digital vs film prints in 4 x 6

Just to want hear from people if my observation is correct or not. Every here and there, I am reminded that film is superior than digital prints. Are we comparing a disposable camera, a point-n-shoot 35mm camera, or a $300-500 35mm SLR camera to digital? I've seen my friends' 4 x 6 prints from a disposable camera and a $200-300 35mm point-n-shoot camera, and I say to myself, how is this better than my prints from a Sony S70 3.3MP? The digital prints looks more vivid and crisp. I know this is not a scientific comparsion or even a comparsion of idientical scene. Basically, we went to the same vacations and my prints just stands out more.--Sony DSC-F707 & my soon to be Canon S100
http://www.pbase.com/zuffy

Jian said:

Just to want hear from people if my observation is correct or not.
Every here and there, I am reminded that film is superior than
digital prints. Are we comparing a disposable camera, a
point-n-shoot 35mm camera, or a $300-500 35mm SLR camera to
digital? I've seen my friends' 4 x 6 prints from a disposable
camera and a $200-300 35mm point-n-shoot camera, and I say to
myself, how is this better than my prints from a Sony S70 3.3MP?
The digital prints looks more vivid and crisp. I know this is not a
scientific comparsion or even a comparsion of idientical scene.
Basically, we went to the same vacations and my prints just stands
out more.

Click to expand...

4x6 is a small print. Film still has greater resolution (although the 5mp sensors are doing a great job) and does a better job at large blowups.

Your S70 probably has a higher quality lens than you friends $200 point and shoot (or a $300-$500 SLR...budget SLRs often come with poor lenses).

Film can also make a big difference. Sony cameras take pictures which have very saturated colors, while a lot of consumer films go for more natural colors. A lot of the professional films (like Fuji Velvia, a slide film) have much more saturation.

Until 4 months ago I still took most pictures on slide film, scanned it, and made prints from that. The 5mp imager in the Sony f707 has made it possible for me to make 8x10 prints in many less steps which look just as good (if not better...my scanner has issues in pulling out shadow detail). I just wish I could use the lenses from my SLR on my f707.

alex

From the point and shoot cameras I have owned, even my Fuji Finepix 2400 2MP camera gave better prints. The F707 blows me away, I have used a 35mm manual camera in the past but the F707 16x20 prints I get are much better in my view. I am convinced digital is better than most of the consumer cameras you can get that use film. Professional cameras of course still outclass but then, when is that never the case ;-)--Shay - My Sony F707 Gallery: http://f707.shay.ws/

I've done several 20x30 cm (which is about 8*12") prints from 3MPixels shots (2048x1536) from my DSC-P5. The prints were done at a photo shop on a professional machine that does emulsion (the same machine that prints film photos).

Employees at the photo shop were pesimistic in regard to the quality of the prints but were amazed, as I was, with the results. These prints are hanging framed side-by-side with prints from film photos. You cannot distinguish a difference without a magnifying glass.

Prior to purchasing my DSC-P5 this was my main worry because I have a gallery of framed prints of the kids at home. I am very happy with the results even at this size!

Nir Alon
Jerusalem, Israel

alex wetmore said:

Jian said:

Just to want hear from people if my observation is correct or not.
Every here and there, I am reminded that film is superior than
digital prints. Are we comparing a disposable camera, a
point-n-shoot 35mm camera, or a $300-500 35mm SLR camera to
digital? I've seen my friends' 4 x 6 prints from a disposable
camera and a $200-300 35mm point-n-shoot camera, and I say to
myself, how is this better than my prints from a Sony S70 3.3MP?
The digital prints looks more vivid and crisp. I know this is not a
scientific comparsion or even a comparsion of idientical scene.
Basically, we went to the same vacations and my prints just stands
out more.

Click to expand...

4x6 is a small print. Film still has greater resolution (although
the 5mp sensors are doing a great job) and does a better job at
large blowups.

Your S70 probably has a higher quality lens than you friends $200
point and shoot (or a $300-$500 SLR...budget SLRs often come with
poor lenses).

