Reading mode: Light Dark

Why still questioning "Films vs digital"?

Go to last post
There are lots of folks swears by it.
FET and vinyl system doesn't sound right to me but that's just my ears.
 
--
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
 
It is an addition in the quest of best sound. Unless you record the song yourself, it is hard to say what is/is not distortion in this case. Just like digital picture, unless you take the picture yourself, it is hard to tell what was originally there based on the posting or output.
 
badly aligned or cheap cartridge. Even my old Rega 3 outperformed any CD I've ever had.

I now use a Krell CD player and VPI TNT turntable. Never had anyone choose the CD version over the LP. No distortion on load passages either....whether rock, classical or jazz.
 
Judge everything from a monitor.

You should download the file and print to A3 or A3+.

Then you would notice that the sky noise was almost invisible and that the picture bristled with a level of detail which digital struggles to produce. I know because I print from scanned 35mm, digital, 5mp, 10mp 11mp and scanned MF.

I just don't theorise from looking at a monitor but actually print.
Noise or grain that doesn't show on a print is of no consequence.
 
By definition, "digital" means you have taken something analog (light intensity, for example) and quantized it to discrete steps. You no longer have a linear slope, but a jagged staircase approximation to linear instead. This is how you get "posterization". That's a digital image with a low number of digital bits representing the analog colors. It's not until after the digital image smoothed over (via anti-alising filter and in-camera bitmapping algorithms) that you see a smooth image.

By the way, digital cameras ARE analog. That's why they have analog-to-digital converters (12-bit in most 35mm DSLRS) between the sensor and in-camera computer.

Now if you want to talk about photon counting statistics, then ALL photography is digital!

-colin
 
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:
I just don't theorise from looking at a monitor but actually print.
Noise or grain that doesn't show on a print is of no consequence.
Click to expand...
Hi Garry,

I won't comment on your example, but I know what you mean when it comes to printing. I am an art director by trade and am dealing with a photo library that is a mixture of digital and high-quality scans from 4x5 transparency. When you analize them on the monitor you'd think the scans were cr@p. But when professionally printed (offset, CMYK) there is a quality from the transparency that I haven't yet seen from digital. I can't explain it in technical terms... I just know what I see.

That said, the photographer we use most often has switched over to almost entirely digital. While the difference is there, it's not enough to justify sticking with the added expense of film... and the average consumer (who sees our printed material) will NEVER notice the difference.

Amy
--



Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
http://www.DangRabbit.com ~ http://www.PetSnapshots.com
 
It is because art is as much a process as it is an output.

And ergonomics is a strong part of process.

A camera that makes all the decisions for you, and moves all the controls using little electric motors lacks a sense of communication.

Communication is living, whether it is with a tool, "nature", or another human being.

And finally, film, like painting, denies one the hollow pleasure of the instant fix.

P.S. I went digital to facilitate archiving, and to save money - and lots of it if only I could stop losing batteries...
 
The correct term is Compact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A modern DSLR is also a point and shoot camera.
 
LightMagician said:
obvious
Click to expand...
The only obvious things are that consumer digital has still wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyys to go before equating consumer film in terms of quality. (Wanna bet...? Average consumer grade Canon Elan film camera vs. 30D...both with consumer-grade 1.8/50...Both operated by rank amateurs...) Pro digital is a tad closer and in some respects - with high end cameras and (mostly) scanning backs - equals or beats the traditonal film in some areas, but there ain't nothin' like an 8x10" transparency in digital yet.

These things are obvious...
 
I switched to digital several years ago because my clients demanded it. The Fuji S1 I used was far inferior to 120 color transparency that I usually shot. My clients, at the time lots of editorial, liked the speed and savings from not having to pay for seperations.

Some fellow photographers I knew and the people at the labs got on me and made fun of me because of my switch. Well, we are down to two professional labs now. We used to have six or seven. And all of those photographers are shooting digital now. A few who did not switch or switched late, are out of business.

tgray
http://agrayphoto.com/
 
Few will doubt the superiority of Apple's over PC's, but Bill is the richest man on the planet. Fast, cheap, shiney often sell over quality. Closer to home, many more P&S than DSLRs, the P&S are much "better"?

With film v digital, it's much more a question of speed, convenience and cost than it is quality.

And finally, what do you care? Let the old horse die if it's going to die. No class kicking it while it's down.

-Mark
 
LightMagician said:
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:
Click to expand...
6 - Certain formats of film are still vastly superior to digital in the level of detail that they can capture. See for example my comparison between a dSLR and a home-made 4x5 camera: http://photo.biondani.com/LF/comparison.html
--
-
Giordano Biondani
My Photoblog: http://giobiondani.blogspot.com
My Phototravelmap: http://www.biondani.com/giordano/map.htm
 
Of all the amps I ever owned or had on trial...these were the best
http://www.caryaudio.com/products/classic/CAD211AE.html

Coupled with the Audio Research Reference One preamp. I actually had a system that I kept intact for over a year and a half, and never had any urge to upgrade, because I never felt the need, or thought there was better sound available. Don't let the wpc fool you. They crushed the 300wpc Krell amp that they replaced.

Steve Mitchell
http://www.dphoto.us
http://www.musicpix.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Why did OM come out with the OM3
6 7 8
Replies
147
Views
20K
gary0319
gary0319
rscott900ss
Why no "Ricci Talks" comparison of old and new 24-70 f/2.8 so far?
2
Replies
33
Views
935
rscott900ss
rscott900ss
A
How do I make my film photos less "digital"?
Replies
16
Views
36K
alex_virt
A
Richard Murdey
Why I still use my D750 in 2025
2 3
Replies
45
Views
13K
Dak on cam
Dak on cam
K
Quick D50 vs. D7500 question
Replies
18
Views
57
davidxyz
D

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top