Going from film to digital - Am I going to be disappointed?

[Bex80]

Hi there, this is my first post on this forum & wasn't sure where to put it but I hope you can alleviate my digital worries!:D

I enjoy taking family & holiday snapshots with my basic film camera and have always been impressed with the results especially as I'm just a P&S'er. I would like to convert to digital but some of my friends pictures are so disappointing in comparsion, for example, blurry, lack detail and poor colour (either bright disney colours or just dull). Is it possible for a casual "photographer" like me to produce film quality pictures with a digital camera?

Many thanks
Bex80

P.s Just like to say that your gallery is inspiring. Absolutely stunning!

[Rhys]

I use digital and have no problems. View my photo galleries.

[Bex80]

Very impressed with your gallery, especially the pictures of Riga as I'm going there next week (the reason of the possible purchase of a digicam!) :D

Would I be able to produce similar quality pictures with a canon SD series or would I seriously be sacrificing image quality for the size?

Many thanks for your help
Bex80

[coldrain]

The canon SD series are capable of very good picture quality. I do not know what camera you are used to, but I am sure the image quality will surpass your film camera's results.

[tim11]

.........
I enjoy taking family & holiday snapshots with my basic film camera and have always been impressed with the results especially as I'm just a P&S'er. I would like to convert to digital but some of my friends pictures are so disappointing in comparsion, for example, blurry, lack detail and poor colour (either bright disney colours or just dull). Is it possible for a casual "photographer" like me to produce film quality pictures with a digital camera?......

Bex, your digital vs film arguement is outdated. If you only take basic PnS photos, you can't be unhappy with digital. Even if you are thinking of taking photography further, there are many digital cameras to choose from for your level of experience and budget.
I am a newcomer to photography, (during the film-age, I couldn't justify the cost of spending on a roll of film hoping to get a few exposures correct).
I attached a couple of photos I took recently - I'm a beginner. Taken with Panasonic DMC-FZ20 on P (auto mode). :o
You don't have to buy the same camera, of course, it's just to show you digital cameras have come a long way.

[tim11]

...and here is another one. If you are not convinced I have hundreds more.
RHYS's gallery is impressive of course, but he is a pro., just look at his gears. By the way, no software postprocessing on the photos, just resized.

[gracie328]

I think it depends on one's expectations and your level of photography. I went from film to digital about 7 months ago and I love it, but I discovered that digital pictures require varying degrees of post processing in a software program to perfect/enhance them to their highest potential... for instance cropping, and sharpening... and sometimes even lighting and color. You can get some decent shots straight from the digital, but many are going to be lacking, without some post processing. But you can turn an O.K. shot into a good one and a good shot into an exceptional one if you learn some basic post processing techniques in a good software program. I see MANY pics on here that are flat in color and soft in focus... and they could be outstanding pics with a little touch up.

A digital camera isn't going to turn a casual photographer into a professional. Your friends probably don't have a clue about how to use their camera and don't do any amount of post processing on thier pics. The awesome thing about digital is that you can immediately see the results of your shot and reshoot if necessary in most situations. And unless they understand a bit about lighting and photography they will end up with some lacking shots... although many of them could still be salvaged in a good software program.

I'd really do some research before choosing a camera too because they do vary in performance. You can google and find reviews on each camera. There's lots of sights for consumer reviews, so take advantage of them.

[Rhys]

Very impressed with your gallery, especially the pictures of Riga as I'm going there next week (the reason of the possible purchase of a digicam!) :D

Would I be able to produce similar quality pictures with a canon SD series or would I seriously be sacrificing image quality for the size?

Many thanks for your help
Bex80

Ok. Riga - a pocketable digital camera that can be concealed easily is best.

Stay away from Chaka Iela after dark (whores and muggers paradise) and out of the pedestrian underpass after dark. Also stay at least 100 yards away from the cafe Safrans (more whores work from there) and that area is a 24x7 pickpocket's paradise.

In the market, watch your back and your pockets.

The rest of the city is relatively safe although there's a constant level of petty crime wherever you go. Don't put anything down and expect it still to be there.

If you need a guide, go to the "House of Blackheads" and ask Rasma Fishere to be your guide. She's a friend of mine. She's a professional guide so you will have to pay her.

I took my pics of Riga etc with my Nikon 3100. For a 3mp camera, it's not bad.

[Bex80]

Many thanks for your replies. These were the responses & reassurance I was hoping for.

