Digital Questions
By Mark Mayhew
This month I was going to discuss in more detail digital photography, but I have received so many questions about the technical side that I though it might be just as instructive if I simply answered your questions.
I have just last year purchased a new Nikon, but I am quite keen to get into digital. Should I trade in for a new digital camera which I am reluctant to do, as they don't seem as sophisticated at the same price range.
Gary Marx Leicestershire
Well Mark simply put, don't. There is no reason at all why you cannot carry on just as you are now and invest in a scanner. Most of the other kit and requirements you'll need you'll find as you read this page. Digital cameras are not nearly as sophisticated with the same amount of control as Slr's at the same price.
I have been told if I want to use my computer as a dark room it is only worth thinking about if I have a MAC.
Terry Walsh Surrey
Five years ago I would have agreed with you. It was certainly the case then that Apple Mac were the only industry standard for serious image manipulation. Mac's were faster with a far better OS, had the memory and hard drive size needed and certainly the software. This isn't the case any more. IBM based PC's are now more than capable of doing the job and most importantly any software you need is available. Of course the main software we are talking about is Adobe PhotoShop. So although my heart says from my own history it must be Mac, the truth is Windows is now more than capable. The deciding factor must be price and what you can afford.
I have a flat bed scanner which copes wonderfully with prints, but it has a negative copying unit, but the quality is not nearly as good. Why is this.
Karen Steen Worcestershire
Simply Karen it is down to Dpi. (dots per inch) 35mm film/tranny is normally scanned in a specific film scanner and will produce optical scans up to 2000dpi. The reason for this requires a little bit of maths. Let's say for arguments sake you want to scan a print that is 6x4in and you want to print it at 9x6in at 200dpi. So you are increasing the magnification of the print x 1.5 so the scanning resolution needs to be:
Final resolution x magnification = scanning resolution.
200dpi x 1.5= 300dpi
Now if you wanted to create the same size print from a 35mm negative 200dpi x 6 = 1200dpi. Now remember here that I am talking about optical dpi. Many manufactures now use software (interpolation) to increase the scanning dpi, but obviously the quality is not as good as optical quality. That's why film scanners cost that much more.
All the digital cameras I have been looking at have zoom built in, but they use sizes I am not used to. Is there a simple way of converting so I know the equivalents of 35mm zooms?
Mark Heywood London
Yes Mark simply multiply by 7. It's a rough guide, but good enough. If they say the lens is 4.9 to 15 the by multiplying by 7 you have 35 to 105 which you are used to.
Since becoming very involved in digital photography I find my hard drive is now almost full. I thought 6Gb would be more than enough, but as the images I am now saving seem to be of much higher quality I find space rapidly diminishing. What's your answer?
Pete Wells Mid Wales
My personal choice has for sometime now been a CD writer. There are of course many different systems, but CD certainly is the only one for me. Each CD holds up to 650meg and all the writers seem to come with excellent software. The huge advantage of CD is you can exchange images with anyone with an ordinary CD in their computer.
Well that's it for this month, I hope you have found it all informative and helpful. I'll be back next month with a more in depth look at the hardware involved.