Reading mode: Light Dark

flim vs. digital

Go to last post
uzibear said:
i am in the market for a slr, but i'm debating between film and
digital. i have the nagging feeling that i'm not going to be able
to get as good image quality with the digital. is this ungrounded?

--
for wonder -uzibear
Click to expand...
I went through the exact same debate over the last couple months. I took the plunge on the D70 and I am very glad that I did.

I have a Nikon Coolscan V scanner for my film, and I can tell you that there is no noticeable advantage to film that I see. In fact, the digital appears sharper and more detailed. Film may have a slight advantage with regard to "dynamic range" (or exposure latitude) but the bottom line is that the conveniences and advantages of digital outweigh any of the advantages that film has.
 
If you avoid the temptation of digital to become a measurebator I find it offers alot more potential than 35mm film. Sure you can debate the quality that each format offers but I think that is a side note.

why?

you dont have to pay for film or processing nor do you have to invest the time in getting prints. In the two weeks with my D70 I have shot more than the past 6 months with my old N65 (which i have no intetion of getting rid of mind you). With instant results you can see exactly how the camera is perciving the light allowing instant training on setting up scenes.

Digital cameras wont make you a better shooter. They make it easier to learn how to shoot better.
 
Personally I would go digital over film for 35mm purposes. Most of my pictures these days end up online anyway, so digital eliminates a step. Most of the pro film debates I have seen are now comparing 6MP digital cameras to medium format film and larger drum scanned with top dollar equipment.

I don't have anything against film (I will be keeping my N80 and medium format equipment), but for me the advantages of DSLR (instant feedback, high quality, and ability to shoot all day long for "free") make it an easy winner.
 
For landscapes a 6MP DSLR comes not even close to a 6x7 or 6x9 slide, especially not using a drumscan or other high quality scanner.
Bartman01 said:
Personally I would go digital over film for 35mm purposes. Most of
my pictures these days end up online anyway, so digital eliminates
a step. Most of the pro film debates I have seen are now comparing
6MP digital cameras to medium format film and larger drum scanned
with top dollar equipment.

I don't have anything against film (I will be keeping my N80 and
medium format equipment), but for me the advantages of DSLR
(instant feedback, high quality, and ability to shoot all day long
for "free") make it an easy winner.
Click to expand...
 
Greetings.

I've got both, though my digital camera is not a DSLR. I recently purchased a new scanner, basically because my old flatbed wasn't working properly and it was already 7 years old. I invested in an Epson 4870. It's a great scanner with good scanning tools. However, this is not about the Epson.

I've got a lot of old film, mostly slides, going back about 45 years or so. It makes sense to me to get a film scanner/flatbed. I've already got a Nikon scanner.

I don't really see too many advantages of digital over film for my style of shooting. I'm basically taking one picture at a time. I only use the motor drive on the one camera I can't remove it from, an F100. All the others are manual wind, manual focus and manual exposure. That's how I like to work. The price of slides is fairly small to me, so I don't care if digital shooting is "free." It isn't really since you have to invest time either way. Also, I want enlargements which I can do much better myself than trusting in a lab.

That said, I probably will get a digital SLR some time in the next few years. There's no urgency since all 6 of my film cameras work just fine. If my scanner breaks I'll get another. That's my opinion. However, as in all things, your mileage may vary.

Cheers, good shooting and good luck no matter which you buy.
 
I shoot weddings and portraits for a living, and I have some awesome film equipment, but this digital slr has brought back my love for photography. It has made it "fun" all over again! But I wouldnt ever buy a digital to replace film. The microwave didnt replace the oven!! lol
 
Hi Randy,

Do you have those Thailand pictures on line I would be much interested!!!

Did you shoot in Raw or jpeg? I always shot in jpeg, but with the D 70 I tried raw, and I will not go back anymore!!!!
Randy Z said:
Given unlimited time and darkroom equipment/expertise, along with
perfect lighting and exposure, film will always beat digital right
now. But not by much.