I understand that digital has come along way but I've just returned from spending 6 months travelling (me & film camera with friend & her digital) we swapped copies and I ended up throwing most of hers away due to the image quality, it's so disappointing. :(

I have seen some amazing photos produced by digital cameras, however, I wasn't sure whether these were possible by a newbie using a P&S with no knowledge on how to improve them.

Tim - your photos are great, thank you for sharing them with me. I am convinced!
Gracie - You're quite right, my friends pictures would not have been post processed so I would imagine that the most people with the right knowledge & software could improve them 100%. I've done quite a bit of research about the which digicam to buy (that's how I found myself here!) especially seeing the cost benefits and flexibility a digital camera has, but then had second thoughts after seeing the photos mentioned above. I'm hoping that a digital camera will inspire to learn more and make my film pictures inferior!
Rhys - thanks for the tips on Riga, all noted!

All - I have been converted and off to order a shiny new camera now! :D

Thanks again

[Bex80]

Many thanks for your replies. These were the responses & reassurance I was hoping for.

I understand that digital has come along way but I've just returned from spending 6 months travelling (me & film camera with friend & her digital) we swapped copies and I ended up throwing most of hers away due to the image quality, it's so disappointing. :(

I have seen some amazing photos produced by digital cameras, however, I wasn't sure whether these were possible by a newbie using a P&S with no knowledge on how to improve them.

Tim - your photos are great, thank you for sharing them with me. I am convinced!
Gracie - You're quite right, my friends pictures would not have been post processed so I would imagine that the most people with the right knowledge & software could improve them 100%. I've done quite a bit of research about the which digicam to buy (that's how I found myself here!) especially seeing the cost benefits and flexibility a digital camera has, but then had second thoughts after seeing the photos mentioned above. I'm hoping that a digital camera will inspire to learn more and make my film pictures inferior!
Rhys - thanks for the tips on Riga, all noted!

All - I have been converted and off to order a shiny new camera now! :D

Thanks again

[Bex80]

Many thanks for your replies. These were the responses & reassurance I was hoping for.

I understand that digital has come along way but I've just returned from spending 6 months travelling (me & film camera with friend & her digital) we swapped copies and I ended up throwing most of hers away due to the image quality, it's so disappointing. :(

I have seen some amazing photos produced by digital cameras, however, I wasn't sure whether these were possible by a newbie using a P&S with no knowledge on how to improve them.

Tim - your photos are great, thank you for sharing them with me. I am convinced!
Gracie - You're quite right, my friends pictures would not have been post processed so I would imagine that most people with the right knowledge & software could improve them 100%. I've done quite a bit of research about the which digicam to buy (that's how I found myself here!) especially seeing the cost benefits and flexibility a digital camera has over film, but then had second thoughts after seeing the photos mentioned above. I'm hoping that a digital camera will inspire to learn more and make my film pictures inferior!
Rhys - thanks for the tips on Riga, all noted!

All - I have been converted and off to order a shiny new camera now! :D

Thanks again

[Norm in Fujino]

I enjoy taking family & holiday snapshots with my basic film camera and have always been impressed with the results especially as I'm just a P&S'er. I would like to convert to digital but some of my friends pictures are so disappointing in comparsion, for example, blurry, lack detail and poor colour (either bright disney colours or just dull). Is it possible for a casual "photographer" like me to produce film quality pictures with a digital camera?


It really depends. If all you want is 4x6 snapshots, why change from your current practice with film? The advantages of digital really appear under some or all of the following conditions (and maybe others as well):

1) you take lots of photographs but you don't want to print them all--you want to be able to cull out the good ones first.
2) you like to be able to do some of the "developing" work yourself (on the computer)
3) you want to be able to display photos on the internet
4) you're comfortable using a computer for basic tasks.
5) you like the convenience of printing out quick photos at home, without having to go to the store.
6) You like to occasionally print out big prints (8x10), but you want to see the results onscreen first.
etc.

Moving to digital entails some new learning, not necessarily a lot, but some. Most digicams have some shutter lag, for example, so you have to learn to hold the camera especially still while pressing--and possibly for a bit after pressing--the shutter. Most digicams also have electronic viewfinders that are not as easy to view as the optical finders on traditional rangefinder cameras. There are lots of other differences as well, but these may be especially important. Digital cameras have advantages, such as the ability to view the photo immediately after you take it, and delete it if you don't like it;--and then take another.

Some additional bother is involved if you adjust the photos at home. On the other hand, there's little different from film if you just take your memory card to Wallmart and have prints made there. But if that's all you're doing, then you have to ask yourself why digital at all?

