Comments on: How does digital photography differ from traditional photography?

By: RC

RC — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:49:12 +0000

An artist there are also larger the color coding gets better the print the larger the viewfinder could be captured on film or as opposed to think that is still make lot of who is still make good lens reflex slr shooting.

By: maddog malone

maddog malone — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:09:39 +0000

f-stops en sluitertijden zijn allemaal hetzelfde. Pas nu wat je moet weten hoe je een computer en software voor het bewerken van uw foto's.

By: screwdriver

screwdriver — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:17:02 +0000

When taking the shot nothing is different from what you learned, only the recording medium is changed from film to a digital sensor. Which offers a lot of advantages, instantly see the results, no film / developing costs and editing is easier as you can see any changes you apply instantly.

Chris

By: fhotoace

fhotoace — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 04:49:41 +0000

You can use all the skills you learned in school … but no darkroom work.

The other half of digital photography is all about computer skills and learning how to use digital darkroom programs like Photoshop.

On the money side, digital photography is far more expensive than film photography …

You can buy a good professional 35mm SLR and it will last for decades … all the film you shoot for clients is purchased by them and they pay for all the processing.

Digital cameras have to be replaced every three or four years (at between $5000 to $8000 each) and while the lenses for the 35mm cameras will work just fine on the DSLR, you are stuck with buying two computers every three to four years too (one for the office and a notebook for location shoots)

So you can see that for a photographer, the overhead using digital cameras has gone up, while the perception is that it costs less to produce digital images … The cost of school is still about the same, ($75,000 to $100,000 a year for two years).