A lot of people claim that digital cameras distort and magnify facial imperfections. It's true, when I look at my parents old photos the quality is a lot lower so peoples skin looks good and minor flaws don't jump out at you. What is the point of using such high quality cameras when they make people look awful half the time? Just wondering.
2007-11-05 18:51:33 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
if ur a real photographer..manual systems...but if ur just funning digital...
2007-11-05 18:55:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I really don't like the idea of "digital versus film". For me its a matter of personal preference - I happen to prefer film. I'll happily concede that digital offers some advantages but for my purposes film does just fine.
The only complaint I have about digital photography is that, IMO, it encourages a "machine gun" approach to photography. Make 300 images and hope 10% are worth keeping or spend hours on the computer with an editing program trying to make a mediocre image into an average one.
Also, from some of the questions in this (Photography) forum and the Camera forum, many people seem to think that buying an expensive DSLR automatically makes them a professional photographer. As we all know, it doesn't.
If you're happy using digital and I'm happy using film there should be no conflict.
2007-11-06 06:15:33 · answer #2 · answered by EDWIN 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
On the other hand I shoot landscapes. I am actively chasing every last little detail I can get. People are not the only things to take photos of!
My feeling is that digital and film cameras are so close in performance these days that the recording medium doesn't really matter. Factors such as lens quality and photographer skill are far more important.
There is a different skill set invoved in the different workflows between digital and film, but I do not regard one skill as being better than another.
Besides, who says film is old fashioned?
Regards, teef_au
2007-11-06 03:45:47 · answer #3 · answered by teef_au 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Digital does not come near the quality of film. The quality of film will give you details and fine work that digital won't be able to produce for another forty years at least and at best? It will only be comparable to to-days 800 ISO rated film. That is quite grainy in comparison to the norm. The norm for the average is a 200 ISO film which gives you a very fine photo! Much more than a 800 ISO.
Digital will distort and magnify imperfections because it is still in it's infancy. Kinda like Kodak 100 years ago. Compare the photos of those days with those cameras (available only to the wealthy) to what we have to-day in camera's and film and you can see a world of difference. It will take a long time for the digital work to gain the quality of today's film.
2007-11-06 03:45:30 · answer #4 · answered by the old dog 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Most of the basic photography principles are the same and digital offers the advantage of being highly editable.
You can make the skin look better in digital photography. You can also correct bad color, poor light, red eye, and other problems that plague all photographers.
One advantage of digital photography is instant results. You can see immediately if you have a good picture or not. This will tell you if you need to shoot it again, or if you need to edit the photo.
For news photography purposes, digital photography offers several advantages. It is already in an electronic format, which helps in publishing. It is also easily adaptable to color or monochrome printing. Best of all it is ready immediately--we don't have to wait for it to be processed.
Much of the key to good digital photography is a good camera. Optics are important, just as they are in the old fashioned chemical-based film cameras.
The television industry was revolutionized by the development of videotape, far more adaptable to news photography than film cinematography. There is no reason that digital still cameras can't do the same for most photography needs.
2007-11-06 03:12:46 · answer #5 · answered by Warren D 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am not sure it is even a debate anymore.
Digital now exceeds the capabilities of film. As a professional I can't imagine where digital can't exceed the look of film. The only exception would be if I was looking for a certain look that certain cameras produce or I wanted to manipulate a film in a certain way such as cross processing.
That said using digiatl takes work. One can not expect to just take picture and then volila it is ready to be hung in a museum. I can easily spend an hour of two in post production to optimize and tweak a picture so it is ready to be published. I have a simple picture that is of Venice. (See Website) That took 4 days of solid work to get it at the level I wanted it.
Now it isn't completely fair to compare old picture. It also took alot of work to make them nice AFTER the picture was taken.
2007-11-06 17:16:12 · answer #6 · answered by Michael L 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually, the inferior quality of the old pictures is probably due to poor printing.
If you took the vintage negatives and scanned them or wet darkroom enlarged them using today's equipment, you'd find they'd make images which compete with digital.
I disagree that digital emphasises facial flaws. In fact, small-format digital fails to capture much of the microcontrast details in faces and leaves them unrealistically smooth.
Compare the face detail in any fine-grain 35mm transparency image with that of even a high-end digital and you'll see what I mean.
If you really want to see what I mean, go look at a Hasselblad film portrait, which eats small-format digital's lunch.
2007-11-07 17:20:41 · answer #7 · answered by V2K1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because when you're not taking pictures of people who are self conscious, it can reveal amazing detail in nature, architecture, etc.. It can reveal amazing detail and expression in a person's face as well. Taking pictures is not necessarily about how your pores or pimples show up on a camera.
2007-11-06 02:56:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am not very fond of pretty pictures but if you need to pretty up one then you can down load this little jewel and make all your pimply faced friends think you are the "Bees Knees"
http://www.neatimage.com/download.html
Neat Image :: download
2007-11-06 03:12:31 · answer #9 · answered by Jake K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
film is for fine art and people like anne geddes, digital is for the masses
if you think film is old fashioned you have ALOT to learn. the great artist of photography use film,
a
2007-11-06 03:06:12 · answer #10 · answered by Antoni 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Some thoughts on this that may be useful for you:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
2007-11-06 10:28:48 · answer #11 · answered by Evan B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