In the real world, my photography improved a hundred-fold when I
went to digital, because:

I can see if I have what I wanted while I'm still shooting. I can
shoot hundreds of frames with no cost whatsoever.
I can manipulate phenomenally, cropping and adjusting color,
sharpness, lighting, contrast etc AFTERWARDS (within reason of
course . . .)

I now produce pictures that I'm completely proud of a dozen times a
week. whereas I felt I had a "something that had to go on a wall
somewhere" only a couple times a year with film.

On a recent trip to Thailand I shot 1500 digital frames (imagine
the film cost!), and when I returned I worked on the best 400, and
I have a book that is AMAZING. Not because I'm anywhere near being
a pro-- but because this tool lets me do the work that needs to be
done to get it right. (and no one believes they're not film!)

BTW, you can get by just fine on photoshop elements and a couple
plug-ins. $300 for a printer for one-offs at home, or .19 to .29
for big print jobs from Adorama in NY for optical prints from your
tweaked files that are fantastic (like the Thailand job above.)

Which is better? I have at least a hundred pictures I consider fit
for display from digital for every one I have from film. Digital
wins.

Download a few of Phil's original large files, and print them, or
send them to be printed. You'll see.
--
Z-Man
Click to expand...
--
see my pictures at
http://www.pbase.com/indieke
 
digital gives you the advantage you can shoot and shoot without having to worry about the costs. I think in one month with my D70 I have shot more pictures than I ever did with film.....and there some winners amongst these pictures.

If the picture is more important than the last little technical detail.....go digital
uzibear said:
i am in the market for a slr, but i'm debating between film and
digital. i have the nagging feeling that i'm not going to be able
to get as good image quality with the digital. is this ungrounded?

--
for wonder -uzibear
Click to expand...
 
Paolo Pizzi said:
uzibear said:
i am in the market for a slr, but i'm debating between film and
digital. i have the nagging feeling that i'm not going to be able
to get as good image quality with the digital. is this ungrounded?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. I shoot both digital and film and I'm perfectly
aware of the pros and cons of either system.

In THEORY, a film scanner has a greater resolution than a
6mp CCD, but...in PRACTICE a lot is lost in the translation
of the image from optical to electronic format.
Click to expand...
More unsubstantiated garbage! That statement in itself is plain stupid.
Paolo Pizzi said:
Add to this
that only top-quality expensive low-ISO film truly scans well
and that the kind of manipulation you can perform on a
scanned image is way less dramatic than what you can do
with a NEF file (where pulling stops or changing WB settings
produce no image degradation.)

Yes, provided that you use low-ISO and top-quality film
ONLY,
Click to expand...
More unsubstantiated garbage! I can't beleive what I'm reading here!
Paolo Pizzi said:
and that you have invested in a top-quality film
scanner (flatbed scanners produce very disappointing results,
simply not viable...)
Click to expand...
You don't have a clue about anything, There are flatbed scanners that come very close to film scanners now.
Paolo Pizzi said:
you may pick up SLIGHTLY more details
than with a 6mp DSLR, but it comes at the expense of a
much reduced convenience and much higher costs.
Click to expand...
Your hopeless in every topic.
Paolo Pizzi said:
------------------------------------------------
'Everything turnip should be made as
simple as Paolo Pizzi, simpler isn't possible.'

(Albert Einstein)
  • Equipment list in profile.
Click to expand...
 
Hans Keesom said:
digital gives you the advantage you can shoot and shoot without
having to worry about the costs. I think in one month with my D70 I
have shot more pictures than I ever did with film.....and there
some winners amongst these pictures.
Click to expand...
Yup, and the more pictures you shoot, the more disk storage you need to keep them, and the more processing power you need to get them all through Photoshop in a timely manner. I just invested over $3,000 in a new computer that hopefully will leave me with a few extra hours a week to do things besides post-processing.

