Going back to film

[D. C. Beattie]

Since this topic is still here..And should be a discussion of medium format film vs. digital.
1st Go to http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml
and then http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml

The last one is a 5 part test. Interesting test of digital, 35mm and medium format.

If you do a search for 'medium format' on the site you will find a number articles comparing digital to medium. Digial comes out really well. Now I'm confused again. 8^}
Duke Beattie
717, SL66

Well, here is how he arrives at that:
"Shown here are images from digital cameras and 35mm, both imaging
the same test target. The digital camera images were done by
imaging a 30 x 39 inch print (from the large format). I've done
multiple tests. For the initial tests, I used an HP C200 digital
camera (872 x 1152 pixels) but closed in so the full image
over-filled the field of view. In a more extensive tests, shown
after the C200 tests, I used a Nikon 950 2 MPixel camera. At
different distances, the full image has varying total pixels (shall
we say, virtual image size?). test areas 1 and 2 were done at 2
distances to give equivalent fields of view of about 1900 x 2470
(4.7 megapixel image) and 1000 x 1300 pixels (1.3 megapixel image)."

So, he never actually had a 4.7 or a 5megapixel camera. Considering
some of the advantages that those new sensors have over the old
ones, this sort of relegates his test to more of an interesting
simulation than necessarily conclusive results.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

--

Ulysses

--
d.c. beattie
http://www.pbase.com/dcbeattie
Are we having fun yet?

 

[Ulysses]

I don't think anyone argues that even the high-end digital still camera (which by Sony's definition includes even the dSLR on the level of the Nikon D100 and the Canon 10D) still do not quite capture the same resolution as film

I guess the real bottom line is how well the camera is able to deliver output for the human eye, for hanging on a wall, for creating memories that can be enjoyed rather than cause distraction due to LOW quality.

It's all a matter of context and less of absolutes because the suitability of the tool depends upon what you need to build.

You don't need to take his word, take my word. 35mm film has a lot
more resolution than a 6MP digital camera, but only if you use good
film and a prime lens.

--

Ulysses

 

[Shay Stephens]

Possibly, but there is a lot of talk about online printers, walmart prints, and the like. So I wouldn't assume everyone is an "ignorant slut" in that regard ;-)

I make prints multiple times a week.

i wonder how many people never even see there digital images in
print and have gone the whole hog and only ever view there images
on a monitor.

Most i would think!

--
Shay

My Sony F707 & F717 Gallery: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp
My F717 Observations: http://www.shaystephens.com/f717.asp

 

[Capital Man]

I guess the real bottom line is how well the camera is able to
deliver output for the human eye, for hanging on a wall, for
creating memories that can be enjoyed rather than cause distraction
due to LOW quality.

Some people are distracted by different things.

There are no doubt distractions on film. If you want to scan and print, then grain and dirt are big distractions that can't be 100% successfully edited out. (Getting prints from labs... not recommended, you have no control over anything when you do that.)

Digital has distractions like purple fringing. Even on the Canon 10D you see the purple fringing, especially at wide angles. (A rangefinder film camera has such a huge advantage over digital when it comes to wideangle.)

 

[LanceD]

Well, here is how he arrives at that:
"Shown here are images from digital cameras and 35mm, both imaging
the same test target. The digital camera images were done by
imaging a 30 x 39 inch print (from the large format). I've done
multiple tests. For the initial tests, I used an HP C200 digital
camera (872 x 1152 pixels) but closed in so the full image
over-filled the field of view. In a more extensive tests, shown
after the C200 tests, I used a Nikon 950 2 MPixel camera. At
different distances, the full image has varying total pixels (shall
we say, virtual image size?). test areas 1 and 2 were done at 2
distances to give equivalent fields of view of about 1900 x 2470
(4.7 megapixel image) and 1000 x 1300 pixels (1.3 megapixel image)."

So, he never actually had a 4.7 or a 5megapixel camera. Considering
some of the advantages that those new sensors have over the old
ones, this sort of relegates his test to more of an interesting
simulation than necessarily conclusive results.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

--

Ulysses

--
Lance

 

[LanceD]

Consider the number of chemical molecules on a 35mm film, with "PERFECT" lighting (emphasis on PERFECT, which is VERY HARD to get), I don't think digital will ever get the kind of resolution film can POTENTIALLY delivers .

