Digital Cameras

The longer the exposure the more light is let into the camera, as a result the picture will be brighter/lighter/whiter. The shorter the exposure, the less light let in, and the darker the image will be.

First, and most well known, as the aperture (the lens opening -- the hole through which the picture enters the camera) gets larger it lets in more light and you can take a picture in darker locations, or you can take pictures at higher shutter speeds thus freezing movement better.

The next most commonly known effect is that the wider the aperture the shallower the depth of field. That is, the fewer things in front of or behind the subject of the picture are in focus. As the aperture gets smaller things further away from the subject in both directions are clear.

Another way aperture can affect the image is that your lens will be sharpest at some aperture. Often somewhere around F5.6 to F8 your lens will make the sharpest (clearest) images. This is called "the sweet spot."

Finally, for technical reasons, at very small apertures (usually F16, f22 or smaller) an optical phenomenon caller diffraction causes the image to become become less sharp. You can think of it that when light must squeeze through a tiny hole the light rays interfere with each other.

Capacity 3.0 MP 5.0 MP 8.0 MP 10 MP 12 MP

16MB 10 9 5 2 2

32MB 25 17 10 5 4

128MB 150 120 80 55 32

256MB 300 240 160 110 71

512MB 600 480 320 225 121

1GB 1200 950 600 400 260

2GB 2400 1900 1200 800 500

4GB* 4000 3000 2000 1500 1000 Capacity 3.0 MP 5.0 MP 8.0 MP 10 MP 12 MP

16MB 10 9 5 2 2

32MB 25 17 10 5 4

128MB 150 120 80 55 32

256MB 300 240 160 110 71

512MB 600 480 320 225 121

1GB 1200 950 600 400 260

2GB 2400 1900 1200 800 500

4GB* 4000 3000 2000 1500 1000

I believe the answer is yes - once sensors can match or beat film in terms of depth (the range of intensity they can record) and the amount of noise produced. It may occur gradually as die-hard film users retire. But it will happen in my opinion.

The question isn't If! It already has. I mean, you don't see many people- other thna those that are just studying Photography- still using Film SLR's. I've used Film SLR's in the Past, and have completely left it in the dust. From around a year ago, I've been Using Digital SLR's, more convenient, equal image quality, and you aren't limited ( to much ) Who'd rather change rolls of film, when you can shoot 5 Frames per second, and not stop. Digital Photography has already taken over- I can't say film is dead, but suffering from a terminal disease. Manufactures, like Canon, and Nikon, will soon stop Making Film SLR's- So you'll have to shoot Digital.

Nathan

An Historian and Archivist adds

Although most photographers have made the switch to digital there is still a niche that will remain film based for perhaps the next generation. That niche is archival photography, which includes microfilm and preservation of important legal documents. Not that digital archives are not important, but if a legal question comes up the film record will hold up better in a court of law better than a digital because of the ease of which fraud can be commited with digital imaging.

----------------------- It definitely has already occurred. Film offers no real benefit over digital, and I think the last of the old time pros have switched. Some of them left kicking and screaming, but 99% have migrated. There are some people who "just like film." Some digital cameras now have secure one-way hash functions built into them for evidence preservation where if the picture is altered after the fact, the hash won't be correct. It's not perfectly secure, but I'm sure its designed to address the issue above.

There are RAW( Camera Image FileFormat (CIFF) for CANON CAMERA and NEF(Nikon Electronic Format) for NIKON Cameras , the images are of Big size !!

then we have Jpeg Images (the same format in which the pictures are clicked from the cameras)

Joseph Nicéphore Niépce did, in 1826. Giovanni Battista della Porta in his great work Magiœ Naturalis of 1558 does lay some emphasis on the use of the camera obscura (literally dark room in Latin), a tent or room with a small hole in one wall which optically projects an upside-down image of the scene outside to the opposite wall (all modern photographic cameras are simply small camera obscuras), but della Porta considered the camera obscura primarily an instrument of entertainment, and certainly did not invent chemical photography. That had to wait nearly three more centuries.

Linear perspective had come into widespread use in Italy in the 15th century. The camera obscura aided artists in creating more precise depictions. Sketches made from the projected image in a camera obscura had more exact spatial perspective because a three dimensional scene was accurately projected onto a two dimensional surface. The resulting sketches might, in a considerable stretch, be called "photographic" insofar as they were made from an optical projection, but a true chemical photograph (literally light writing, from the Greek) had to wait until the summer of 1826, when Joseph Nicéphore Niépce is credited with producing the world's first chemical photograph using a camera obscura.

Niépce had made photographic negatives on paper with a camera as early as 1814, but was not able to make them permanent. The first permanently fixed photo was that of his 1826 view through his window at Gras.

Some of the first photographers were nature photographers, of necessity. Early cameras used very slow shutter speeds, and were not suitable for making photos of moving objects, so the users tended to do a lot of landscapes, where the subjects were stationary and there was plenty of light to make the exposures.

Of of the most recognized pioneers in nature photography is Ansel Adams who lived from Feb. 20, 1902 till April 22nd, 1984. He not only was a nature photographer but an environmentalist who worked to preserve forests.

Restoration to any collectible should be left to the expert that has experience with that type of work, and to this day I have never heard of anyone that restores signatures on a baseball or a photo.

Never retrace a signature. I have been asked this question many times. A baseball or a photo with light or faded signatures will be worth more than one that has been traced. Traced signatures will be worthless.

Once the autograph has faded the best you can do is stop further damage by investing in a U/V protective display case. Try to find a Display case with 50% U/V protection. Keep it away from sun light, and chalk it up to experience. Even reflected sun light will take it's toll over time.

The Ideal conditions for display would be indirect lighting, at a room temperature of 65 - 70 degrees, and 50% humidity. Always check your signatures periodically for signs of fading or deterioration, and avoid excessive handling.