Re: paleonet Digital photography again

Tom Whiteley makes a number of valid points. Still I'd say the 
balance has for a while weighed over in favour of digital cameras 
(and even Tom admits he's mostly digital these days):

The digital cameras we've been talking about are not just 
point-and-shoot, unless you choose them to be so. The Minolta Dimâge 
I can set in any mode from fully automatic to fully manual - my old 
Nikon SLR 35-mm has considerably less options.

No camera is better than its lens. Having interchangeable lenses 
certainly increases the options. Yet the Minolta lens is by itself 
excellent, and its zoom range (equivalent to 28-200 mm on a 35 mm 
camera) covers all my needs except extreme macrophoto and microphoto. 
(And for that, I agree, manual focus would be necessary.) If you need 
the latter, go instead for a camera that can be fitted with a more 
extreme macro lens and/or a microscope connection (such as the Nikon 
Coolpix).

Yes, film currently can give you better resolution and better tonal 
range than most affordable digital cameras. But for the uses we are 
talking about here, pictures for printed or online publications, this 
hardly matters. The eye doesn't notice the difference. For posters or 
slides it's even less of a problem (you never view a poster or a 
slide at nose-length distance). Consider then instead the advantages 
of digital photography:

* You see the results instantly, which in fact lets you control depth 
of field, lighting and composition, etc. better than with film, which 
forces you to wait hours or days to see the result. If you're in the 
field, as Tim said, you want to know whether you have a picture 
before you're back home again. (And at least the Minolta let's me 
view the image on the LCD screen at x4 magnification, enough to see 
whether the focus is good or not.)

* The digital darkroom gives you further control over the final image.

* You get the pictures when you usually need them, i.e. instantly.

* You don't have to worry about costs of film or development, but you 
shoot away at your heart's delight, saving what's good and chucking 
out the rest.

* If you need only one picture, take it, and don't feel forced to 
take another 35 just to fill up a film.

* No filters or change of film needed to adjust for changes in colour 
temperature - just set the white balance.

* No nasty chemicals.

Yes, digital cameras are rather more expensive than conventional 
cameras. But count in the costs of films and processing, and the 
balance will quickly shift in favour of digital.

As for JPEG compression, I echo Tom: Don't use it unless you have to 
(and don't save the same picture repeatedly using JPEG, as each save 
will deteriorate the quality). But again,the eye usually doesn't 
notice the difference (at least with gentle JPEG compression), and 
when you're in the field it may be an advantage to be able to fit 8 
times more images on one storage unit.

Stefan


-- 
Stefan Bengtson
Senior Curator (invertebrate fossils)
Swedish Museum of Natural History
Department of Palaeozoology
Box 50007
SE-104 05 Stockholm
Sweden

tel. +46-8 5195 4220
      +46-8 732 5218 (home)
fax  +46-8 5195 4184
e-mail Stefan.Bengtson@nrm.se