Then, right. Going digital saves you a lot of money. Not!

--
FJP
 
Your going to save a heck of a lot of money on digital. No film! No processing! will you lose some resolution?... yea!

FYI. I have not shot a frame on my 6006 since I got the D70. Does that mean I never will... No way! I've got Kodak VS 100 Chrome in the freezer just waiting for that awesome shot! Then again, I'm sure I'll shoot it digital too =)
Get 2 nikons... 1 SLR & 1 DSLR... and one nice set of glass!!!

--



an oldie, but a goodie... shot with a 6006 - 50mm @ f/22 & 2sec
 
I was talking about the worrying about costs at the moment of shooting. Not afterwards. I don't worry while shooting where I was when shooting on film.

You bought a new computer. Was it just for photo's?

Well, i have to have a computer anyhow. I did not buy a new computer because of my digital camera.

For big photoshop batches I let it run overnight.

I did buy an external harddisk for backing up my laptop and as there is space left I copy my photo's there. The disk is 250 gb and only 400 euro at a time.

Of course I have to make backups from these photo's, but that is something great, I could not do that with negatives. A DVD-recorder is not that expensive and every now and then I can buy DVD-R's for just less then two euro's. On one DVD i can put a thousand pictures. Couldn't do that when working on film. Of course with negatives you can but in a viewable format you could not.
fjp said:
Hans Keesom said:
digital gives you the advantage you can shoot and shoot without
having to worry about the costs. I think in one month with my D70 I
have shot more pictures than I ever did with film.....and there
some winners amongst these pictures.
Click to expand...
Yup, and the more pictures you shoot, the more disk storage you
need to keep them, and the more processing power you need to get
them all through Photoshop in a timely manner. I just invested over
$3,000 in a new computer that hopefully will leave me with a few
extra hours a week to do things besides post-processing.

Then, right. Going digital saves you a lot of money. Not!

--
FJP
Click to expand...
 
Your behavior is appalling.

Abuse is the last resort of uncivilized people who are losing
an argument and are incapable of carrying out a civilized
conversation.

------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'

(Albert Einstein)
  • Equipment list in profile.
 
Hans Keesom said:
I was talking about the worrying about costs at the moment of
shooting. Not afterwards. I don't worry while shooting where I was
when shooting on film.
Click to expand...
I've never worried about film costs. A roll of K36 is about $8. When I was younger Tri-X 36 was about $1 and that was more then. Plus I developed the Tri-X myself. I also try to get 36 for 36 (37 for 37 sometimes) from a roll. I seldom shoot hundreds of pictures in one day. The last time I did a wedding perhaps?
 
Again no valid response or defense. Just foolish comments.
Paolo Pizzi said:
Your behavior is appalling.

Abuse is the last resort of uncivilized people who are losing
an argument and are incapable of carrying out a civilized
conversation.

------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'

(Albert Einstein)
  • Equipment list in profile.
Click to expand...
 
I know I will go digital at some point, it is just so convenient.

That point for me is when I can get a digital camera body that will perform like my Nikon F5 for the price of the F5. To match the 8 FPS, focus speed, exposure accuracy and build quality in a DSLR I would currently have to spend a LOT more money, possibly even need to change brands. Interestingly, the d70 nearly matches the F5's metering accuracy so I do not think it will be that far away before the other factors are caught up on.

In the meantime I enjoy F5 and small P&S digital combination.
RITphototech said:
Your going to save a heck of a lot of money on digital. No film!
No processing! will you lose some resolution?... yea!
FYI. I have not shot a frame on my 6006 since I got the D70. Does
that mean I never will... No way! I've got Kodak VS 100 Chrome in
the freezer just waiting for that awesome shot! Then again, I'm
sure I'll shoot it digital too =)
Get 2 nikons... 1 SLR & 1 DSLR... and one nice set of glass!!!

--



an oldie, but a goodie... shot with a 6006 - 50mm @ f/22 & 2sec
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