Digital like analog???

I hate the pictures taken with digital cameras, at least all i've had on hands, and i really like the ones i used to take with my old analog cameras.Is there any digital camera able to take pics like an a analog one???:confused:

The difference to me is like:

Analog = Film
Digital = VHS

What digital cameras have you used?
Look through the galleries a bit without looking at the equipment used and see if you can tell which ones were taken with film and which with a digital camera.

Welcome to PR Joe :) One quick question, if you love the shots taken with your old cameras so much, why the need to get a new digital? If it's because the old one(s) are broken, they can more than likely be replaced for a fraction of the cost of a new digital these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaJoe

I hate the pictures taken with digital cameras, at least all i've had on hands, and i really like the ones i used to take with my old analog cameras.Is there any digital camera able to take pics like an a analog one???:confused:

The difference to me is like:

Analog = Film
Digital = VHS

---

Well, digital surpasses the IQ of 35mm film and has done so for years. I think thet the problem you are seeing is in the control. With film, the tech makes all the adjustments and you get his results as your product. With digital, all the control is in your hands. If you don't choose your options correctly, you can get junk.

Also, what digital cameras are you using? A cheap digital won't give the the same results as a much more expensive one. Do you post process? What settings have you chosen? What ISO are you using? Is your monitor calibrated? Prints (which I am assuming) and online viewing are two very separate things.

More info please!

I have a Olympus D425 it does not have much to set up, i have had on hands Samsumgs, Sonys, Canons maybe others, but none of them were in a level much higher than my Olympus.(My old analogue cameras are inexpensive ones)

My problem is with taking pics of people, the people look bad, i myself just look good if i am over direct strong sun otherwise it looks crap.My friends agree about pics taken of themselves with digital cameras.
It's like the analogues capture people the way you see them with your own eyes, and those digital no.I guess it has something to do with the way it captures the light but not only it.

@Xia: digital are just a lot mor epratical

Sounds like a white balance issue to me. The auto white balance on digital cameras is easily fooled. If you can, set the white balance manually to match your lighting conditions, or fix it in the computer after the fact. If you can, post some sample images and tell us why you don't think they are as good as your film images. I'm guessing that it's something that is easily fixed in post processing, and something that could be fixed at the time of capture so you don't have to worry about the post processing.

The closest thing to a fully analog camera from a digital you'll get is a Leica M8; however, in my tests the image quality didn't justify the price tag (for that much money I'd rather buy another 35mm leica) so I wouldn't bother. Try out some Digital SLR's and I think you'll be happy.

Let's not forget that with "analogue" film you took the film into the store and it got put throgh a machine to make prints and theoretically them was a person running the machine who could correct errors that the machine couldn't detect, like light balance and wrong exposure. The negative film allows a fair amount of correction, particularly for overexposure and high-contrast situations

With digital you can just connect the camera to the computer and print straight out but there's no operator doing the quality control. You have to do it yourself. Plus if you make corrections to a JPG it quite quickly looks artificial. If the image is overexposed then there's not a lot you can do about it.

DSLR's have two advantages over digital point-and-shoots :

1. More sophisticated system overall for focussing, exposure and image treatment. Point-and-shoots are a compromise. DSLRs are the best
2. With a DSLR you can shoot RAW. As well as the treated JPG you get a file with the untreated image. With the right software you can go back on your PC and redo the treatment, correcting mistakes in light balance, exposure, contrast etc. to produce a new JPG which looks right. And you can do it as many times as you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franglais

Let's not forget that with "analogue" film you took the film into the store and it got put throgh a machine to make prints and theoretically them was a person running the machine who could correct errors that the machine couldn't detect, like light balance and wrong exposure. The negative film allows a fair amount of correction, particularly for overexposure and high-contrast situations

With digital you can just connect the camera to the computer and print straight out but there's no operator doing the quality control. You have to do it yourself. Plus if you make corrections to a JPG it quite quickly looks artificial. If the image is overexposed then there's not a lot you can do about it.

DSLR's have two advantages over digital point-and-shoots :

1. More sophisticated system overall for focussing, exposure and image treatment. Point-and-shoots are a compromise. DSLRs are the best
2. With a DSLR you can shoot RAW. As well as the treated JPG you get a file with the untreated image. With the right software you can go back on your PC and redo the treatment, correcting mistakes in light balance, exposure, contrast etc. to produce a new JPG which looks right. And you can do it as many times as you like.

---

Yeah but remember that most pro's shoot (or shot) slide film that doesn't offer anywhere near the same control as negative film. Good post-processing software (i.e. photoshop) can work with jpegs without making them artificial looking. RAW files offer only minor improvements visible in printed enlargements.

You're looking for a people camera?

Fujifilm S5 Pro, which is being sold very cheap these days.


I know, it's the lowly Fujifilm. But somebody has to mention a DSLR that has the largest dynamic range and good out-of-camera skin tone that produces photos that looks like those from film :)

I can think of Fujifilm x-pro 1 or Leica M9. If you like black and white photography, you may consider Leica Monochrome. Be careful, the cameras are going to show the capability and weakness of your lenses ruthlessly.

We still don't really know what's wrong with the pictures from his digital efforts. He just says the analogs look better.

Look better how? Color, exposure, contrast, noise, flash exposure? Many many factors.

That said, I recall being quite disappointed with the results of my first digital SLR, until I realized, as Franglais said, it's up to me to make it what I need it to be, and possibly fix the camera settings to approach what I like to get out of it. My first digital was a Sony point-and-shoot which I was very impressed with. I much preferred it to my D50 until I "learned" what needed doing with the D50.

It didn't help that the D50 was used, and I inherited some locked-in settings that were entirely inappropriate to my shooting, that took me quite a while to find and fix.

The other thing that occurs to me to wonder about is whether we are judging the pictures by how they look on screen, or how they look after printing on an inkjet. (I truly hope we're not talking about color laser printing. A color laser printer is completely inappropriate for photographs.)

Getting printed output to even approach what you see on the camera screen or the PC screen can be incredibly difficult. I've tried repeatedly to build a color calibration for my printer, but I've pretty much learned that the best results come by cranking up the brighness on an image until it's almost unviewably on the screen, and miraculously enough it prints incredibly nicely!

An analogue camera uses film but a digital camera does not.
This area, equivalent to the eye's retina, is replaced by a silicon chip known as a Charged Coupled Device( CCD). Light enters via the lens and falls on to many tiny pixel elements etched on to the chip. Light is turned in to a tiny amount of electrical charge and each cell's content is sequentially moved across the chip like a line of buckets handed from one person to another until it reaches the edge of the chip. This 'Bucket Brigade Device' then stores the [pixel elements in the memory card for printing out.

Good explanation!

Which had NOTHING to do with the question.

I wonder if the OP even cares since this tread is FIVE years old.:D

I believe digital technology has changed the entire life and specially the camera, as a photo lover I always wish to get the picture live after clicked and digital cam just made these things easy and that is the reason I just love to be digitalised...! :cool:

Thanks!

talkingprint