Digital Versus Film Trashing

This is only an observation from my perspective and only an opinion. I noticed that certain individuals (some have their own web sites) harp on the true superiority of film versus digital. I don't doubt that film is superior to digital, but come on now. How many of us are happy with digital? I think it is good enough to mention how much better film is once and move on, but to constantly go on about film and trash digital is a bit much. Then to talk down to the infidels that are not as brilliant as they are.

I would liken this to analog audio (the amps with tubes) with the integrated circuit type amps. There is no question that the old fashion tube amps are superior in fidelity and spectrum but digital amps of today just seem to be darn good. They are certainly good enough for the masses and professionals as well.

I like to read all kinds of opinions and it's always helpful to get a wide spectrum of views. I consider myself a student for life and I'll continue to read from all these sources, but some are beginning to lose what little credibility they have. Sometimes these individuals contradict what they say from article to article.

Entertainment comes in all forms I guess.

Just my commentary.

Ben

You can find an equal number of individuals and web sites continually trashing film and claiming the undisputable superiority of digital. The fact that you haven't noticed, or mentionned, any of those just shows that you are just as biased as those you are condemning. You simply have a different bias.

--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

And now you want to start another one !

Ben........Ken Rockwell's views on the subject are very interesting.

For my purposes, digital is more than adequate.

They did a test on the gadget Show on Channel Five a month or so back, using two equivalent cameras a full frame DSLR and a 35mm and the digital won out. I agree though it is a pointless argument. If you are happy with the output of your box brownie then that's fine as well. Having changed from 35mm after many years I am perfectly happy with digital, and it offers so much more convenience.
--
artyman
http://www.artyman.co.uk

Ben Oliva said:

I don't doubt that film is superior to digital

Click to expand...

I do.

Film is slow, expensive, and bulky - whatever quality gain it offers is irrelevant to most users and will be eliminated within another decade of technological advancement.

One is not better than the other. All art forms have many different media, each with its own advantage. Solid state amps are better for jazz (faster response), tubes for clasical music (smother response). Each has its place.
--
Canon A2E, Sony R1 & Panasonic TZ5

This argument is getting worst than the Mac vs. PC argument.

A die-hard is a die-hard, regardless of the position they are taking and NO ONE can convince them otherwise. Let them be.

--mamallama

I love these threads - which can and often do, go to 150. Every time the topic comes up here, the same people get into the argument with each other. It's just like a TV drama series:

The same characters show up in the thread every week or so. The arguments are formulaic, the words and scenarios are different, but it always includes the same elements at a certain point in the thread. Then it's over, and we need to wait for the next episode for the next 'fix'. All we need are scenes from next week's Film vs Digital Show at the end.

So thanks benoliva! I'm popping corn right now.

--
Read my blog -> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

they are different media, and as such, when used in their own context, all perform. Some time Film is bettre. Sometime Digital is better.

It is prejudice to say anyone of them is better just as a single statement without any context attached.

--

• Franka -

MPCat said:

I do.

Film is slow, expensive, and bulky - whatever quality gain it offers
is irrelevant to most users and will be eliminated within another
decade of technological advancement.

Click to expand...

They are just different...

So it is down to taste..

Some people said 10 years ago that film would be impossible to buy, that is clearly not the case. I see a place for it..in a smaller market, it's still a beautiful medium, and unique. Even if it requires more effort in some respects.

Digital is great for some areas, so is film..I like them both..

bringing up a C5 'Gadget show' test, as ANY form of indication on a technical matter will haunt you to your grave.

of the many, MANY sources of excellent information on this subject, the production team of 'The Gadget Show' will be first up against the wall when I'm in charge



--
DeeJayBee

deejaybee.smugmug.com

Deejaybee said:

bringing up a C5 'Gadget show' test, as ANY form of indication on a
technical matter will haunt you to your grave.

of the many, MANY sources of excellent information on this subject,
the production team of 'The Gadget Show' will be first up against the
wall when I'm in charge

Click to expand...

I agree, whilst they do some fun things (clearly they aim in that direction, rather than technical)..the test was deeply flawed..

Shooting ISO 400 neg film, there was never any doubt the nikon would do better, at ISO 100, things would have been rather different

Really, they should have known better

n/t

Thomas Hoepker has switched to digital. Annie Leibowitz has. James Nachtwey has, and even Salgado.

I think by now, even Helmut Newton would switch, because his beloved Polaroid has disappeared.

Yup, OP must have been bored & lobbed one in here. Like going to a Red Sox game with a Yankees cap on. ;^)

BTW, I like both, learn and most shotw with digital, special portraits and landscapes with film.

-Mark
--

'I'd say the forces out to destroy the planet on the Bush-Cheney side have been fighting a lot harder than those out to protect it,' Tim DeChristopher
http://www.pbase.com/markland

RobertSigmund said:

Thomas Hoepker has switched to digital. Annie Leibowitz has. James
Nachtwey has, and even Salgado.
I think by now, even Helmut Newton would switch, because his beloved
Polaroid has disappeared.

Click to expand...

And?

Do we follow what folks "think" we should do, or..as I would hope, what we want to ourselves.

Frankly I couldn't care if the pope was using digital, or if Elvis Presley's ghost is a Nikon D3 man ;-)

Does shooting digital somehow make one a better photographer? It's an entirely personal choice

I for one am pleased that by shooting film I am in a minority, that's great, but I use both, I see advantages for both. I am amazed anyone is brave enough to say XYZ photographer is using digital..and that means something. Means nothing on it's own..

A lot of folks would say Annie Leibowitz's early work (film) was a lot better than her recent stuff. But I blame that on photoshop overdose, than the medium itself

MusicDoctorDJ said:

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that
came in it!

Click to expand...

--

I prefer Coke....Classic. ;-)