Film can also make a big difference. Sony cameras take pictures
which have very saturated colors, while a lot of consumer films go
for more natural colors. A lot of the professional films (like
Fuji Velvia, a slide film) have much more saturation.

Until 4 months ago I still took most pictures on slide film,
scanned it, and made prints from that. The 5mp imager in the Sony
f707 has made it possible for me to make 8x10 prints in many less
steps which look just as good (if not better...my scanner has
issues in pulling out shadow detail). I just wish I could use the
lenses from my SLR on my f707.

alex

Click to expand...

Alex, you being one of the exception. I'm curious when people that do not require prints larger than 5 x 7 and claim film is superior, what kind of 35mm camera and films are they using?

alex wetmore said:

4x6 is a small print. Film still has greater resolution (although
the 5mp sensors are doing a great job) and does a better job at
large blowups.

Your S70 probably has a higher quality lens than you friends $200
point and shoot (or a $300-$500 SLR...budget SLRs often come with
poor lenses).

Film can also make a big difference. Sony cameras take pictures
which have very saturated colors, while a lot of consumer films go
for more natural colors. A lot of the professional films (like
Fuji Velvia, a slide film) have much more saturation.

Until 4 months ago I still took most pictures on slide film,
scanned it, and made prints from that. The 5mp imager in the Sony
f707 has made it possible for me to make 8x10 prints in many less
steps which look just as good (if not better...my scanner has
issues in pulling out shadow detail). I just wish I could use the
lenses from my SLR on my f707.

alex

Click to expand...

--Sony DSC-F707 & my soon to be Canon S100 http://www.pbase.com/zuffy

Shay said:

From the point and shoot cameras I have owned, even my Fuji Finepix
2400 2MP camera gave better prints. The F707 blows me away, I have
used a 35mm manual camera in the past but the F707 16x20 prints I
get are much better in my view. I am convinced digital is better
than most of the consumer cameras you can get that use film.
Professional cameras of course still outclass but then, when is
that never the case ;-)
--
Shay - My Sony F707 Gallery: http://f707.shay.ws/

Click to expand...

Thi is my point. Seems unfair to compare a professional class SLR 35mm camera to a consumer level 3.3, 4.1 or 5.1MP camera.--Sony DSC-F707 & my soon to be Canon S100 http://www.pbase.com/zuffy

They are using a dream camera, 4x6 and 5x7 from my digital cameras look better than any of the film prints I have ever taken. They are not being realistic saying that film is better than digital without qualifying that that is the case for pro film. If they say flat out film is better, well they are not speaking with authority, but most likely parroting what someone else has said that has a bias against digital in principal.--Shay - My Sony F707 Gallery: http://f707.shay.ws/

Photography has been my main hobby for the past 30 years. Over that time, I've owned a lot of cameras. I would routinely blow up the prints to 11x14 or larger. I still have Contax film-based cameras, but have sold off the medium format. I now shoot digital almost exclusively.

Looking at the prints, I can tell the difference at 11x14. For 4x6, there is no discernable difference. At 8x10, a professionally made print will still edge out the digital.

Film offers a number of advantages, which are dwindling as digital progresses. Some print films give super-saturated results (Agfa Ultra). Kodak Pro-100 is outstanding as a general use film, and it gives a marginally better print than my Sony 707. There are films that give you greater latitude... all the way up to 11 f-stops, if you need it (Tri-X). And for presenting to an audience, nothing can quite surpass a slide made with Provia-F.

But, for me, the advantages of digital outweigh the superiority (marginal is most cases) of film. I like the fact that I can see the results of the exposure settings immediately. In the past, I would shoot the image and sit on pins-and-needles until the film was developed and I would see if I captured the 'moment.' I like the fact that I can view my pictures on my computer screen. I find that I look at them far more now than when I would have to drag out an album. I like to travel light, and the 707 with two memory sticks is a lot more convenient than 20 lbs of camera gear.

