Film vs Digital SLR

I was looking at 4*6 prints of photos I took during years 2000 to 2005 using a film SLR (Canon Elan II) and they appear to be better than photos I took recently with Digital SLRs (Canon 550D) and mirror-less.

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as Film? I would like to think that photography skills improved over time but probably, my technique changed with switch to digital. With film, I may have been more diligent in composing because every shot counted then.

sanath444 said:

sanath444 wrote:

I was looking at 4*6 prints of photos I took during years 2000 to 2005 using a film SLR (Canon Elan II) and they appear to be better than photos I took recently with Digital SLRs (Canon 550D) and mirror-less.

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as Film? I would like to think that photography skills improved over time but probably, my technique changed with switch to digital. With film, I may have been more diligent in composing because every shot counted then.

Click to expand...

Are you comparing prints or on screen, or screen vs prints?

sanath444 said:

sanath444 wrote:

I was looking at 4*6 prints of photos I took during years 2000 to 2005 using a film SLR (Canon Elan II) and they appear to be better than photos I took recently with Digital SLRs (Canon 550D) and mirror-less.

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as Film? I would like to think that photography skills improved over time but probably, my technique changed with switch to digital. With film, I may have been more diligent in composing because every shot counted then.

Click to expand...

The performance of modern APS-C sensors (resolution, dynamic range, noise and so on) easily beats what you would get with small-format (up to 35mm) colour print film. I have prints of shots taken at ISO3200 that look better than what I used to get using ISO400 colour print film. That is in part because of the trouble I take in post-processing compared to taking negatives to a chemist to be printed by a teenager on work experience, and because I use better lenses than I used to... but even so.

It's possible that you may have taken more trouble with film. But what do you mean by 'better'? If your older shots were better composed and more interesting, for example, that's down to you. If the colours / saturation / brightness / contrast look better on your older prints - those are all things that can easily be adjusted on your digital files using any simple programme from free Picasa up to full Photoshop. If your film shots were taken with top-quality slide film like Kodachrome 25 and well printed you'd expect them to look great. If you used standard print film, that would not apply quite so much.

Can you post an example or two and say what it is that you find unsatisfactory about your current pictures?

Best wishes

sanath444 said:

sanath444 wrote:

I was looking at 4*6 prints of photos I took during years 2000 to 2005 using a film SLR (Canon Elan II) and they appear to be better than photos I took recently with Digital SLRs (Canon 550D) and mirror-less.

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as Film? I would like to think that photography skills improved over time but probably, my technique changed with switch to digital. With film, I may have been more diligent in composing because every shot counted then.

Click to expand...

Are you shooting processing and printing RAW, or are you working with jpegs?

I was comparing prints vs prints and screen vs prints. I shot in jpegs. It is hard to say why film photos are better - I just feel they are.

sanath444 said:

sanath444 wrote:

I was comparing prints vs prints and screen vs prints. I shot in jpegs. It is hard to say why film photos are better - I just feel they are.

Click to expand...

Film has a very different look than digital. It is not qualitatively better or worse, just different. Some like film better than digital and I can see why they would choose this.

sanath444 said:

sanath444 wrote:

I was comparing prints vs prints and screen vs prints. I shot in jpegs. It is hard to say why film photos are better - I just feel they are.

Click to expand...

Besides issues like the care you may have taken over them it maybe you simpley like the colour/contrast that a certain kind of film gave you. It might be worth trying to track down some editting software/settings that could bring your digital shots closer to that look if its the case.

mike703 said:

mike703 wrote:

Click to expand...

mike703 said:

If your film shots were taken with top-quality slide film like Kodachrome 25 and well printed you'd expect them to look great. If you used standard print film, that would not apply quite so much.

Click to expand...

No.

Prints from slide film were always much inferior to those from negative film intended for making prints.

To get a print from slide a reversal type material is needed, and while such prints improved over the years, the problem of veiled highlights lacking in detail remained to the end.

Cibachromes were different....

Cibachromes (Ilfocolour) were made by dye-destruct methods using powerful bleach (the material started black). Now Ciba colour was terrific, and pretty much fade-free, even when hung on the outside of buildings....

..... but still highlights were always slightly veiled, by comparison with standard neg-pos colour print paper...

.... but worst of all, by comparison with the transparencies from which they were printed.

--
Regards,
Baz
:
"Ahh... But the thing is, these guys were no ORDINARY time travellers!"

I sympathize, having spent a lot of time and effort in both film and digital media. They are somewhat different. And as you've already acknowledged, the way we worked with a roll of film in the camera was inherently different from recording files on a card with potentially thousands of images at little or no cost. Others responding here have already mentioned that your post processing technique could lead you to a satisfying end in the digital workflow as well. It may take time and effort, just as did your film work. If you were to concentrate on tonal range and color palette you might find digital becoming more satisfying. True, it will never be exactly the equivalent. Consequently, some have gone back to film, others are moving on. (I'm among the second group.) You might consider leaving the LCD off and shooting raw only, no more than 36 frames in a day. Return to the consciousness of every subject, moment and capture, just as if you were working with a roll of film without the benefit of immediate review. If you know someone who is adept at raw conversion, explain what you're hoping for as he/she guides you through post processing with tone curves, white balance, sharpening, tone mapping (if HDR is helpful). Sometimes those missing the long tonal range of film find satisfying images through moderate HDR. The photographic world is still your oyster.

sanath444 said:

sanath444 wrote:

I was looking at 4*6 prints of photos I took during years 2000 to 2005 using a film SLR (Canon Elan II) and they appear to be better than photos I took recently with Digital SLRs (Canon 550D) and mirror-less.

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as FilIm? I would like to think that photography skills improved over time but probably, my technique changed with switch to digital. With film, I may have been more diligent in composing because every shot counted then.