[Bex80]

PC crashed - didn't mean to post my reply 3 times :rolleyes:

[tim11]

I'm not trying to contradict anyone for every point in discussion is valid.
One thing re. digital post processing, if you have a good photo you can enhance and make it more impressive. And you can improve a slightly blurry photo. But if you take a totally hopelessy blurry or badly under/over exposed one then no amount of post processing can fix it. Personally, I don't enhance before take them to print.... maybe only to realign, re-compose, crop; ie. no colour, sharpness enhancement. [You have no control over all these with film unless you have a darkroom and somewhat be proficient with the process.]
These days I have better prints than when I used film. And what is the best way to learn photography? With digital age you can just buy a good book on photography, experiment and see instant result! The only thing you spend is TIME.
Professionals and dedicated film users always argue that film gives better result. Maybe they are right for now.

[gracie328]

I've never seen a digital pic that couldn't benefit from some proper sharpening if nothing else... (proper being the keyword there). You have to know what you are doing. I sharpen all my digital pics before printing... but I use a multi-step method other than just hitting a sharpen button, as that doesn't accomplish much at all. You can sometimes salvage some pretty lousy pics in one way or another also. Here is a moonflower... with nothing but cropping done. They only open late in the evening, so not enough light resulted in a not so flattering pic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/gracie328/FLOWERS%20AND%20SUCH/moonflower1.jpg

Now, here's a quick fix just to show what can be accomplished in a good post processing program. Now, keep in mind, this was done in a bit of a rush, so I could probably bring out even more detail with a little more effort. And I might alter the color slightly if I had more time. But you get the idea anyway. This is the same pic with some sharpening and levels adjustment.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/gracie328/FLOWERS%20AND%20SUCH/moonflower2.jpg

[tim11]

...... You can sometimes salvage some pretty lousy pics in one way or another also. Here is a moonflower...
[Sometimes] is the keyword. But other times when the photos are HOPELESSLY blurry, under/over exposed or the combinations of each then it's trashbin time. In this case, you have to agree that your original picture is quite good and high in quality.
If you like post processing and have the time and patience, by all means go for it, I never suggest people shouldn't do it. Plus I agree the result is worth the time. I simply said post processing is not a must.

[gracie328]

I agree... it's not a must, but the difference it can make is well worth it for me. I suppose when I'm taking pics of things that are special to me, I want to know that I've done the very best I can. I mainly posted my example because before I bought my digital and started studying a little, I wasn't aware that post-processing was even an issue to consider. I'm sure there are others that might be interested in further improving their pics and are probably like I was... unaware of just what it's all about. So, I just thought I'd share a small example of what can be done.

[astro]

Rhys shots are great and comparable to film as he has a digital SLR camera. The CCD sensor is very big, and near the size of film.

P&S cameras that you want to buy, has MUCH smaller sensors. The small sensor size is what causes the poor dynamic range, poor colors, and lack of detail. It is acceptable to most, however. There are many excellent P&S camera where you can still get your pictures to look nice under the right conditions. Post processing helps tremendously also as gracie pointed out, but will take a lot of hassle. But on the bright side, you have the option to conveniently be able to digitally post process the picture with a digital camera.

[@dam]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but Gracie: where can I learn some basic photoshop techniques?

Thanks
-Adam

[eastbluffs]

If you're used to film, you will find some huge pluses and minuses. Norm pretty well covered them, but I have to concur.

- Unless you get a Digital SLR, you will be frustrated with the shutter lag. There are some tricks to avoid it, but for any kind of action shots, you'll want to throw it against the wall more than once.

Some of the later cameras like the Fuji F10 are reputed to be near instant. My experience stems from the P&S lineup about 8 months ago (Canon S60, Sony W5, Konica Minolta ?? not sure what model, I owned in last year).

- On the plus, its really nice to have hundreds of shots on a "roll". They are easy to upload to a photo site and order prints. Yahoo allows unlimited free photo storage for EMAILing the slideshow link to friends.


I know many people who don't know squat about color balance or photoshop adjustments who get great digital shots, but their expectations are also very low and they don't seem to mind missing the action shots either.

I had film cameras for years and feel I got a lot of great shots and didn't have problems. However; if I went back and reviewed them again, I'd probably think differently. Digital is such a great learning tool, I never knew what to look for before.:)

[Rhys]

Rhys shots are great and comparable to film as he has a digital SLR camera. The CCD sensor is very big, and near the size of film.