Where traditional SLRs are stilll superior is in long telephoto (longer than 300mm) and Macro work. I realize that Nikon and Canon make SLRs that could use those lenses, but they come at too high a price. Contax is supposed to release a digital SLR. I'm sure it will be fantastic, but they are asking way too much for me to spend (~$6000 for the body alone). They haven't quite grasped the concept that digital equipment has a much shorter product life than film cameras. It isn't uncommon to see Nikon, Canon, Contax, Leica, or Hasselblad bodies that are over 30 years old and still working well. My projected 'upgrade cycle' for digital is about 2 years.

Cheers,
Old Crusty

OldCrusty said:

Where traditional SLRs are stilll superior is in long telephoto
(longer than 300mm) and Macro work.

Click to expand...

I think that digital has the upper hand in macro work (although perhaps no the f707, which doesn't have a great macro lens). The small sensor size means that there is an increased depth of field. When shooting macro on film one is usually using a very small f-stop (f22 or f32) to get good depth of field. That requires long exposures. The f707 gets a similar depth of field using a much wider f-stop (like f8) allowing for much shorter exposures.

Sony/CZ goofed on the f707s macro capability by putting at the extreme wide end of the lens because this requires sitting right on top of the subject and also results in a lot of barrel distortion. I wish they had put close focussing ability in the middle or long end of the lens.

alex

Jian said:

Alex, you being one of the exception. I'm curious when people that
do not require prints larger than 5 x 7 and claim film is superior,
what kind of 35mm camera and films are they using?

Click to expand...

Ask them in what way film is superior? They should be able to show it to you if it really is.

It might be that they prefer the look of film. Film also has a different dynamic range (although recent digital cameras are really improving on this). Resolution wise there is no benefit (assuming a high quality sensor and lens). An excellent film print has about 200-300dpi of information. 5x7 at 300dpi is 1500x2100 pixels, which is about 3mp.

alex

I've compared film prints that I had taken with my consumer-level Olympus camera to prints that I ordered from Ofoto from images taken with my S75, and I could see no evidence that the film-based prints were superior. of course, this was an unscientific comparison, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the only comparison that matters to me, because if I can't see the difference in my pictures, then I can't see the difference in my pictures! (yes, that is what I meant to say)

Now, here's an overwhelming reason to me why digital 4x6 prints are far superior to film prints: i've been completely satisfied with every single digital print I've ever ordered/printed. why? Because thanks to digital, I had the luxury of picking and choosing which pics to print, and so naturally, I pick the best ones to print. Compare that to good ol' film, where you're stuck paying developing costs for even the not-so-good pictures.

Another wonderful reason that digital is far superior is just the sheer volume of pictures that it frees you to take, without having to worry about cost of developing all of them. It frees you to take as many pics as you like, and the only cost is the harddrive space or the space on the CD that you burn them onto. I got my S75 (my first and only digital camera so far) back in May, and right now, my file count is up to 4542. In the past 8 months, I've taken over 4500 pictures! If I still only had my film camera, I bet I wouldn't even have taken 450 shots in the same time period! And what did it cost me for those 4500 pics? well, they're all stored on about 8 CD-Rs so far, and since I paid about 30 cents a piece for my blank CD-Rs, that works out to a whopping $2.40.

So, that's my take on it. Comparing a consumer-level film-based camera, and an equivalent digital camera, I don't think there's much difference to be seen in quality in a 4x6 print. The difference is in what digital frees you to be able to do. It gives you freedom to take as many pics as you'd like, freedom to only pay to have the 'good' pics developed, freedom to experiment, freedom to take pics of things you might not have wanted to 'waste' a film shot on.

digital = freedom

-hud

Some "light" reading on the subject. Note that second items refers to scanners, but it's very applicable to digital photography.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

Regards
...Wes

alex wetmore said:

Sony/CZ goofed on the f707s macro capability by putting at the
extreme wide end of the lens because this requires sitting right on
top of the subject and also results in a lot of barrel distortion.

Click to expand...