Click to expand...

I feel the same. If the film and photo is properly processed, they look very good. For for reason digital print looks 'flat' to me.

Barrie Davis said:

Barrie Davis wrote:

Cibachromes were different....

Cibachromes (Ilfocolour) were made by dye-destruct methods using powerful bleach (the material started black). Now Ciba colour was terrific, and pretty much fade-free, even when hung on the outside of buildings....

..... but still highlights were always slightly veiled, by comparison with standard neg-pos colour print paper...

Click to expand...

Cibachromes are what I was referring to. They could look stunning... but I doubt that is what the OP was talking about.

Best wishes

sanath444 said:

sanath444 wrote:

I was looking at 4*6 prints of photos I took during years 2000 to 2005 using a film SLR (Canon Elan II) and they appear to be better than photos I took recently with Digital SLRs (Canon 550D) and mirror-less.

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as Film? I would like to think that photography skills improved over time but probably, my technique changed with switch to digital. With film, I may have been more diligent in composing because every shot counted then.

Click to expand...

Well, APS-C DSLR's have lots better resolution than film but you can't see that on a 4X6 print. And only you can comment on the content. So all that's left is the color and tonal scale.

From what I've seen, you can get very good looking prints out of well-exposed APS-C digital files. It's easier to blow out highlights in digital, but then it's easier to lose the shadows with film.

And your last explanation may be the critical one. If you're taking pictures like it doesn't matter, you'll get pictures that don't matter.

sanath444 said:

sanath444 wrote:

I was looking at 4*6 prints of photos I took during years 2000 to 2005 using a film SLR (Canon Elan II) and they appear to be better than photos I took recently with Digital SLRs (Canon 550D) and mirror-less.

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as Film? I would like to think that photography skills improved over time but probably, my technique changed with switch to digital. With film, I may have been more diligent in composing because every shot counted then.

Click to expand...

I shoot film and digital and enjoy both.

You might enjoy using some of the 'film emulation' software that can be downloaded as a free trial. DXO Filmpack is one, but there are others.

sanath444 said:

sanath444 wrote:

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as Film?

Click to expand...

That's a good idea for an article on dpreview: comparing the same shot on one camera with another with as many same characteristics as possible except one is digital & the other film.

Eliminating as many variables as is humanly possible (though some will remain of course).

There are people who prefer the characteristics of film, just like there are people who prefer vinyl recordings to CDs (and there are technical differences between them).

There are lots of variables but it would make for an interesting article if it hasn't already been done.

Mahmoud Mousef said:

Mahmoud Mousef wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef said:

sanath444 wrote:

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as Film?

Click to expand...

There are lots of variables but it would make for an interesting article if it hasn't already been done.

Click to expand...

I think it was done a million times 5-10 years ago... and DSLRs haven't gotten any worse since then.

slide film had nothing like the dynamic range of print film either. slide film printed to cibachrome boasted impressive color but it couldhardly be called higher quality than neg film

Kodachrome200 said:

Kodachrome200 wrote:

slide film had nothing like the dynamic range of print film either. slide film printed to cibachrome boasted impressive color but it couldhardly be called higher quality than neg film

Click to expand...

It depends on what you call quality. If you like vivid colours and very sharp images, the best slide films definitely offer more lpph than the best negative films, together with more vivid colours in the case of films like Velvia.

If you have DR as your highest priority when defining quality, then yes, maybe print film has the edge, though, I never felt slide films lacked in this area; my own all round favourite being Provia.

Also, most people would say that Cibachrome prints were superior to prints made from negs. Not all, but most, especially for landscapes, still life's etc.

Mahmoud Mousef said:

Mahmoud Mousef wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef said:

sanath444 wrote:

Do modern ASP-C SLRs as good as Film?

Click to expand...

That's a good idea for an article on dpreview: comparing the same shot on one camera with another with as many same characteristics as possible except one is digital & the other film.

Eliminating as many variables as is humanly possible (though some will remain of course).

There are people who prefer the characteristics of film, just like there are people who prefer vinyl recordings to CDs (and there are technical differences between them).

There are lots of variables but it would make for an interesting article if it hasn't already been done.

Click to expand...

It has been said that this has been done millions of times before (probably hyperbole). But, I suspect that in most cases the tester had an agenda. It is also difficult to agree what parameters should be used, but it is something that I would like to do myself.

I have mint, virtually unused, Minolta Dynax 9 and Sony A900, so have suitable FF digital and film cameras that share the same lens mount. Of course, someone will say it's not a fair comparison if I don't use a Sony A99. On the other hand, most seem to believe that digital overtook film many years ago, with various estimates from 8-14 Mpixels supposed to be enough to beat film.

The lenses that I can select from include Minolta 50mm f1.4, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 28-135mm f4-4.5, 70-210 f4, 80-200mm f2.8 and Tokina ATX Pro 17mm f3.5, ATX Pro 28-70mm f2.6-2.8.

I also have Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 dpi film scanner, to get my slides/negs into digital format.

So, if people would like to suggest what parameters might be used to provide a fair comparison between film and digital, or would like to comment on whether a fair comparison is in fact possible, please go ahead.

As any film camera has such a wide choice of 'sensors' I'd consider any test to be pretty meaningless. Especially if you get as far as a neg and then scan it into digital.

But what the OP asked has nothing to do with resolution as you state with th e8 to 14 MP because he is dealing with 4x6 prints that need just 2 MP to provide a 300 ppi print.

Piginho said:

Piginho wrote:

Click to expand...

Piginho said:

On the other hand, most seem to believe that digital overtook film many years ago, with various estimates from 8-14 Mpixels supposed to be enough to beat film.

Click to expand...