Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

[stuart@shaws2000.fsnet.co.uk]

At 03:49 21/06/01 -0400, you wrote:



i Roger -thanks for taking the time to reply-you've given me something to 
think about . basically my reason for buying a digital camera was to use it 
as well as my other cameras depending on what the intended market was ( yes 
I know I said I was changing my cameras for a digital :-)) )  . Most of my 
work is or will be for websites so my thinking was that digital would be 
quicker-no processing or scanning.   At present I use neg film,get it 
processed then scan using Vuescan and the results are good. I't's just the 
time it takes.  After what you said maybe I'll just stick to what I've 
got-trouble is i dont know if there is any way I can get to use a 
digital  camera-see what the results are like and decide from there -if I 
was buying a car I could take it for a test drive but maybe I could hire a 
camera  for a few days .
regards
Stuart









>So, are you planning on using a digital camera for your glamour 
>photography?
>Ouch!  I can't see how you'd be happy with the results compared to what wet
>processing in a commercial lab can do for you.  Resolution is lousy and you
>can't get the look and feel from it that wet film and paper will give.
>That's very important when shooting people because everyone knows what good
>skin tone looks like and, in my opinion, no digital process (even via
>filmscanning) can match the quality and appeal of wet chemistry slides or
>prints, especially with skin tones.  (Others may disagree with me, but that's
>my story and I'm sticking to it.)  Digital has its place if you need speed
>(news photographers) or want to do compositing in Photoshop, and filmscanning
>is far superior to a digital camera if you can afford the extra step, but
>digital in any form ought to be the choice of last resort, in my opinion.
>
>If, on the other hand, you want to use a digital camera for proofing instead
>of Polaroid film, then you may be on to something.  Polaroid film is awful
>stuff for proofing (sorry Mr. Hemingway), so digital should be able to
>compete with it very well.
>
>So far as using your infrared strobe with the Nikon camera, if the camera has
>a hot shoe or a PC connector (depending on what your IR strobe uses), then
>you should be able to use the IR strobe on the camera with no problem.  Hot
>shoes used to have a single contact right in the center, and the newer hot
>shoes for dedicated strobes simply added some extra contacts around that
>center contract.  So any old non-dedicated strobe should still work since it
>uses only the center contact, but it would operate without some of the
>automatic features of the dedicated strobes.  That assumes that the voltage
>on the contacts of the non-dedicated strobe don't exceed the rating of the
>camera.  And that's an issue since a lot of newer cameras can't handle more
>that 12 volts or so and most older strobes, and most current studio strobes,
>place over 100 volts on the strobe contacts.  So, if you fry some electronics
>because of what I told you, remember that I told you not to use a digital
>camera in the first place!
>
>In a message dated 6/20/2001 10:01:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>stuart@shaws2000.fsnet.co.uk writes:
>
>
>>I am presently considering the purchase of a digital camera . I do some
>>glamour stuff and use studio lghts  utiliising  an infr-red trigger . i had
>>been looking st a Nikon Coolpix 995 brochure and it only mentions the use
>>of a Speedlight ,both built in and separate . What I was wondering is if
>>anyone has one of these  cameras or its predecessor and knows if normal
>>external flash units can be used . I appreciate nikon trying to promote its
>>own products but If only Speedlights can be used then it looks like Nikon
>>are going to lose a sale .
>>regards
>>Stuart
>