| |
02-14-2006, 06:44 AM
|
#1 | | John 6:44-47 (NIV)
Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: i rep the 'pep' in va
Posts: 12,651
|  Pictures: Film or Digital? | |
Digital is so much easier and costs less money.
What's your choice? And why? | 
|  | |
02-14-2006, 07:38 AM
|
#2 | | Scrum-Tiddly-Umptious
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The STL
Posts: 5,678
|
Film, because I'm old fashioned and I used to work in a photo lab. I think the quality has something in it that digital just doesn't...it always seems warmer to me or something.
I do like digital for convience though, and it rocks that you can see your pictures right THEN, not wait forever. I use digital a lot more now...but I will always like the GOOD film cameras. | |
| | |
02-14-2006, 10:39 AM
|
#3 | | Boys Lie.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,670
|
Basically what Jess said. Film is just so much nicer, but kinda expensive and you dont' really get to see how the picture turned out till you have it made and stuff.
Least with my digicam if the picture looks crappy delete and take it again.  | |
| | |
02-14-2006, 11:00 AM
|
#4 | | Awaiting Email Confirmation
Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,318
|
Definiatly digital. I think being aible to see what you shot right after you shot it is so much better then just wait till you can get your photo's at the store. Plus the connection to the computer is very handy if you wanna upload them online. | |
| | |
02-14-2006, 12:40 PM
|
#5 | | LooSeN Up
Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Kuwait
Posts: 3,866
|
Digital. | |
| | |
02-14-2006, 12:41 PM
|
#6 | | Life Me
Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Sam Houston Tollway
Posts: 6,218
|
Film.... but that's kinda lessening caus I only get crappy disposable cameras. | |
| | |
02-14-2006, 12:52 PM
|
#7 | | June 27th
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Right Behind You.
Posts: 20,416
|
Digital is great for the convenience. I mean, you don't really have to get them developed unless you really want them developed. It's also great for working with graphics. I can take pictures and put them right into photoshop, and the quality is usually pretty good. Much better than scanning the picture into photoshop.
However, the quality on film is way better, and I doubt will ever be matched by a digital camera. I took some photography in highschool, so I have a bit of an appreciation for the art of photography which I find just can't be duplicated with digital.
I guess it really depends on what I'm taking the pictures for. If I'm taking them for memories, I'll go with film. If I'm taking them just to take them, or maybe for photoshop or sending to people online (concert pics, etc.) I'll go with digital. | |
| | |
02-20-2006, 09:38 AM
|
#8 | | World Champion
Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: New World Order
Posts: 31,361
|
Digital. | |
| | |
03-21-2006, 09:43 PM
|
#9 | | cages or wings?
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada
Posts: 7,814
|
Digital. Usually I re-work the picture quality before printing, and they come out nice.
Also, if you print them at say Walmart or whatever, they look almost exactly the same.
Im digtital 100%. As long as your camera isnt a piece of shit, and you remember to turn your Macro on, you're good. | |
| | |
03-22-2006, 05:40 PM
|
#10 | | World Champion
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,606
|
Digital.
But if you think about it, Digital also cost money, because you need to buy the at home printer, and the glossy paper as well. Which all together is like a 900 Dollar buy, with the Camera. Also, the constant restocking of that glossy paper. | |
| | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:56 PM.
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0 | |
