Why still questioning "Films vs digital"?

Digital sensors lack the dynamic range of film.

Film doesn't suffer dust on the sensor (but dust is still an issue).

Less electronics in a film camera, no need for so many batteries.

Film requires you to actually know what you are doing, you can't review the photo histogram, tweak settings and reshoot.

Each shot costs money, therefore you again need to know what you are doing

There's no "Nikon colour looks better" arguments, you choose the colour you want by choosing the film brand you like.

Above are some of the advantages

First of all, since you're not using the best lens on the 1Ds. I compared to photos taken with Canon L lens with EOS 1N body from 8 years ago and vs the Leica and zeiss lens on 5D body today. No surprise the 5D wins by far in every way except the dynamic range of the colors. The 5D and the old L zoom lens are just ok. Mainly because the sensitivity on the newer sensor requires better optics to provide better sharpness, color and light contrast where old ISO 100 films are less sensitive and able to obtain good dynamic range with good exposure time.

2nd, the 1Ds is almost 5 years old technology. It is not the standards for DSLR since the 1Ds MKII. Tested both bodies with Leica R and Zeiss lens and the current 5D out shines the 1Ds.

3rd, personally I found the grain on the film from your photo really annoys me. Looks like you over sharpened the picture to gain more details. I would only shoot with ISO 100 or below.

Just my opinion not facts.

Gearóid Ó Laoi said:

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

gilesjuk said:

Digital sensors lack the dynamic range of film.

Film doesn't suffer dust on the sensor (but dust is still an issue).

Click to expand...

I don't know about you but spend way more time cleaning up film scanned photos on dust issue more than digital. The dust on film is about 10 times more than on digital sensor. Just because the dust on sensor is bigger doesn't mean that it is more PP work.

PerL said:

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.

Click to expand...

Got to disagree with you about highlights and tonaliy with colour transparency film. Its easy to blow the highlights, and when you do they are impossible to retrieve. It's diffcult to get details out of the shadow areas too. The dynamic range of slde film is very narrow - in my opinion certainly less than digital raw.

As you mentioned Kodachrome 64 here's an example - It's a very high dynamic range scene, and the Kodachrome didn't handle it very well. Lots of lost detail in both shadows and highlights.



There is, however better handling of highlights in negative film, especially B&W.

Post modern Soviet photo art? Ochen horosho!

Robert P Miller said:

PerL said:

Well, you might consider why "film-like quality" or "analog look"
is positive remarks, but "digital look" is not.

Click to expand...

True, but "digital look " is almost an throwback term. To me it
refers to the early days of digital when MP were not enough and
over sharpening was the name of the game. The term still has
validity but a lot of cameras are getting away from that over
sharpened look right out of the box. Still some consumer cams fail
in many ways and these failings, blown highlights, CR, noise,
haloing, etc are all part of that 'Digital look" that comes to my
mind when I hear the term. But isn't this the type of image we
think of when we hear the term? That is an image that screams the
failings of digital..?

Now the tern I find appropriate these days is "over processed"
Which can mean a lot, from HDR, to too much sharpening, too bold of
colors, etc. One can clearly over process digital much easier than
film.

Me , I scan my old film negs and do some PS digital magic to tehm
which can at times be considered "over processed". My call, though.
Other times ,I just leave things where they fall.

Here's one I added some post to from a twenty year old negative.

Click to expand...

Member said:

--
Best,
Robert

Click to expand...

--
Voyager

Tristan Cope said:

PerL said:

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.

Click to expand...

Got to disagree with you about highlights and tonaliy with colour
transparency film. Its easy to blow the highlights, and when you do
they are impossible to retrieve. It's diffcult to get details out
of the shadow areas too. The dynamic range of slde film is very
narrow - in my opinion certainly less than digital raw.

As you mentioned Kodachrome 64 here's an example - It's a very high
dynamic range scene, and the Kodachrome didn't handle it very well.
Lots of lost detail in both shadows and highlights.

Click to expand...

I dont mean the DR, I refer to the roll off of the highlights and the fine nuances within the DR. I will post some samples when I get the time.

Tristan Cope said:

There is, however better handling of highlights in negative film,
especially B&W.

Click to expand...

--
Small D200 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d200_12
Small D40 gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/interactive/d40_12
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

The film grain is randomly distributed, much like the ferrite grains on an analogue tape and the grain isn't square.

Digital dots on the other hand are ordered and have specific locations, they're also square.

When digital resolution is high enough it's not a problem. But When digital resolution is lower than film resolution and you scale up the image the regularity of the dots and their square shape make the limited resolution look ugly.

Film suffers from dust on film, and image degradation over time.

