Reading mode: Light Dark

Digital vs. Film

Go to last post
BigMike1 said:
I recall reading somewhere that higher ISO color print film (like ISO
400 or ISO 800) has 45 lpm resolution at most, and that's like a 7 MP
digital file if you do the math.

Only when using low ISO slide film do we get comparisons where film
holds up well to digital, but imagine how inconvenient it would be to
have to shoot only low ISO slide film?
Click to expand...
The entire debate is a "quality" issue. When shooting for quality, I always shot at the lowest ISO film. So the only apples/apples comparison is at the lowest ISO setting of any specific camera.

Note that I have no problem with higher ISO film vs digital quality comparisons; and indeed I would like those comparisons cause I don't think they are commonly available now; but to remain apples vs apples, the comparisons must always be done at the same ISO vs ISO.

An additional advantage of digital is that you can change/select different ISO, as needed, immediately, without wasted cost as in film.

It is also interesting to note that digital ISO's are now available higher than was available with film. The highest film commonly available was Kodak 1000 and Fuji 1600, (albeit Konica had 3200 available if you liked grain as big as Yosemite size boulders).

I successfully printed hundreds of posters from the Fuji 1600. The grain was very visible, and unsatisfactory to me, but I never had a customer complain about it. I accepted it because I was shooting the National Water Ski Champonships and wanted to shoot at 1/1000 @ f/16 to freeze the motion and enough DOF to keep both the boat & skier in focus. (For my auto shows, I always used Fuji Realla for the highest quality.)
BigMike1 said:
--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com
Click to expand...
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
JoePhoto said:
The entire debate is a "quality" issue. When shooting for quality, I
always shot at the lowest ISO film. So the only apples/apples
comparison is at the lowest ISO setting of any specific camera.
Click to expand...
Actually, it has never been that clear to me what the debate is about.

When judging "P&S" cameras, they say they suck and are unusable because they don't do high ISO well. But when judging film, then suddenly only low ISO performance is important.

When judging "P&S" cameras, they suck because of noise. But when judging film, the grain is ignored, only the resolution counts.

--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com
 
I use fuji 1600 iso film now and I get wedding jobs because I have customers that like the look of film.. I try and use it at 1000 iso.

I do believe it picks up the light differently than digital, I like the look.
 
You guys, the film users, keep talking about the wonders of film.
Non of replied to my questions:
1) Do you have a digital camera?
2) If you do, which one?
3)If you do, do you precess the images yourself or hand it out to the lab?
 
I have to disagree with you. Majority of clients will ask spesificly for Digital, unless you will tell them that film is better and they believe you.

Yes you can use 1000 asa ans 1600 asa and even 3200 asa films. all of them are grainy, however you cannot shoot 6400 ASA and get the superb image quality that the NIKON D3 produces.
Customers don't give a dam about the film look, all this is photographer's hype.

No one ever asked me for a "FILM LOOK" had they, it can be replicated in PhotoShop.
Craig said:
I use fuji 1600 iso film now and I get wedding jobs because I have
customers that like the look of film.. I try and use it at 1000 iso.

I do believe it picks up the light differently than digital, I like
the look.
Click to expand...
 
next time they ask me if I could shoot more b&w film I will refer them to your comment here instead
 
Joe Lavee said:
There will always be Dinosaurs, people that will resist new
technology, claiming that the old one is better.
Click to expand...
Hey, Joe.

Birds ARE Dinosaurs, and, biologically, are amongst the most advanced, highly developed critters on the planet!

I still shoot film because I appreciate the look I can get from (various) film. There are some things digital just can't do.

Examples.

Try shooting portraits in the vivid red light of a smokey sunset. Film successfully captures the red skin hues, whereas digital simply clips the red channel, leading to plain ugly looking skin.

Film deals better with the specular highlights of sunlight glinting on the oceans, lakes, rivers etc.

There would appear to be better tonal gradations in OOF areas, with none of the posterisation associated with 12 bit digital capture.

Film grain can be a wonderful addition to portraits, landscapes, abstracts etc.

If any of the above image qualities are important to the photographer/artist (and they are to me :)), then the use of film certainly justifies it's cost and "inconvenience".

The fact is that film can give me images that I just can't successfully achieve with digital (and vise versa). And, that's gotta be worth it!

Cheers.

Peter.
 
...it would be to have to shoot only low ISO slide film?"

My point, exactly. It is no longer about the actual quality of the photograph. It is now about how many you can shoot and how fast you can process and sell them.

And yes, I shoot lots of digital with Nikon equipment (d200 now, waiting for the next generation D300 or D3). I prefer faster glass to higher iso settings so the D200 has served me well. It can still not compare to even an FTN with Kodachrome 64PKR (not to mention Kodachrome 25, RIP~ ). The D3 is probably the closest at this point in the 35mm arena.

There is still no digital photograph that I have ever seen that can compare to a print made from accurately exposed and developed frame of Kodachrome 64PKR, period! And the bigger the print, the more obvious the differences.

--
pjs
'The subject matter is so much more important than the photographer.'
Gordon Parks
 
Joe Lavee said:
I bet you that most people that are religiously believers in film,
don't own and did not experience the most recent new camera from
Nikon and Canon.
All the film fans, I challenge you to inform as whether you have a
digital camera, and which one.
Until today, you will have fanatics that will swear that vinyl is
better then digital sound.
Click to expand...
Nikon D80=Digital
Nikon n90s=Film
Have also owned the Nikon D50 (wish I would have kept it)
I dont believe everything has to be about resolution

I like the way highlights slowly roll up and down with film (I believe most call it toe and shoulder, but I am not sure) The way the colors and tones change seem to be different too. I am one of them people who knows their is something different about film and I freely admit it but I am not always quite sure what is different but I know their is something.

