Why still questioning "Films vs digital"?

The dominant audio format is MP3....it is also the worst quality for audio reproduction.

The dominant digital camera is the point and shoot....it is also the worst quality.
 
At least to me, in 35mm format, the digital rules.

As far as medium and large format, the larger negatives still have better resolution for ISO 100.

I have scanned my 4x5in negatives and 6X6cm negatives and the ISO 100 shots from film still exhibit beautiful colors and fine resolution than shots taken from 5D. Larger film area still rules. However, if I don't plan to print larger than 13X19, the 5D can serve the purpose already. The landscape shots from the 4X5 and 6X7 can still outshines the 5D. I think there is a physical limitation with lens quality on the 35mm format where it is still no match for larger format with same or lower lens quality. As for telephoto shots, the 35mm format can get better reach without building a car size lens ( except for that Zeiss super lens ) The advantage of larger format reduced to none here since shooter probably end up cropping most of the frame.

High ISO is different story. I will not able to obtain the same result on film vs digital. Maybe because the film technology simply stopped where the digital technology excels in time.

In either case, I still have my medium and large format around just for the kicks to get the feel of real photography with light meters and stop watches for long exposure shots : )
 
I think you are belittling people who do have an understanding of those issues. Maybe I should have been more specific and said to the average person. When I was buying my record albums in the 1960ies they were in monaural. My family couldn’t afford a fancy record player, so naturally most of my albums got scratched. The 1980ies were a God send, as I was able to replace all my Frankie Valli & the Four Seasons albums with CDs, and it was stereo to boot. Now I have my music on MP3, both on CDs and iPOD. I’m 57 years old, having worked in steam powered plants for over 31 years, so my ears are not too fussy on how I hear my music. I may have oversimplified tubes versus transistors, and CDs versus vinyl, but I’m not an ignorant person. I have a BS in Business Administration, I was a former reactor operator in the US Navy, and I currently write maintenance I&C procedures at a nuclear power plant.
Of course you are right, Robert. I oversimplified for the sake of
argument. There are not too many people on this board who have your
understanding of these issues.
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm
out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
I don't know about the financial perspective. A top of the line SLR lasted one for years. Mid line SLR were dirt cheap compared to digital.
... and I don't mean just from the financial perspective.

It did not get popular because of any superior image quality.
 
Although my Latin is verrry poor, I suspect the common phrase is actually "De gustibus non est disputandum".
For me my taste is the best. That is why I am a "decider" , for me.
Yes, that seems to be your case. Maybe the American Constitution should specifically address "taste" as not open to discussion.

To paraphrase your comment in your original posting, "some still made up their minds in spite of the obvious.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
Yeah, those loud work environments do take their toll. I'm almost ready for MP3's my self! LOL! Too long hammering and running sound for bands, recording, etc without enough hearing protection. The tinnitus is real bad some days too due to stupidity with a firecracker once........sigh.
Still, I love music :)

Sorry for the lecture above, all. Just trying to let folks know that not all turntables and vinyl are the same. Ditto for the CD path, though with less expensive variables.

--
Best,
Robert

 
1. CDs will never replace vinyl.
Amusingly, I predict that it will be more difficult to buy new CDs than vinyl in five to ten years. Not that this has anything to do with one being better or worse, merely that CDs will have very little nostalgia market or specialized use market after they are replaced by other distribution methods. Vinyl will continue on in its current market state.

-Z-
 
I did not mean to offend (or belittle) anyone. I apologize if you took it this way. I have been actively involved in Digital Signal Processing since late 70's and may have certain nostalgia for everything analog. I am buying only LPs these days and although I was given an iPod some time ago , I have not actually used it yet. I have enough digital in my professional work.
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
Speaking of digital getting better, I just saw some pictures from a
1994 1Mpix pro DSLR called the NC2000, and they looked quite good.
So much for progress. Resolution got better, and definetly
functionality, and reliability, but the image quality?
If that Calgary Flames ISO1600 shot is anything to go by... just a bit ;)

--
-CW
 
I'd buy more vinyl if the artists I like were available on vinyl. I'm to eclectic and cannnot find Patty Larkin, Christine Lavin, Preston Reed, etc on vinyl. Some of their older works, yes, but none of the newer material. Stiil more vinyl today available than in the mid '90's, so there is hope.

