "kit" lenses that are decent, but not as good for the long haul as the one I mentioned. When you are ready to add lenses, the sky is the limit with Nikon. Get a 1 GB memory card, such as the Sandisk "Ultra" for decent write speed. You can get these in the $30 range. An "Extreme" is faster, but I doubt anyone would notice the difference except a pro.
Before long, if your business takes off, you will be looking at a D200 or D2X (etc) and at least you will have compatible lenses.
Someone else wil undoubtedly recommend a similar Canon camera and I will not dispute that choice. I know Nikons and someone else knows Canons. Both are excellent cameras and you will never outgrow their system offerings.
2006-10-09 05:52:03 · answer #1 · answered by Picture Taker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I work for a newspaper as a photographer. I started out with film - developing, printing, etc. Purists still prefer film.
But going from the first Nikon/Kodak digital cameras to the best Nikon and now the best Canon, I have to say that digital is the way to go.
A manual film camera will really teach you the basics of photography. I often use manual with my digital camera because of certain light situations. That's where the prior experience with film comes in.
But honestly, digital is almost foolproof and you can get excellent results. Nikon and Canon - either is just as good.
And as the others have said, the costs are soooo much less than going with film.
One day, the resolutions are going to be so high that our eyes won't be able to tell the difference. Good luck.
2006-10-09 15:59:20 · answer #2 · answered by FieldMouse 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I started out with film and used it for about 15 years ( I still would use it if I had a need ) I used to have a one hour photo lab so processing was cheap. I switch primarily to digital several years ago. I like both and they both have their pros and cons. I would say now digital is easier to get started in because you can see your results right away. A lot of older (i could fall into that category) photographers think thats cheating and you'll never be a real photographer that way. But a lot of the photographers, i'd say more than half, had no clue what happened to their film after handing it over to the lab tech to develop it anyway.
2006-10-10 21:59:19 · answer #3 · answered by Rocky Dawson 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a long-time portrait photographer, I have done both, and digital is the way to go. I love that I can see the image NOW and change things if my exposure is off or my lighting isn't working properly. That kind of instant feedback also makes learning about what you're doing much faster. I actually stopped doing weddings for a few years because of the stress of waiting a couple of days to know if things came out okay. Now I can leave a wedding secure in the knowledge that I have what I need. And I can retouch my own stuff and upload it to my lab and have my customers order off the Internet.
2006-10-09 16:47:20 · answer #4 · answered by Teddie M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would suggest just the opposite. Start with digital. Why? Because with digital you have no film costs and no developing costs. All you have to pay for is prints. Also, if you mess up, just delete and try again! Much better! Another benefit is that your photos can be uploaded and sent anywhere instantly on the web/email.
2006-10-09 12:03:10 · answer #5 · answered by James F 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't bother with film... what future does it have? Go digital, definitely. A high-dollar digital camera that can provide files worthy of high-quality prints at 9x12 or whatever size is worth the investment when you don't have to buy film or pay to have it developed.
2006-10-09 12:07:21 · answer #6 · answered by Eric C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Digital is better But before that, if you do by film you will have another look at a photography and your level of experience goes up. good luck
2006-10-12 13:25:55 · answer #7 · answered by MEHDI S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personally use both. I love film, however at times the convenince of digital is easy to take. It depends on your experience, really, and what you're most comfortable working with. Go with your gut, dude.
2006-10-09 12:02:10 · answer #8 · answered by The Cuke 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Digital all the way...My dad is a photographer and he only does digital. Film is sooooo expensive, you can have much lower costs for your clients if you do not have to deal with film.
2006-10-09 12:01:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
start with film. you learn all basics first. plus you can manipulate film better than digital. yes you can. digital can do more, but it doesn't look as good. talk to someone, or 2, in the field and ask their opinion.
good luck
2006-10-09 12:03:23 · answer #10 · answered by sapper 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