Film vs D800E

It's interesting to read what others "remember" about the performance of film and the fantastic qualities that others, with little to no experience with it, attribute to it.

I had a long relationship with many monochrome and color films (color negative and slide). I remember Tri-X evolving from a very coarse-grained film (late 50s, early 60s) with modest resolving power to eventually being called "fine-grained" by Kodak and championed by Ansel Adams in its 35 mm form, developed with HC110 (a marvelous developer, cousin of D-76, that could be used repeatedly at full-strength or as a dilute one-shot).

Tri-X had (has) one of the longest "characteristic curves" (graph of film density vs exposure - the film version of dynamic range) of any of the non-specialty films. However, its response was never much more than "10 stops" and in practice (enlarger/contact printing or drum scanning) the effective range was much less than that.

Here's Kodak's classic Technical Data Sheet for Tri-X:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf

On pages 8, 10 and 11 are the Characteristic Curve graphs for various versions (sheet film versions, 35 mm). The maximum Log Exposure range in any of these graphs under the useful part ("toe" to "shoulder") of the film density curves is about 3.0 OD (maybe a trifle more in some cases). This is equivalent to 1000:1 dynamic range (10 stops) from white point to deepest shadow.

Most color negative films performed just slightly worse in the dynamic range department than Tri-X. Color positive (slide films) had (have) a maximum practical range of 5 stops when used for eventual reproduction on the printed page. (Although their images are much more compelling - read fabulous - when viewed on a light table or projected on a screen.

It's been at least 10 years now that just about every knowledgeable photographer has declared that it is far easier to get technical quality with digital capture than with film, and that digital methods have far exceeded the best that could be done with film just a few years ago.

At this point in photography's evolution, digital image capture so far exceeds the technical ability of film, that there is no longer any comparison. I look back on the best we used to do with Cibachrome/Ilfochrome printing, enlarger techniques, chemical film and printing processing, film emulsion light scattering and smile at the (much) less-than critically-sharp, contrast-impaired, off-color "masterpieces" we proudly used to display.

As far as "artistic" film grain and other "artsy" effects that are really technical faults of film, such appearance can easily be replicated digitally and in true "double blind" trials are impossible to distinguish digital vs analog.

I think it's important for new photographers to have a chance to learn how to use film. Its limitations impose learning opportunities that digital never does. But I realize that only a few will ever do so from now to the eventual complete disappearance of the stuff (yes it will happen). And people who have now entered photography strictly with digital equipment have missed a lot and can't really appreciate what's missing from their art (like a musician who learns to play jazz without ever studying the classics).

But film never really was as great as some who were there remember it, or as some who never used it would like to believe. I have no doubt that Ansel, if alive, would be digital's paramount champion. I'm an old timer who can still smell (intensely) film and chemicals just by thinking about a darkroom. Give me digital any time.

Rich