The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

I am not the greatest photographer, but when I shot with film it seemed (at least to me) that most of the pictures came out pretty good. I'd bring the roll into (say) Walgreens for developing and what I got back looked good.

Now I'm into digital, and it seems like most of the shots (regardelss of how great the histogram looks) need some work.

Is it just the way my older eyes look at things, or is there a technical difference? Look forward to feedback.

Szalajj Loc: Salem, NH

My first question would be what equipment are you comparing? Camera, lens, and film brand , vs. your new digital equipment.

Did you move to a comparable set of equipment?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The photographic principle is the same, the techniques can be quite different. Each has it pluses and its minuses. The requirements of both are pretty equal, light, exposure, etc.
--Bob

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

In the film days, shot with Nikon FE with Kodax film, now with Nikon D200 & D300s. Tokina zoom on the FE and 18-200 zoom Nikon on digital.

I've spoken with others that seem to have the same take. All else being equal, is there enough of a techical difference to generate the outcome I referred too?

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

**************************************************************************************************
Perhaps someone at (Walgreens) was doing all of the manipulation for you.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Difference between film and digital? Film is that long plastic like stuff that comes in little rolls. Digital is fancy computer driven camera stuff that can drive you into bankruptcy. Seriously-I think that a film shooter takes much longer and much more care over every shutter press. Due to the cost of each image. Also film tends to be more manual exposure than digital. As an example I was at a dog park and went through about 150 images in about an hour. Were it film maybe i would have used 1 roll of 36 exposures. PS. out of those 150 images only 2 were worth printing.

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

I wish I could say that with Film I was that much more careful with each shot, but I just followed what the automated exposure dealt me.

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

When you took your film to be processed they didn't just develop and print as is. The equipment used to do the printing was run by a skilled operator that looked at the negatives and added density, color corrections, etc before printing. It wasn't nearly as thorough as the PP we do now on computers but it was pretty good in skilled hands.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

The ONLY real difference between similar film to digital cameras (meaning for instance a Nikon F2 Photomic and a Nikon D610 or similar full frame camera) is that the digital camera (whether full frame or cropped) can cover (easily) a large spectrum of ISO (film) sensitivities. In the film days, you had to make a choice when you purchased film whether you wanted black and white or color, ISO (ASA) 100, 200, 400 etc. Whether you wanted to push the film (in other words take an ASA 100 film and shoot it at ASA 600 or so by exposure and developing techniques which would cause you to have more grain and other issues in the completed processing). We even had similar controversies in film size, 8mm Minox, 35mm, 110, Instamatics, Rolliflex Twin Lens Reflex, Hasselblad, Speed Graphic, 8x10 cameras and my dad even use a 28 by 30 lithographic camera with a large horizontal bed that had a stage that moved back and forth to hold the items to be photographed to make litho plates. All of the film (in essence) used the same formulae for processing (developer, stop bath, and fixer ((color had a few extra steps because of the process but the process was similar and all had to be done in total darkness or at least until the film was in a light proof developing tank)). Now, we have digital, where the camera doesn't really care whether the image is going to finally be color or black and white, it all starts as color and the photographer makes the "graphic" decisions about color or B&W or even by altering colors on his/her computer. We can then either send the image to a color (inkjet or laser) printer for paper copies of the image or post the digital representation on computers, save them to CDs, emails or the web. (in the days of film, converting images to be emailed, put on the web (yes the www and before that was ARPNET) was extremely difficult. Also, we have to thank the increase in computing power and the decrease in the price of computers for the progress in photography. Remember that as late as 1970's, microcomputers were in their infancy. We had 8 bit computers (The Commodore Pet, the Vic 20, the Commodore 64, Apple II, Atari 400, Atari 800, Compaq, etc. and we had a variety of operating systems (Dos, Apple Dos, CPM) the graphics (with the exception of the Atari computers) was very basic and not really conducive to high resolution photos. Also, back then, storage was extremely expensive. Many home computers used an audio tape recorder for storage or as the price came down a 128k 5 1/4 inch floppy disk. The original Apple and Atari computers started with a whopping 8 or 16k of memory and a Corvus 10mb hard drive retailed for about $10,000.00. So, digital cameras (which are, in essence, small computers) were non-existent and it was very expensive to store one digital image (assuming you could convert it from analog anyway. Remember, even sending FAX was basically a word only sending devise and very expensive. So, since the price of digital has come down, the price of film (if you can find the film and processing chemicals((not to mention that many of the chemicals used in processing film would now be considered hazardous and covered by OSHA) has gone up. Is film better than digital? That would depend on the digital camera and the film camera. A Nikon, Canon or similar digital DSLR would compare favorably. I wouldn't compare a DSLR image to the image from a Minox or an Instamatic, but I would compare a current point and shoot or a cell phone camera to them and say that the digital images are much better than the old film versions. Also, we have the Hasselblad Digital and other large format digital cameras that produce much better (and larger) digital images than the DSLR's or cell phones. Choose your poison.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Are you shooting RAW with your digital camera? RAW images always need post-processing. If you want more of a film-like experience, then shoot JPEG. You will miss out on the fun of post-processing, but that was the case with film when you let Walgreens do the post-processing for you.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Just because you took a properly exposed image in your camera, doesn't mean that it won't benefit from post-processing. Think of post-processing as your film darkroom. Would you mind posting an example here for us to take a look at from your digital camera.

Heck, even after I scan my 120 film, I take it into LR to adjust it.

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

I shoot JPEG, and PP when needed.

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

My first question would be: Where are you looking at your digital photos? Back of your camera? That's great for a quick look to see if your settings are (close) to right, if your white balance needs adjusting, etc.
Your computer screen? I like my 17" laptop and will use it for photo editing. But for serious work, I will use the 21" monitor in the computer room. Not only does that 4" make a huge difference, that monitor is calibrated, the walls in the room light gray, and I use an Ott-Light (true daylight) placed so that it does not shine directly in my eyes or on the computer monitor.
And yes, I suppose your eyes may be a factor: do you have cataracts? They will give everything you look at a tan-coloured tinge. Do you wear glasses and are they up-to-date for the correct distance to your monitor? That can make a big difference in how sharp you see things.
(The above not just what I've read here and there, but from my own experience).

BebuLamar

Because all the work that you do with digital is done by the photofinisher.

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

Szalajj : Thank you for your detailed and comprehensive response. Some of it is over my head, but I think I get it.