A guy who works for me is a dance/techno junkie and only buys vinyl. He loves the sound. Then he is a mix master and runs a show in the internet so it all gets streamed digital and heavily compressed to his audience.!?!! Somehow this all works for him , so he is happy.

--
Best,
Robert

 
Not to make it into an argument, but I really think people must hear different things - different distortions and imperfections. I've had and listened to the room size Klipsch horns OHM-F, ESS Heils, full size Quad electrostatics, bi and tri amp'd speakers, and many different headphones from the classic Pro 4A when it first came out to full range electrostatic. Built and designed my own FET amplifiers before they were affordable.

Never could stand Vinyl. It's main problem with the tracking distortion that came with loud crescendos. Pianos were especially terrible - every higher note would buzz in my ear - if not on the virgin playing then on later passes. To me the distortion was as loud and clear as a fart at a violin recital. Probably make worse by the typical cartridge resonance at around 20-24 KHz. Add in the clicks, ticks, and hiss - what a mess. You always trace the recording path from the background noise - here they added a track, here's some older vinyl, oops, this was a later pressing. In desperation I upgraded my cartridge every year, tried the "wet" playing system, used the Ball developed aerospace spray on lubricant, Original Master Recordings recorded to tape on the first pass then locked up. No good, that distortion was always there.

So, while I don't doubt that some people prefer vinyl, I think their brain and body is wired to listen to different things than mine.
 
Digital has huge practical and economical advantages, and many
advantages in IQ (high speed, low noise etc) but not in all areas.
Highlights and tonality looks better on high quality slide film,
and usually colors too (saturation without artifical look). My
ideal is Kodachrome 64, exposed -0.3 stop.
Huh? Slide film is a disaster at both highlights and tonality.

It's great for saturation and contrast and sharpness. But the highlights blow and the tonality (the opposite of contrast) is problematic: you get 5 stops. That's all, folks. The 5D easily handles 9 stops, even at ISO 400.

Negative films are the ones that handle highlights and tonality well.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
Every so often, I still see this comparison and some still can't
make up their mind in front of the obvious. I wonder why. So
digging for the reasons of this phenimenon, I came to this, you are
invited to add to it:
Film scales. 6x7 and 6x9 easily outclass the 5D for detail capture. And there's still 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10.

Digital has to go to heroic measures to compete with 6x7 and larger film. (Insanely expensive MF digital, scanning backs, and stitching.)

Of course, 35mm has always been an inferior subminiature format, so it's really not surprising that it was so easy for digital to beat it.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
Film is an analogue process, it recreate a pictures from a chimical process, but that process creates alteration of the reality. Colors, grain , dynamic range, temperature, development process .... etc...they all affect the images in different ways.

Digital photography in the other end, capture exactly what it sees, if the system is created perfectly and also calibrated perfectly.

I do prefer having a system (digital) that is more linear and true to the reality (what I see) , then add the required look then the other way around.

It's the same thing in audio, analog vs digital....same principle

digital is a replica of without any modification
analogue (film) will always be altered from reality.

Film is a nice "art" tool, it's last niche market. (beside throwable cameras)

Seb
 
Of course, 35mm has always been an inferior subminiature format, so
it's really not surprising that it was so easy for digital to beat
it.
I hae me doots aboot that David.

I find it hard to explain why this when printed looks better than a print from my 1ds.

This is from a Contax G2 shot of Burg Eltz Castle in Germany, Fuji Superia 200asa

 
..about this shot - apart from the remarkable amount of noise (sorry, grain) especially in the sky and foilage, and only at ISO 200. I think a 5D image would have no trouble competing and a 1DsMkII would eat it. Unlike some others, I must have "digital" eyes as I don't see things with grain all over them in real life.
phillip...
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top