has your photo quality improved...

Old Jul 7th, 2004, 03:07 AM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
has your photo quality improved...

since you went digital?

does snapping lots and lots of photos, and being able to discard one as soon as you take it, cause you to not only learn more about what works and what doesn't, but also allow you to take more of the 'risk' shots so to speak you wouldn't have bothered to take when you were film only?

just curious.

I think as a general rule, mine has. for one thing having a flash source at all times surely is an improvement - I never carried my flash on my old carbuncle and I never invested in really expensive lenses either. it DID take great photos - but almost exclusively outdoors!!
flygirl is offline  
Old Jul 7th, 2004, 03:19 AM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I always followed the "film is cheap" rule in the past and my 35mm has an integrated flash, so I'm not doing anything differently with digital. I never expected most of my shots to be worth keeping and I regularly looked through newly-processed packets with a handy waste basket so I could pitch those that I didn't want immediately. This is probably very common for people with editing experience. But for those who may have been more conservative, I think your observation has a lot of merit.
Flyboy is offline  
Old Jul 7th, 2004, 03:23 AM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Absolutely agree! Some of the professional end digital cameras now can do a genuine 3 frames per second and you get to trash those particular points in the human candid, posed or action range of shots that you dont want of course. The more pics the greater the probability of a good one. Good point.
SydneySteve is offline  
Old Jul 7th, 2004, 03:24 AM
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
come to think of it, I always took a lot of photos as well - but there is a big difference b/w coming home from a trip with 15-16 rolls of film... and coming home with nearly 500 pictures! haha

if I ever were to start a freelance photo business, I would call it "900 monkeys"... (I am sure ya'll can guess why).
flygirl is offline  
Old Jul 7th, 2004, 07:53 AM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not really. Our Olympus digital camera was a gift from someone (it's about 2 years old) and it consistently overexposes on outdoor shots, no matter what setting we choose. So...we plan to buy a new digital camera this fall and then see what happens.
However, I do enjoy the freedom of snapping away and checking the shots right after they're taken to see if they came out the way I wanted. Some of the closeup shots have some out really well.
BTilke is offline  
Old Jul 7th, 2004, 10:10 AM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With film, unless you keep a fantastic journal, you rarely remember what settings you were using when you took the picture, because of the delay between the shooting and the printing.

With digital, you can see immediately the results of changing a setting. This is why I think using digital can make you a better photographer.

I suspect that most of us, however, just leave it on auto, and trust the camera to do the work.

I do take far more pictures with digital. Now, when I take pictures of a church, for example, I also take a picture of the sign telling what church it is, so our journal is briefer, but we still know, months later, what that church was. In Venice, I shot all the vaporetto stop signs on our grand canal tour, so I could reconstruct the tour, knowing that picture X was taken between stops A and B.
clevelandbrown is offline  
Old Jul 7th, 2004, 10:31 AM
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes. A digital saves all the shooting info, so you can experiment with fstops, exposures, exposure compensation, flash, film "speed" and see the differences immediately. For important shots I always review, and now have the chance to try another. I have definitely changes things, and get better results because of the immediate feedback you can get with digital.

BUT to get these results, you still have to work a bit. You'll end up spending more time--lots more time-- reviewing and printing shots. So you'll save money..."waste" time. And if you prefer just shooting on auto all the time, you probably won't notice a difference.

tashak is offline  
Old Jul 7th, 2004, 12:36 PM
  #8  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Love digital--the immediate feedback on that picture you want to come out perfectly is priceless.
RufusTFirefly is offline  
Old Jul 7th, 2004, 03:13 PM
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think that I take better photos now that I have gone digital however, I certainly take a lot more. I find careful composition is more difficult with a digital than with my SLR. Compensating is the ability to digitally crop to achieve a pleasing composition.
Gavin is offline  
Old Jul 7th, 2004, 11:42 PM
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do better with composition on a digital because I see the picture on the LCD screen. For some reason, when I look through a camera with one eye shut, I seem to turn blind.
crazymina is offline  
Old Jul 8th, 2004, 12:52 AM
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've become much more free with my picture taking, but also more sloppy because I know I can edit the picture later.
April is offline  
Old Jul 8th, 2004, 04:52 AM
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
flygirl - I find that I will experiment more with the digital. I will try "iffy" shots - because I don't have to wait to develop the film to see if it worked.