However, for the majority of consumers out there, they either can't or don't know how to get perfect lighting. And for that, digital is much better. So for an average guy, the shot he gets with a 35mm could be worse than what he can get from a 5MP digicam, simply because he couldn't ultilize the 35mm to its maximum capacity.

Not a bad link for the discussion. But he over-analyzes. And I have
some "issues" with his method. For example, down in the section
where he is doing the comparisons for digital cameras, the first
thing that caught my eye is that he is doing a "4.7 megapixel
equivalent". Huhh? What is that?

Well, here is how he arrives at that:
"Shown here are images from digital cameras and 35mm, both imaging
the same test target. The digital camera images were done by
imaging a 30 x 39 inch print (from the large format). I've done
multiple tests. For the initial tests, I used an HP C200 digital
camera (872 x 1152 pixels) but closed in so the full image
over-filled the field of view. In a more extensive tests, shown
after the C200 tests, I used a Nikon 950 2 MPixel camera. At
different distances, the full image has varying total pixels (shall
we say, virtual image size?). test areas 1 and 2 were done at 2
distances to give equivalent fields of view of about 1900 x 2470
(4.7 megapixel image) and 1000 x 1300 pixels (1.3 megapixel image)."

So, he never actually had a 4.7 or a 5megapixel camera. Considering
some of the advantages that those new sensors have over the old
ones, this sort of relegates his test to more of an interesting
simulation than necessarily conclusive results.

I have a hard time figuring out what he was doing.

You don't need to take his word, take my word. 35mm film has a lot
more resolution than a 6MP digital camera, but only if you use good
film and a prime lens.

On the other hand, 35mm film has all kinds of other problems like
grain, scratches, dust, weird scanning results. I certainly
understand why people are a lot happier with digital where you
always get the same consistent quality every single time, even
though that quality means a lower resolution than film.

With an 8 x 10 inkjet print from a film scan, there is so much
detail that you need to actually look at the printout with a loupe
in order to see how much detail is there. That's sharp! But
unfortunately, also full of the defects mentioned earlier.

--
Lance

 

[Capital Man]

Lance

If the molecules were perfectly evenly spread out over the film, that would be one thing.

But the molecules of different ligiht sensitive chemicals are clumped together, producing an uneven effect (known ad grain), and limiting 35mm film to a resolution that's significantly lower than what the lens can deliver.

I call the resolution of film at 11 quality mexapixels, since that's what the Canon 1Ds does, and everyone seems to think that the Canon 1Ds has better resolution than film.

 

[tai]

I love your comparison, and totally agree with it. The "magic" of the old
car or camera probably in no small amount ncludes the good memories of
past use.

A few weeks later, though, and he'll realize all of the quaintness of
his old friend doesn't make up for missing out on improvements in
convenience, performance, and/or cost efficiency.

Tai

Actually, he sounds (to me) like an individual who simply enjoys
shooting film photography and wanted to establish a reacquaintance
with it. Nothing wrong with that. It's like owning an old
car....new ones are great but there's some magic with the older
one's too.

Jim

 

[tony gilmour165263]

I would never go back to film except maybe for medium format.

What I have read though about the focus problems with the 10d has pricked my balloon so i might stick with my s85 until i see some positives,but film? Never say never again.

The following editorial introduced the July issue of Shutterbug
Magazine. Tell me what you think about his thoughts and
conclusions. An interesting read either way.

===========
by George Schaub
July 2003

I have to confess that I have not exposed a lot of film recently.
The same goes for many photographers I know, who admit to the same
thing with a similar trace of guilt that I feel about it. Many
folks have been swept up into the digital realm and been hooked by
the instant review, easy download, and of course the excitement of
being able to manipulate their images with such ease in the
so-called “digital darkroom.” But on a recent rainy afternoon I
spent some time with some old friends—my slide film and negative
files. I flicked on the light box and took out some slide sheets
and relived some great memories through images I had made in the
past. It was an odd and interesting experience—not seeing images on
a screen—and it reminded me of why I had always loved film and made
me rethink my almost total digital conversion. There the images
were—real and not virtual—and along with them came the colors and
tones that became almost visually tactile as I passed sheet after
sheet over the frosted glass of the light table.

