Digital vs. 35 mm...

[moosmom]

Is it just me or do any of you find that 35 mm pictures come out alot nicer than the digital pictures?

When I checked out Nakita's pictures, you can instantly tell what kind of camera it was taken with. For some reason you just don't get the same quality of picture from a digital than you do from a 35 mm.

I miss my Canon Sureshot Zoom!!!!

[Karen]

It depends both on the digital camera in question and the abilities of the photographer. A low-quality digital camera will never take fabulous pictures, but a bad photographer can make any camera - film or digital - take lousy pictures. Kay's pictures are always completely gorgeous, for example, and she uses a digital camera!

I have not used a 35 mm in years - I adore having a digital camera because I am not a patient photographer, so I can take a lot of images without having to pay for a lot of film.

[Maya & Inka's mommy]

A good camera is a prime priority! Since I have that new camera, I can take much sharper pics!

[Russian Blue]

Is it just me or do any of you find that 35 mm pictures come out alot nicer than the digital pictures?

When I checked out Nakita's pictures, you can instantly tell what kind of camera it was taken with. For some reason you just don't get the same quality of picture from a digital than you do from a 35 mm.

Actually, there are some limiting factors at play with the current Nakita photos.

First, this is a brand new camera for me so I have not become comfortable enough with all its features, therefore, a dimished image automatically. So don't base digital comparison off my initial attempts.

Second, all shots that I posted were indoor shots. Digitals are known for their bad photo capabilities in low light situations (unless an external light source is available).

Third, I reduce the quality of the pic before placing it on the internet. I have done that since another person took my pictures and entered them in a photography contest without my permission.


I did read previously, that in order for a digital to compare to a 35 mm, the camera would have to be a minimum of 12 megapixels. Not sure if that is true, but it seems reasonable. Also, when you start hitting the higher pro cameras there is a remarkable difference.

So I wouldn't cast off the digital just yet. Digital photography is in its infancy and will catch up.

[Jessika]

It depends both on the digital camera in question and the abilities of the photographer. A low-quality digital camera will never take fabulous pictures, but a bad photographer can make any camera - film or digital - take lousy pictures. Kay's pictures are always completely gorgeous, for example, and she uses a digital camera!

I have not used a 35 mm in years - I adore having a digital camera because I am not a patient photographer, so I can take a lot of images without having to pay for a lot of film.

Ah, you took the words right out of my mouth! My thoughts, exactly! This also can be applied to the concept that more megapixels don't necessarily mean better shots. An amateur can have a 12MP camera and take lousy shots whereas a professional can have a 3MP camera and take amazing shots. Its all in technique, knowing your camera (whether it be film or digital), and ability!

[smokey the elder]

W :D W! If those pics of yours are "de-tuned" I'd love to see the REAL quality ones! But I can see why you "degrade" them so folks won't steal them. That stinks that people take others' work as their own.

[jennawing]

With any camera, you need good light and know how to work it. My husband has a very expensive digital, but I make crappy pics with it because it is so complicated. My camera is a mid-priced digital- and occassionally I get a very crisp picture from it- when I utilize morning light through the window, etc.