P&S cameras that you want to buy, has MUCH smaller sensors. The small sensor size is what causes the poor dynamic range, poor colors, and lack of detail. It is acceptable to most, however. There are many excellent P&S camera where you can still get your pictures to look nice under the right conditions. Post processing helps tremendously also as gracie pointed out, but will take a lot of hassle. But on the bright side, you have the option to conveniently be able to digitally post process the picture with a digital camera.

Oddly enough, all of the shots of Riga, Klaipeda, Hambrg etc were taken with a Nikon 3100 compact.

[gracie328]

Eastbluffs... your feelings reiterate mine entirely. Your expectations/current level of photography will determine what you get with digital most of the time. I only became interested in photography a little less than two years ago. My first camera was a Maxxum 5 film SLR. I wanted to learn to 'control' how my pictures turned out. I did learn a lot, but I didn't make as much progress as I had hoped with the film camera. Unfortunately (I might should say 'fortunately' instead), I accidentally broke the camera back at the beginning of this year. We then decided to go digital and moved to the Maxxum 7D which I purchased in March of this year. I have learned a bunch of techniques and operations on the camera as well as in PhotoShop sense then. I've still got a lot to learn, but I've sure come a long way since going digital.
Adam... I'm going to send you a PM right now.

What's so funny is that I recall my first pics with the Maxxum 5... I thought they were truly amazing... BUT as I've learned more, I've raised my standards along the way too... and when I look back at those old pictures... I sort of giggle. The same is true of the first pics I took with my 7D... I thought they were amazing... but then I learned they were nothing compared to what I could do by adding a little software editing. It's interesting how our standards of 'what is good' changes as we learn and grow with our photography.

[tim11]

I realise the benefit of enhancement software and these days you can do things that only a pro. with well packed darkroom could with films. Of course, I also use software for photo enhancement though to a lesser level.
The best thing I manipulated was a rare photo with my elderly mother - almost perfect shot, but SHE BLINKED! Photoshop went into action. I copied a portion of her eyes from another photo and pasted on the flaw one, re-aligned. 5 minutes later, touch-ups here and there no one is the wiser. The only limitation to Photoshop is one's imagination.
Had it been from a film it would have been a wasted shot.
Cheers.

[swgod98]

I copied a portion of her eyes from another photo and pasted on the flaw one, re-aligned. 5 minutes later, touch-ups here and there no one is the wiser.

When I try that, people always ask what the hell a third eye is doing on their forehead!! :eek:

[tim11]

What 3rd eye? It was perfectly placed.

[Rhys]

What 3rd eye? It was perfectly placed.

I get raised eyebrows because when I take photos of politicians, try as I might with Photoshop, I can't quite manage to conceal the horns.

[gracie328]

Of course, I also use software for photo enhancement though to a lesser level.

Replacing closed eyes with open ones doesn't exactly sound like a 'lesser level' to me. Sounds fairly intense! I normally just crop, adjust levels, sharpen (using USMs and the High Pass Filter), and reduce noise by one method or another if needed. I suppose the biggest thing I've done was cloning out a softball that was on the very edge of a picture and moving it a little further inward. Still nothing compared to replacing eyes!:D

[tim11]

Replacing closed eyes with open ones doesn't exactly sound like a 'lesser level' to me. Sounds fairly intense! ........
If you want to put it that way. But to me that seems more natural. I have seen your post in Photo Forums - they are awesome both in term of composition and colour tweaking.
I find it too tedious to tweak colour. Maybe I'm selectively colour blind - people have to really convince me that certain photo is too vivid, hue is not correct; etc. To top all complications, I can't even tell if I will really get the colour I try to manipulate since my monitor is not calibrated! So I am just happy with Brightness/Contrast, Levels, curves.
Hopefully, I will have more time in the future to mess with USMs and the High Pass Filter, and reduce noise. For now, I will just stick to the natural stuff like replacing close eyes. :)

RHYS, you need more than Photoshop when politicians are involved since the HISTORY tab won't be working.

[gracie328]

This color thing is still very hard for me... and yes, that part is sometimes very tedious. I too have a problem defining what looks 'natural', but I think I'm getting a bit closer than I use to. Occasionally, Auto Levels looks better than I can come up with so I use it. My monitor isn't calibrated accurately either, but I think it's really close. I don't have a calibration tool yet, so I used a couple of free online 'visual' methods... which I don't think are very reliable... especially considering my second statement above.:)