I am not a film die hard from the past. I never got interested in film till after I owned a digital. There is a different look to film. Just not always sure what that difference is.

It dont always have to be about resolution. I bet most wont ever print big enough to use what resolution they currently have or for that matter what 35mm film offers. I bet a large amount of people will buy the new sony 24mp camera and wont ever do anything except post to the web.

I just think sometimes resolution is over rated and people over spend to get it. Sometimes it is just about the "FEEL" of a picture.

With all that said, Sometimes I think Digital wins and sometimes I think film wins but I would base that all on how a picture "FEELS" , not resolution.

Digital wins big with most simply cause of ease of use, instant feed back, and changing iso on the fly. I think that is what puts digital light years ahead of film.

Personally, I wouldnt trade my digital camera for a film camera. I also would trade my film camera for a digital.

Film vs. Digital is all opinion. It should be about what one thinks looks better , not resolution, and I think that depends on the situation. I dont think film always looks better , but I also dont think digital always looks better. The debate will end soon enough though as digital keeps moving along. I have noticed it is hard to find "NEW" middle of the road scanners. Nikons are always listed on B&h as " out of stock" I think the era is about over and I think it is sad but not cause I am a die hard, cause like I stated , I never got into film till I was already into digital. I guess in some peoples eyes , I went backwards.
--
Tom
Photography is the hobby that you can legally shoot people and blown them up
see my ugly pics at :
http://www.pbase.com/tom1468
 
tom1468 said:
I bet a large amount of people will buy the new sony 24mp camera and wont
ever do anything except post to the web.
Click to expand...
I may buy it .... I will make posters with it.

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
mottjr said:
Charles Self said:
A bit of a surprise, really. I more or less expected the Hasselblad
to beat the Nikkormat; I did NOT expect the Nikon to beat the
Hasselblad.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you were looking at the right pictures? It appears to
me that the Nikon came in a distant third in this exercise.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Tired and in a hurry yesterday. The Canon. Please note the first statement re: Nikkormat, AKA in the good old days as "cheap Nikon."

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 
Joe Lavee said:
You guys, the film users, keep talking about the wonders of film.
Non of replied to my questions:
1) Do you have a digital camera?
2) If you do, which one?
3)If you do, do you precess the images yourself or hand it out to the
lab?
Click to expand...
As a film guy, I have posted here many times saying I shoot digital. A 1DsmkII , Kodak SLR/n and of course I process.

The bigger question how many digital users here have shot MF and LF film and drum scanned or printed direct from the film.

Kevin.
 
BigMike1 said:
You can probably get Hassy quality from a Canon G9, as the noise at
ISO 80 looks similar to the Velivia 50 grain.

--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com
Click to expand...
Eh, that is such a load of rubbish I can't think you have ever shot Velvia on a Hasselblad, if your seeing grain in Velvia 50 it's most likely scanner noise and/or bad scanning not grain, neither is the "fault" of the film.

When you see statements like A G9 is like a Hasselblad with Velvia you wonder what it is people are looking at.

Kevin.
 
KAllen said:
The bigger question how many digital users here have shot MF and LF film and drum scanned or printed direct from the film.
Click to expand...
A bigger question than that is, "What is your subject matter?"

I've been shooting for over 30 years--obviously most of it film. I shot 35mm, medium format, and LF up to 8x10.

I'm currently shooting predominantly with 24x36mm digital, although I still shoot on rare occasion with my Mamiya RZ67 cameras and even more rarely with my Horseman monorail 4x5.

Which I use is predominantly controlled by the subject matter and purpose of the image--the level of detail I'll need in the finished image, the amount of retouching or manipulation that will be necessary to achieve my final vision, and the size of the resulting enlargement.

Because of the type of high-end traditional portraits I do, significant retouching is always required, which nixes direct optical enlargements 100 percent of the time--either I shoot original digital or I must scan. These days, minor physical flaws in a high-end portrait are simply unacceptable to clients.

The resolution requirements of portraits differ tremendously from landscapes and certain other subjects. Portraits are considered sharp if facial hair and eyes are sharp, and there isn't anything else viewers want to see very sharply in a portrait beyond facial hair and eyes (nobody wants to see skin flakes and hair mites, regardless of the size of the enlargement). Happily, that kind of detail is easily interpolated if it's captured in the original image.

Half to 3/4 length portraits--even at 20x30--don't have resolution requirements that can't be handled by 24x36mm digital. The full-length and environmental portraits require a bit more resolution, so I'll usually use one of my Mamiya RZ cameras. Even at that, the difference is relatively small and only makes a difference at 20x30 and beyond.

Granted, the requirements for landscapes are different. Viewers expect more detail to unfold in a landscape as it's further enlarged (or they move closer). The resolution requirements for a landscape are therefore practically infinite.

Beyond image quality factors, subject matter will also play a role in determining what kind of camera that is even useable. Clearly there's no point trumpeting the superior image quality of medium or large format film to a sports photographer, and large format is a difficult sell to a wedding or children photographer.

This entire debate over film versus digital is irrelevant unless subject matter has been taken into account.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
--
pjs
"Computer photography won't be photography as we know it.
I think photography will always be chemical."
Annie Leibovitz
 
This thread was not addressed to you.
You lost any credibility with your nonsensical hot air.
You are the guy that processes film faster than digital will do? right?
I'm not going to debate someone that his/her logic is skewed.

You refused to reply to any question, in previous thread, because you do not have answers, just bull.
All dinosaurs eventually disappeared.
ekn said:
ekn said:
Is there a web site where your "FILM LOOK" images are displayed?
Lets see if the hype is real.
Click to expand...
If you have to ask, then any response we might have is a waste of our
time.

--

Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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