Posted 25 November 2009 - 11:51 PM
Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:39 AM
Posted 26 November 2009 - 09:27 AM
Film can also be hoaxed, however the expense involved generally deters most from trying. So film with negatives still maintain some level of credibility, although not 100%
So take it for what it is, no picture without colloborating evidence will ever be 100% convincing no matter what method is used.
Visit my website, "The Paranormal DESTINATION"
Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:03 PM
If your going to be shooting alot of pics, it would only be natural to have a good quality camera.
For myself, I'd go with a digital. Like aptly pointed out above, in the end, it's still only a picture.
So, I'd go with the easier method.
It's nice to have immediate access to the pics you've taken. And honestly, if you get yourself a good quality printer, and some good paper, you can make prints almost identical in quality to a print from a photo lab.
Nothing says you can't use a film camera as well. I carry a disposable 35mm camera quite often. It's a backup to the digital in case of problems, and you have the added benefit that if you can snap a shot with that AND a digital camera, and there's some anomaly in the picture, you've given yourself an additional point of view.
Buy good equipment overall, but spend a little more on what your really going to be using a good part of the time.
If pictures are your big thing, you might benefit from a better camera as well. It's alot easier to learn something that interests us than it is to learn something that doesn't.
With a better camera, you may just become a better photographer.
Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:24 PM
you won't go bankrupt with the expenses....i pay about 2 dollars to process a roll of film, then scan the pictures with a film scanner....
if you're feeling up to it you can buy the chemicals and process yourself.....i used to do it but got bored with it after a while.....
35mm camera parts are usually cheaper too....check out garage sales/pawn shops...
plus i find 35mm looks way better than digital....so even if your picture doesn't have any ghosts in it, you can still end up with some great shots....
Posted 27 November 2009 - 02:10 PM
My wife is all about old school when it comes to camera's and taking pictures. She still has and uses an old Minolta from the late 70's to take pictures. The big clunky flash unit and all.
She says that it's more interactive than a digital camera.
We got our first digital camera a few years ago, and she fell in love with it. But to her, the digital camera is for taking pictures, the 35mm is for photography.
Thing is, in my research, I like all my equipment to be as easy to operate as a can opener. There's just too many bells and whistles and googaas on a film camera.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users