Modern electronics offer us far more in the way of options and tools, and consume far less power than my F1 motor drive did all by itself.

Most film shooters simply guessed, and had no way of checking their work before paying the photo lab.

Yes, each film shot costs money, but most film shooters were not good record keepers, and took years to figure out what worked, and what didn't work.

Nikon never offered better color than Canon. Was that a trick comment?

You can stil try out any brand of film that tickles your fancy with a DSLR. That's what Picture Styles are all about. The only advantage with film cameras today is if you happen to sell film, and still have an outstanding mortgage on your mini-lab.

gilesjuk said:

Digital sensors lack the dynamic range of film.

Film doesn't suffer dust on the sensor (but dust is still an issue).

Less electronics in a film camera, no need for so many batteries.

Film requires you to actually know what you are doing, you can't
review the photo histogram, tweak settings and reshoot.

Each shot costs money, therefore you again need to know what you
are doing

There's no "Nikon colour looks better" arguments, you choose the
colour you want by choosing the film brand you like.

Above are some of the advantages

Click to expand...

--
Voyager

Ah, yes, but I was talking more about the cost of shooting actual images, so I was comparing the price of film+developing vs. taking hundreds of digital snapshots basically for free (which is one aspect of digital that many consumers found so appealing). Of course you can get quite cheaply very durable, perfectly functional film gear that will last years if not decades. Where I live, there was a sale a few weeks back of brand new F5s and F100s for about $1000/600 respectively. They were all gone within days.

Digital is cheaper (in some aspects), easier, and offers instant results. It's up to each of us to decide if those are positive traits or not. I think that sometimes they are, but there's still much join in shooting film (for me) for exactly the opposite reasons.

Maybe, but do you recall the grain structure of an 8x10 print made from a 35 mm Tri X negative? I'll take the grain stucture of a modern Canon DSLR at 800 ISO most any time. Given the PP tweaks offered by the software market today, I might take the digital ISO 800 shots over silver based 200 ISO film. As for dynamic range, that is also catching up to film. It's just a matter of time...

gilesjuk said:

The film grain is randomly distributed, much like the ferrite
grains on an analogue tape and the grain isn't square.

Digital dots on the other hand are ordered and have specific
locations, they're also square.

When digital resolution is high enough it's not a problem. But When
digital resolution is lower than film resolution and you scale up
the image the regularity of the dots and their square shape make
the limited resolution look ugly.

Click to expand...

--
Voyager

Ah yes, that image wasn't that hot

But many others looked quite good for a decade old digital camera. I guess many people working in the manufacturers' marketing departments do not like that article over at Rob Galbraith's. If you can get a front page quality photograph from a 1Mpix camera, why would you "need" to buy a 10+ Mpix one?

gilesjuk said:

Digital sensors lack the dynamic range of film.

Click to expand...

Lacks the dynamic range of negative film, but better thn slide film.

gilesjuk said:

Film doesn't suffer dust on the sensor (but dust is still an issue).

Click to expand...

I find dust more of an issue scanning slides than with digital cameras. But either way it's a pain.

gilesjuk said:

Less electronics in a film camera, no need for so many batteries.

Click to expand...

gilesjuk said:

Film requires you to actually know what you are doing, you can't
review the photo histogram, tweak settings and reshoot.

Click to expand...

How is this an advantage?

gilesjuk said:

Each shot costs money, therefore you again need to know what you
are doing

There's no "Nikon colour looks better" arguments, you choose the
colour you want by choosing the film brand you like.

Above are some of the advantages

Click to expand...

True, I'm just point out the reasons.

Currently we're at the audio equivalent of 16-bit vs analogue reel to reel. But digital audio went 24-bit and then 32-bit.

Digital sensors will keep improving until you will be able to do things with digital that you can't with film (you already can to a degree).

But it takes time, it's a good thing we have Canon and Fuji developing sensors. Sony's sensors need to improve quite a bit.

David J. Littleboy said:

Film scales. 6x7 and 6x9 easily outclass the 5D for detail capture.
And there's still 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10.

Click to expand...

Can't argue with that in terms of absolute quality - but those cameras are a lot larger. Medium and large format were always better than 35mm in this regard, but many still preferred the 35mm format for size and convenience etc.

David J. Littleboy said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes, if you want very high resolution results, it's cheaper to do it with film.

David J. Littleboy said:

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.

Click to expand...

What does "subminiature" mean? MF is miniature?

As for "so easy to beat it", I'm not entirely convinced about that, if we are discussing resolution/detail. I think 35mm transparency film such as Fuji Velvia captures more resolution than the 5D, but digital has other advantages.

