Just one more reason to go digital

[FJ and G]

Well, the tally is in. After just 2 months of going digital, I more than paid for the camera with cost of film and developing. Actually hit the break even mark at just one month; taking average of 40 pictures a day.

And I didn't have to wait in line for someone to fumble thru all the bags to look for my film (or for that matter to censure it). Heck I can take pictures of anything I want.

Tom and others who encouraged me to go digital; I thank you!

[spankybird]

Dave, your welcome.

I have taken about 1,500 pics since I got my new camera at Christmas.

tom

[jkerklo]

Now, keep in mind that this is coming from a diehard photographer, with a darkroom, and everything.

What I like best about my digital is that I can make sure I got the picture I wanted. Especially good when taking close-ups, etc. And, I can bracket the heck out of a shot and then choose the exposure and focus that looks best.

I bought a Pentax Isd digital body so I could still use all the lenses, extension tubes, bellows, etc that I have for my Pentax 35mm bodies, and it has paid off.

I think the digital camera makes taking pictures of light bulbs, circuit boards, and whatnot practical.

John Kerklo
TCA 94-38455
www.Three-Rail.com

[Big_Boy_4005]

Dave, the one minor down side to digital is you have to make a special effort to get prints. I have a thousand images trapped on my computer, but most of them aren't worth the paper to print them on. If I wasn't so lazy, I would organize them onto CD's. I did go out and buy a photo printer, but I don't use it much. Between paper and ink, prints aren't cheap, so only special images get printed.

The thing I like best is, I can go down to the train room, take some pictures, and have them posted here in under 10 minutes.

[FJ and G]

Hi Elliot,

Actually, I consider that an advantage. Instead of 20 prints that are so-so, you pick out the ones you want. If you don't have the paper or printer or it's so-so, just load up the diggies on a CD and take them to the photo store. They print out on paper same as normal pictures.

Of course you aren't going to be able to blow them up to poster size unless you spend $5 grand or more for a 24 Megapixel dige camera; but you can get prints that look exactly like regular camera prints if you follow some guidelines.

The guideline I use is 300 dpi (dots per sq in) or 300 ppi (pixels per sq in) same-same.

I import my photos into photoshop.

My 4.1 Megapixel camera, set at the highest resolution (and it's very important you set it at the highest res), will take 5X7 prints at 300 dpi (actually a bit larger).

If you have a 4.1 mp, you will also get photo quality prints at 5X7 or smaller.

If you have a higher MP camera, you will get bigger prints. I believe that a 5.0 mp is about 8x10.

Pretty acceptable to me.

If I need a poster (which I usually don't), then I'll dust off my trusty $2K film camera equipment and do it the old fashioned way.

BTW, 4.0 mp is about the minimum you'd want to use to submit photos to CTT and OGR, set at highest resolution, of course--and they are fussy about depth of field so ensure all is in focus. Proper lighting and wider angle will assist in that task, as well as the angle your picture is taken and distance to subject.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Dave, mine is only a 3.1MP, but the printer makes an 8x10 look pretty darn good. I don't mind the lack of prints either, but some people might. For the shots I post here I run them through an editor to correct the brightness, and reduce them for even more compact storage in my host file space. I keep the resolution at a rather low 72dpi, but for monitor viewing, they look just fine. I figure I should be able to cram over 700 shots into 25 meg of storage.

[spankybird]

Dave – I can say that I have printed pic from my 3.3 mg camera at 8 x 10 and every one that has look at it can’t believe it was digital, even some of the guys I work with that are diehard 35mm fans.

When I upload my pic to shutterfly, they say I can order up to 20 x 30 posters. I have order 8 x 10 from them and again you can’t tell by the eye that these were done by digital.

Someday I will have to try the poster.

Also you can up load your pic to Wal-Mart and by the time you get there, they are done on photo paper, at about $0.20 each for 4 x 6. It doesn’t pay to try to print them at home.

tom

[FJ and G]

Tom,

20 cents is a very reasonable price. Heck, when I used to shoot a roll of film, I might be extremely satisfied with one or two photos, being rather hard on myself. W/dig, I can shoot all day to my heart's content and see the results immediately.

Reg. the 300 dpi, that's a conservative measure; one that editors/layout guys use in the magazine trade. Anything less, starts to get pixely or grainy. Perhaps not noticeable, depending on the printing process and paper used; but that's the guideline I use. Not hard and fast rule by any means.

Anyway, Tom, your point about enlarging just adds to one more reason to go digital.

Most of my photos from 50s and 60s are in Black and white. I recall when color film was a luxury and we had the cheapy camera with one speed and no aperature. Heck, times have really changed for the better and prices on diggies have really dropped the last few years.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for a great quality laser printer and photo paper. Some things advance more quickly than others.