Cameras: 35mm vs. digital
by DCostello on Nov.27, 2009, under Information
Okay. Here I go stepping into a mine field. Please remember that this is my own opinion based on my personal experiences. I’m very much open to your opinions and experiences. So here we go.
Many folks ask me why I show up to investigations with digital and 35mm cameras. The answer really isn’t easy or short. However, in a nut shell, they’re two different types of recording media; each with their own advantages and disadvantages. What one may lack the other makes up for; at least that’s how I see it. Let me give you some examples.
I’ve taken thousands of images both digital as well as 35mm. With the digital it seems that a lot of orbs can be captured, at least what looks to be orbs. In fact, many of the ‘orbs’ that are captured are probably small flies, dust or mist floating in the air and close to the digital camera lense causing a diffused image which looks very much like an orb.
There are also processor anomalies that occur. The lower end digital cameras sometimes show white spots (pixels) in complete darkness. Now here’s where I really poke you in the eye. I have never seen or captured an apparition by using digital media. I’m not saying that it can’t happen, it just hasn’t happened to me yet. I am a big fan of digital media. I’m just not sure if it’s the proper media for investigations.
I have two 35mm cameras and use them on investigations with the digital camera. Now with the ‘hard film’ we’ve captured partial and full apparitions on investigations and didn’t know it until the film was developed. Again, we captured nothing on digital. It is my personal belief that regular 35mm cameras pick up the entities because of their magnetic fields and the films sensitivity to it [the magnetic field].
If you want to see the images I was using as an example point your browser to: http://www.triprg.com and check out their images of the Governor Sprague Mansion. In particular, the bedroom and ‘french provinicial’ tea table shots. I was one of the investigators on that gig doing the digital imaging and caught nothing. My Brother-in-law was using a 35mm and took those very same shots and you can see what he captured.
What I’m not saying here is to pitch your digital cameras. Rather, comparing 35mm versus digital; 35mm in my opinion wins hands down.
3 Comments for this entry
Moon Phase
Full Moon The moon is 15 days old
Distance: 58 earth radii
Ecliptic latitude: -5 degrees
Ecliptic longitude: 146 degrees
November 27th, 2009 on 14:05
As a working photographer I could not agree more. Its a fantastic medium to work in when shooting a wedding or what-have-you. Digital offers same-time satisfaction its that simple, but that simplicity has its pitfalls to say the least. Software developments take leaps and bounds everyday and with every photo presented as evidence there comes a floodgate of skepticism and rightly so. It becomes a matter or investigator credibility. However with 35mm film, a hard negative is something unaffected by software in what it may or may not have in a photograph. This lends a higher credibility to the investigator/photographer’s assertions as to what is and is not paranormal phenomena. Regardless of that person’s level of field experience backing up their credibility.
A.Laird
T.R.I.P.R.G./S.
November 30th, 2009 on 20:19
I use 35 mm exclusively. I used to have a digital camera and it broke. I never replaced it because I prefer 35mm. You get too many “false orbs” and they go through batteries like crazy! It’s also too easy to take hundreds of pictures during an investigation. Then you have to review them all! With a film camera, it’s easy to limit yourself to two rolls or roughly 50 pictures. I have caught partial apparitions with my 35mm and never did with my digital. Most places will also sell you a picture CD along with your prints so it’s still easy to share them online.
December 5th, 2009 on 19:52
One more thought… One aspect which betters the 35mm over digital is the built-in laser range-finder/focus assist laser many digitals rely on. Photography aside, the use of even safe, low power lasers of any kind near antiques, especially paintings, tapestries and photographs, can leave marks and lines in these materials. This translates into very unhappy clients and very happy litigation lawyers.