Two crops of pictures of a wall map. On the right 35mm Velvia 50 scanned with a Minolta ScanElite 5400, on the left 5D upscaled to match the scan.



To my eye, the digital shot has more acutance and is a lot cleaner. The slide scan has more absolute resolution, but less acutance and a lot more noise. As for which is best, well, you could argue about that forever.

I would sure call them that. A well practiced art, no doubt, but no easier of less heroic than stitching.

Steven

--
---
Spring 2007 (Paria Plateau):
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_spring_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

My number one passion (before kids and photography) was audio until about 2002. I had about 4,000 LP's 7,000 45's and 3,500 CDs. I trekked trough all the high end transistor brands...Levinson, the monster Krells Wadia etc. I finally reached audio nirvana with an Audio Research preamp, and Carey monoblocks (all tube). Thiel speakers and a VPI turntable/tonearm system. There was not a CD player that could touch the sound. Even 9,000 Krell and Wadia players. Non audiophiles could not believe the difference and how much better vinyl sounded. Granted, the tubes alone to run the system cost more than a 600 f/4 IS.

A properly put together tube system playing LP's will toast any solid state system (at least in 2002).
--
Steve Mitchell
http://www.dphoto.us
http://www.musicpix.net

Pro shooters aren't concerned with the process, only that it can produce the desired result. So why bother to debate one versus the other? It's a waste of time.
--

------------------------------------------------------
five dee and Yashica Mat 124

Steve Mitchell said:

My number one passion (before kids and photography) was audio until
about 2002. I had about 4,000 LP's 7,000 45's and 3,500 CDs. I
trekked trough all the high end transistor brands...Levinson, the
monster Krells Wadia etc. I finally reached audio nirvana with an
Audio Research preamp, and Carey monoblocks (all tube). Thiel
speakers and a VPI turntable/tonearm system. There was not a CD
player that could touch the sound. Even 9,000 Krell and Wadia
players. Non audiophiles could not believe the difference and how
much better vinyl sounded. Granted, the tubes alone to run the
system cost more than a 600 f/4 IS.

A properly put together tube system playing LP's will toast any
solid state system (at least in 2002).

Click to expand...

Still likey the truth. We love that anologue "warmth" or distortion. It is just so nice.

Been there too, though not to AR and Carey. Stoped at Levitson and B & W . Lin, etc. Still got up there and came back. The analogue systems sounded better in most instances and even gave an interesting sound stage to my cds, which these days I play through a Pinoeer Elite SACD/DVD wonder.

Still. even the best sounding vinyl had click ad pops which bugged me. Even on the Sota which had a 22 pound brass platter and a vacuum to hold the vinyl uber-flat. Changing cartridges helped, but no matter what one does, playing vinyl with a cartridge is always playing with a lathe.

I thought of going this route, but it seemed like the technology is still wanting and full of gimmicks:

http://www.elpj.com/main.html

"The ELP Laser Turntable is unique in that it uses laser beams instead of a phono cartridge to play the traditional analog LP records.

When the LP record is well maintained, the ELP laser turntable can reproduce music that is at par with or better than the Compact Disc. It is definitely one of the best analog LP sound reproduction systems that can pick up detail which cannot be traced even by the best phono cartridge.

In my opinion, the ELP Declicker is extremely well built and compact. The Declicker can virtually remove all ticks and pops on the record on a real-time basis without altering or degrading the sound fidelity. Obviously, if the record is damaged, the Declicker will not be able to "repair" the damaged LP. "

Turntable and tube maintainance gave way to the solid state reality I have now as there is no time for what once was a passion.

These days it is work at my store seven days a week, raise our wonderful daughter, keep the fleet of cars running, shoot DSLRs, and spend way too much time deciding which RAW files to make into panoramas and other huge pictures! Then there is printing, mounting and selling....

At least we can do this in the company of our families, not like in the film days when we spent a lot of time in rooms with only a red light or total darkness.

--
Best,
Robert

http://www.hiendfi.com/web/?p=278



It costs $150,000 US and weighs a quarter of a ton. This is what analogue Turntables have eveolved into for those on the real bleeding edge.

Show this to any spouse who may make comments on how expensive your photo gear is!

Average DSLR , lenses, computer, and printers come in way before even 1/3 of the price of this turntable alone!

Heck, I've been pricing out getting a scanning back panoramic camera , and all its associated needs and I come up under 70K for a whole pile of new gear and a different approach to photography. Yet, these high end turntables, are but one piece in a VERY expensive chain! Oh, the laser turntable seem like a bargain at 10-20K US now!

--
Best,
Robert

and deep scanning film just results in a very grainy appearance, but that's about all you proved......

--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses, various MF.



http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/art
http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/weddings1