This sounds stupid but if I took a photo with a manual and then took the same photo with an automatic, can you tell any difference? Can you tell I used an automatic? You can’t right?
Can you tell the difference between the quality of film from a 35 mm manual/automatic?
This entry was posted on 14/10/2009 (Wednesday) at 11:06 pm and is filed under Arezeez. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
|
|
|
Printed from: http://arezeez.com/2009/10/14/can-you-tell-the-difference-between-the-quality-of-film-from-a-35-mm-manualautomatic/ .
© 2010.
© 2010.
That really depends. In average lighting situations, the two might be identical. But in tricky lighting, you need to use manual, or it just won’t come out right. So if you were taking a picture of, say, something white on white, the automatic camera would expose it too dark, and make it gray. Then it would be very easy to tell which was taken on automatic and which was manual.
If you are talking about two 35mm SLRs, one manual and one automatic, then no. There would be no difference if you used the same settings and lens. No one would be able to tell what model or even what kind of camera you used.
There are often questions here about which 35mm SLR would be best for a photography class and the truth is that quality wise it really doesn’t matter because the quality is based on the film not the camera.
There are a few reasons that you might choose one over the other.
1) If you have a DSLR you can get an automatic 35mm SLR with the same lens mount. This means that the nice full frame lenses you already have can be used on the 35mm SLR and the lens(es) that came with it can be used on your DSLR as well.
2) A manual SLR is very inexpensive. I bought mine for about $35. I bought another with several lenses for about the same. Both from ebay. And a manual SLR will last for a very very long time as it is mostly mechanical. The automatic 35mm SLRs cost around $75-150 and because they are electronic are more prone to failure.
3) Autofocus. I manual focus a lot, but when shooting something that moves quickly autofocus really makes it easier to get the shot. I can’t get shots of my daughter with my manual camera if she is moving a lot and she usually is. For shooting her I use my automatic SLR.
the only thing will be is the quality some times one will turn out better than the other but other than that NOPE xx
Are you talking about two cameras that both use 35mm film?
Then no, you might not be able to tell the difference as far as quality goes…as long as both cameras have good quality lenses and the light meter is working properly on the camera with auto exposure. The lens can make a big difference. But otherwise, if the pictures from both film cameras are properly exposed, then usually you won’t be able to tell the difference.
But there are certain techniques that you just can’t use with auto exposure. For example, things like "Selective Focus." You’ve probably seen pictures like that, where the foreground is in focus, but the background looks soft and blurry. That’s a technique to draw more attention to a subject in the foreground and make the background less distracting. It also gives kind of a three-dimensional feel to pictures.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverscape/3488493756/in/set-72157617507175870/
To take pictures like that, you use a shallow depth of field by using a wide aperture setting. So you need a camera with manual exposure control, where you set the aperture and shutter speed manually. You can’t do it with auto exposure or with a simple point and shoot camera.
There are other techniques that you need manual exposure for, like "light writing." You have to use a long exposure for that.
I can usually tell whether someone is using a simple point and shoot camera with auto exposure, or if they are using manual exposure just by looking at what kind of pictures they’re taking.
I believe you mean picture quality (not film quality).
Like everyone else here has said, it depends (are you talking about an SLR vs.a point and shoot camera (P&S), or a manual SLR vs. an automatic SLR??).
You can have a low quality lens on an SLR, or a high quality lens on a point and shoot (like a contax or the Yashica T4 or something), in which case the P&S might win.
It also depends on the lighting conditions. If the lighting conditions are favorable, a P&S and SLR will both expose properly and give a good photo. For example, a white building with a deep blue sky in the background and the sun behind the camera will always give you great pictures (whether automatic or manual).
It also depends on the photographer. If the person taking the picture does not know how to use the manual camera, then he/she might get better results with a P&S. Otherwise, the SLR will usually take better pictures (because of the skill of the photographer).