Hi Alex,

I agree with you that it makes no sense to put the macro capability on the wide angle. In the past I only purchased 100mm macros (my current one is the Zeiss 100mm macro planar). The 60mm versions made it too difficult to get close enough.

As much as I love digital... there are some things that just work better for me with a film based SLR. Macro work is one of those. Being able to choose an optimized lens, coupled with a familiar emulsion makes for a better result. If it weren't so riduculoulsy priced... the Contax digital system would be perfect (if it ever moves into production)!

Old Crusty

hud said:

Another wonderful reason that digital is far superior is just the
sheer volume of pictures that it frees you to take, without having
to worry about cost of developing all of them. It frees you to
take as many pics as you like, and the only cost is the harddrive
space or the space on the CD that you burn them onto. I got my S75
(my first and only digital camera so far) back in May, and right
now, my file count is up to 4542. In the past 8 months, I've taken
over 4500 pictures! If I still only had my film camera, I bet I
wouldn't even have taken 450 shots in the same time period! And
what did it cost me for those 4500 pics? well, they're all stored
on about 8 CD-Rs so far, and since I paid about 30 cents a piece
for my blank CD-Rs, that works out to a whopping $2.40.

Click to expand...

This is the reason I got a digital camera. I was too cheap to buy the films and develop them. I never own a camera until I got the Kodak 200 Plus a few years ago (now it's dead cuz my 5 year old niece dropped it). I have taken over 4500 photos with my Sony S70, and currently around 2000 on my F707. Just got my Canon S100 today, and I'm sure the photo count will start climbing.--Sony DSC-F707 & Canon S100 http://www.pbase.com/zuffy

I have prints 8x10's on my office walls at work done by my sony dsc 50 (which I sold to buy the f707)... As well as prints 16x20 and 11x14 done with my 707 and no one yet has been able to tell they were done on a digital camera. I had a picture I took of my granddaughter and printed as an 8x12 at ritz and the guy could not believe it was done on a digital. You could count the little hairs on her eyebrows...

I have yet to have anyone be able to tell the difference. And like the others. I have thousands of pictures over the last year because I went digital. Prior to that... maybe a few hundred per year...

frank

Is film better? I guess it is relative to your expectations and goals. I take pictures at work and routinely post them on the communal bulletin board. Others post their pictures as well. No one is a professional photographer. Some of the shots are even Polaroids. The posted pictures are from film cameras ranging from $39 to $300. Most (all?) use the local drug stores for developing their prints. 8x10's are rare.

There is no comparison.

Many of the film pictures have some type of cast. When I see them, I always think they could benefit from a little adjustment with autolevels or curves. smile I swear some of the cheap film camera pictures look grainy. I often think that if they posted that picture on the STF, that picture and camera would be ripped to shreds. My pictures consistently have better image quality (Of course, I don’t bother printing the ones out of focus or that I don’t like. Another benefit of digital). I believe people demand more from their digital cameras than from a inexpensive film cameras.

Of course my camera cost 3 times as much. One might even considered comparing a $1000 dollar digital camera with a $35 dollar disposable is not even fair. All I can say is less than 5 years ago the cheapie film camera would have won.

If someone buys a SLR and develops them at home, my story might change. Right now, the F707 with an old Epson 870 rules.

Of course, as always……IMHO
Ez2laf
“The more I learn, the less I know”
Stickered
Blue Dot

Jian said:

Just to want hear from people if my observation is correct or not.
Every here and there, I am reminded that film is superior than
digital prints. Are we comparing a disposable camera, a
point-n-shoot 35mm camera, or a $300-500 35mm SLR camera to
digital? I've seen my friends' 4 x 6 prints from a disposable
camera and a $200-300 35mm point-n-shoot camera, and I say to
myself, how is this better than my prints from a Sony S70 3.3MP?
The digital prints looks more vivid and crisp. I know this is not a
scientific comparsion or even a comparsion of idientical scene.
Basically, we went to the same vacations and my prints just stands
out more.
--
Sony DSC-F707 & my soon to be Canon S100
http://www.pbase.com/zuffy

Click to expand...