In Barcelona, I was at a palace that is now the textile museum (name escapes me at the moment), and it had a wonderfully painted ceiling. You couldn't use flash, I didn't have my little tripod that day, and I wanted a picture. Seven digital tries later, I had the perfect shot that wasn't blurry. With the regular camera, I would have taken one shot, and been disappointed when I got home.

Karen
kaudrey is offline  
Old Jul 8th, 2004, 07:19 AM
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I had a similar experience taking a picture of the inside of the Duomo in Florence. I knew a handheld shot wouldn't work. My camera's LCD can be twisted into any position. So I put the camera face up on a solid stone rail, aimed it just right with the LCD screen reversed, and the pictures came out wonderful. Even with a tripod, I don't think I could have done that with my SLR.
clevelandbrown is offline  
Old Jul 8th, 2004, 12:21 PM
  #14  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Besides all the wonderful things you guys said about digital, I'd like to add a few:
1. You can cheat! There photo editing software.
2. You don't need to worry about bad quality film development. Nothing sucks more than that all the waiting + expectation + excitement turn out to be screwed up photos.
3. Just print as many/big/often as you want - any time!
2fly is offline  
Old Jul 8th, 2004, 10:45 PM
  #15  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You all have sold me on digitals. I am going out tomorrow to buy one for my next trip.

Do any of you have ideas which camera to buy for a first time user?
theregoesminerva is offline  
Old Jul 9th, 2004, 04:33 AM
  #16  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
minerva - try the canon elph cameras. I just got a 4mp one that I love. I also have a Nikon 5700 which I love but would not recommend for a first timer - it's not a digital SLR but it's the top end of the "prosumer" type and too complicated for easy use (but takes great photos). That's why I recommend the canon - tiny, great shots and doesn't require you to memorize a zillion different settings.

I totally agree that great photos mostly result from taking a lot of shots. It's very hard even for professional photographers to get the shot they want on the first try. You need to do several shots of any subject - using different exposures, different angles, different compositions. With digital you can do that. But I don't spend much time checking results on the spot - I just shoot a lot and when I get home I go through the hundreds of shots and select the ones I want to keep. Then, as pointed out above, you can always edit them to get the best results. Plus, all those hours on the computer once I get home, going through the photos, is my way of stretching out the trip.
isabel is offline  
Old Jul 9th, 2004, 05:29 AM
  #17  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Digital is also less wasteful. You don't develop all your pictures (in duplicates even) and then end up throwing out the bad ones. With my digital camera I only print out a few pictures for scrapbooking. I like making powerpoint presentations with my pictures and get very creative with the slides (you can add caption, music, animation, colour changes etc). I also have my best shots circulating on my screensaver - many coworkers have commented on them.
lindilindi is offline  
Old Jul 9th, 2004, 05:49 AM
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Also, if you enjoy sharing photos over the web, then digital just skips a step. Plus, a scanner just digitizes it's interpretation of print photos (basically a digital photo of a photo), so you lose whatever "soul" the photo had anyway, along with quality.

If you're sticking with print only, for albums and at home display, I guess the argument can be made that film is best. Maybe, be I personally feel it depends more on the optics than the media. But I prefer showing photos online. The people can see the photos if or when they like. I print or have printed the ones that I like. And this Nikon D70 - wow. Recently got it and I love this thing! Minolta DiMage just became to backup plan and my old non-digital Pentax SLR? Years of loyalty is the only thing keeping it off of ebay.

Clifton is offline  
Old Jul 9th, 2004, 01:52 PM
  #19  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
theregoesminerva, I would suggest you to research on sites other than fodors for your camera. Half of us probably would recommend you to buy ours. Mine is really good, but if it is the best today. Probably not. Since electronic stuff change too frequently, I always keep an eye on the lastest - what my friends don't have. I tend to pay the price and get the best of today. Reason being is that once I get one, I want to "enjoy" it for a couple of years. Well just personal preference on electronic stuff.
Have fun!
2fly is offline  
Old Jul 9th, 2004, 04:15 PM
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you, I will follow your suggestions.
theregoesminerva is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
irecommend
Africa & the Middle East
9
May 15th, 2008 08:20 AM
sbmarti2
Europe
44
Feb 13th, 2007 04:42 PM
Kerry392
United States
4
Jul 10th, 2006 06:52 PM
calliec
Africa & the Middle East
11
May 9th, 2006 05:14 PM
ACoronado78
Travel Tips & Trip Ideas
7
Aug 30th, 2004 12:34 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell My Personal Information


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 PM.