Actually, I was saying digital pictures are great...
Faster workflow (Don't need to develop film)
Cheaper in the long run
I'm a professional and my clients prefer their photos to be in digital format
More control on how you want your images (because of photoshop and digital editing)
Actually, it is all of the above. But point 4 seems to have a slight edge. As for batteries, yes, digital cam consume more, but it really depends on the camera. Different cameras in the same class (ie MP & zoom) varies widely in power consumption.
Option 4 for me, personally. I can get almost any equivalent I want from my digital process!
Then again, its also cheaper and faster workflow for me....
Because I don't know anything about film and I'm too lazy to wait for prints? digital allows me to view immediately on my PC after shooting, fast turn over time
Originally Posted by espn
Haha.. impatient...... me too actually......
Yea!Originally Posted by espn
1) Fast workflow
2) More flexible
3) Easier and more control (especially for computer nerd)
main advantage is the ability to review the image immediately.
if LCDs are removed from digital cameras, many people won't get one.
Well, I think I now spend lots more time after the shot to do post processing, so I can't say I have a faster workflow. With film, I just send to my lab for adjustment and printing. I guess it's more to do with better control then.
digital because i use use computer to PNP.
Cleanse your thoughts, not by the foods you eat.
with file the PPing is done by the labOriginally Posted by blive
if you just send your digital shots to the lab they also will PP for you
of course for the fast workflow and cheap longrun lah! but there are other issues that keep people ffrom getting Digital bodies. other than cost lah.
If cost is not an issue, then everyone will be having 1dsmkii, and then all dreams come true.
the last poll option quite redundant. film users also digitize at times. and then all is the same what.
Quite amusing that these threads that've been dead for more than 2 years are suddenly surfacing. Is this a sign of things to come?
Anyway, that aside, yes, digital is great for me because of the faster workflow. Also, considering that I snap very often and get a lot of junk shots, digital is more efficient. It'd be a pity to throw away so many negatives everytime.
oh yes, no doubt, but the advancement in digital technology makes it worth talking about again... u hav a point there, storage. i still hav alot of phots wasting space in storeroom and they become yellow and all, however, it wont be the 1st few pts ppl consider immediatelyOriginally Posted by fWord
for me i like the feeling of unlimited.
with my 2GB cf and 2 1800mah lion batt
i have rarely come to a situation of not enuff power or memory.
and being able to press the shutter without thinking bout any after cost is very appealing
- the beauty of DigitalOriginally Posted by shocky
So that I won't hack down more trees by developing my photos on paper...especially with my newbie shots.
Exactly. For me, the argument between digital and film is not about quality. It's about convenience. However, even my Dad would think I'm pampered with all the technology today, when in the past he had to work in the darkroom for his every shot. I even asked to see his old cameras and lenses, but they are all in another country at the moment, sitting in the garage. There's this thing about old cameras that still intrigues me.Originally Posted by doug3fflux
in-freaking-trigues me too. I love the nostalgia and essence of my tlrs and rangefinders.
trust me, it aint the paper and trees, its the c41 and E6.Originally Posted by JediForce4ever