holy .... shi... $26,995 Hasselblad H3D-22

kanaloa wrote:

This is where I'm confused. How can this be possible? For example I took a lot of pics on my 35mm of Alaska. Are you telling me I have 7MP images? How exactly can I "get" them from the photos I have? Scan them?

No, your 35 mm photos will only be at 7 mega pixels if you scan them into your computer at the rate.

7 mega pixels is the equivalent (in how much it can be blown up) in comparison to 35 mm film.

I am going to have to look into this more though, it would be a very cool area to start getting into!

c0ldfyr3 wrote:

holy .... shi... $26,995 Hasselblad H3D-22

LOL, and that's the 'cheap' one.

but if its a business i am sure it doesn't sound like that much money

and i am sure that camera is geared towards business (photography based)

kanaloa wrote:

gries818 wrote: rippinchikkin wrote: Well I guess you guys are going to leave it up to the old photographer to wave the film banner... IMO film has a feel and clarity that cannot be beat (still at this point) by digital, there is just something about a continuous tone photo, a richness, a quality that digital just does not have. In my opinion I doubt that digital will ever reach that level. Not to say that digital isn’t worth it, I doubt very seriously that I would by another film camera (but I have a closet full, so I have no need) But if I was getting into fine art or photography as a living, well film still has its place. FWIW Some say that 7 megapixels closely matches 35 mm film, but I don't own a 7 megapixel camera so its hard to compare This is where I'm confused. How can this be possible? For example I took a lot of pics on my 35mm of Alaska. Are you telling me I have 7MP images? How exactly can I "get" them from the photos I have? Scan them?

Nikon cool scan thingy, but there are lots of factors, the lenses used at the time of the photos, the grain of the film and the quality of the film... quality of the lab that processed the film...
And still there are even more factors... 35mm film is good there are just so many variables, that its really hard to quantify all this and say "BLANK" will make the best photos (see what I mean, its just not that easy)...... Just because you took 35mm pics, doesn’t mean your going to get 7 mega pixel qualities... (And the other way around too, a 7 mega pixel camera doesn’t ensure great quality shots)
Its hard to compare one to the other... they both have great quality... and I’m sure you can find some disciples of digital out there who will fight me tooth and nail on the 'which is better' question..

We did side by side test (now keep in mind this has been 10 years) but pitting a proof made from a 4x5 trans vs a proof made from a 4x5 digital shot...well the film has a smoothness to it that digital just doesn’t get.

kanaloa wrote:

gries818 wrote: rippinchikkin wrote: Well I guess you guys are going to leave it up to the old photographer to wave the film banner... IMO film has a feel and clarity that cannot be beat (still at this point) by digital, there is just something about a continuous tone photo, a richness, a quality that digital just does not have. In my opinion I doubt that digital will ever reach that level. Not to say that digital isn’t worth it, I doubt very seriously that I would by another film camera (but I have a closet full, so I have no need) But if I was getting into fine art or photography as a living, well film still has its place. FWIW Some say that 7 megapixels closely matches 35 mm film, but I don't own a 7 megapixel camera so its hard to compare This is where I'm confused. How can this be possible? For example I took a lot of pics on my 35mm of Alaska. Are you telling me I have 7MP images? How exactly can I "get" them from the photos I have? Scan them?

Yes, scan the photos if you want to. On my run-of-the-mill Scanjet 3670 set at 1200DPI optical(max), a 3x5 took some 60MB and 1.5 minutes to scan and at 9600 it takes over 4GB per. I don't know if one of these res. is your cup of tea. but try it if you have a photo printer. I plan to put my family's photos, mix between prints, colour slides and negatives on a CD or DVD, basically the main reason I bought it.

LOL, all that scanning would take weeks. I stand by Digital being the best and easiest. We have had no problems with our digital photography and we've sold our prints worldwide and published them in 2 (soon to be 3) books. When I return to Alaska to photograph it again, I'll have a digital this time around.

rippinchikkin wrote:

Well I guess you guys are going to leave it up to the old photographer to wave the film banner... IMO film has a feel and clarity that cannot be beat (still at this point) by digital, there is just something about a continuous tone photo, a richness, a quality that digital just does not have. In my opinion I doubt that digital will ever reach that level. Not to say that digital isn’t worth it, I doubt very seriously that I would by another film camera (but I have a closet full, so I have no need) But if I was getting into fine art or photography as a living, well film still has its place. FWIW

Don't worry, Dave, I'm with you on this one. Just check my old thread, here.

IMHO, standard 'film' beats digital hands down for the quality of the final image produced. They just have a better, overall, 'feel' than their digital equivalent.

Don't get me wrong, I like digital for the simplicity and speed in which you can get your images but printing stuff at home on glossy 'photo' paper will never compete with getting your images developed at a quality studio. This goes for both normal film and digital alike.

My wife has a simple, point-and-click digital for taking snapshots when we're on holiday, all the 'quality' (I say quality but I'm not all that good with it yet) shots are taken using my old Canon AE-1 SLR.

It's nearly thirty years old and still producing outstanding photographs.

I would definitely go digital for many reasons. Ease of use, instant gratification, cheaper to maintain (no film to buy, or develop) can easily be altered by photo manipulating software...etc. I made the switch about two years ago, and am now on my third camera, a Kodak easyshare P880 8 mega pixel. I also just purchased a digital photo frame for my wife, who is a photo nut. With this I can just take out the SD card and out it in the frame instantly showing off the weekend party photos without developing any film, very convenient.

At WakMart they have a digital photocenter so you can have a professional quality of your digital photos. You can do taht instead of printing on glossy Photo paper.