It’s odd that looking at those images made me almost nostalgic for
film, and the experience prompted me to bring out the old Pentax 67
and load a roll of 120 Velvia. I went out on the next available day
and exposed a roll—nothing special mind you, just some pictures of
blooming spring that was just then appearing. I had to check myself
sometimes from looking at the back of the camera after the picture
was exposed—force of habit with digital these days. And the wait
for film processing was also an odd feeling, rather than being able
to just go indoors and download the images to see what I got. But
when I got back the box with the uncut transparency film there was
a certain apprehension—how was my exposure, did I get steady shots,
had I lost my touch with film exposure? But as I looked at my
pictures frame by frame there was a growing sense that the charm of
film had not escaped me. I used a loupe rather than the zoom tool
to check out sharpness and depth of field, and drank in the vibrant
colors and sharp edges of details within the frames.

This may sound foolish to those of you who still shoot mainly, or
entirely with film, but once you’ve turned the digital corner you
can’t help but feel that film is somehow quaint. Indeed, the
industry itself has termed film as being “conventional,” or

“traditional” or even “analog,” a phrase that for me seems to evoke
33rpm platters spinning on a record player. But the beauty and
strength of film cannot be denied, and if you go back and forth
between the two mediums you begin to see that digital is a bit of a
“thin” medium while film seems to be more robust, more visually
tactile, and in many ways a richer photographic experience, at
least when you look at a roll of 120 transparencies next to those
digital images on the screen.

But happily there is a way to “marry” the two so you can get the
benefit of both worlds. If you love film and just can’t give it up
you should not deny yourself the benefits of the digital darkroom.
I have seen some amazing transformations from scanned film to print
via the computer. In my mind the enlarger/projected light path form
of printing is going by the boards. There’s little doubt that
scanning and digital printing offers so much more latitude and
creative freedom, especially to those who can’t afford the space or
find the time to set up and break down a conventional darkroom. It
also encourages us to complete the creative cycle begun when we
first snapped the shutter. To me, every image is a sketch that is
finalized by the photographer doing the printing. It’s the last
touch on the visual canvas. True, I still have a black and white
darkroom set up in my home, but for color and most of the black and
white work I do now it’s going to be a digital path to the print.

So, I’ve gone back to working with film, at least part of the time.
Call me old-fashioned, call me nostalgic, call me a photo
conservative, but it’s hard to give up a medium that has so much
strength, beauty, and potential for creative expression.

============

Okay. So he's old-fashioned, nostalgic and a photo conservative.
But I agree with him that there is room for both formats. For now.
:-]

--

Ulysses

 

[Capital Man]

Playing around with scanned 35mm film and my printer, I can't seem to make a tack sharp print of 12 x 18, but the Sony F707 printed at 8 x 10 does indeed look tack sharp.

So although the film does clearly have more resolution than the F707, if it doesn't allow you to make a tack sharp 12 x 18, the next size up from 8 x 10, I'd have to say that the extra resolution isn't of much practical use.

Film still does allow you to do wide angle photography, which can't do with the Sony F7x7, or even with the 10D.

I'm still experimenting with film vs digital. Probably, by the time I'm finished with my experiments, they will have a digital camera out there that will be so amazing that further experiments will be useles. A camera in the Olympus 4/3 format with a Foveon 6MP sensor would probably kick film's butt big time.

 

[Dennis]

I'm an elitist; I think digital is cheating. It's easier.
Therefore it is cheating.

So do you mean that digital is cheating BECAUSE it's easier?
Wouldn't that be like saying washing my dishes in the Kenmore
dishwasher is cheating since I didn't use a real sponge or towel
dry them?

Nope, a dishwasher isn't cheating because it's not art or anything,
just a chore you have to do.

Wow - I'm late in joining this thread - just saw it referenced from another.

A while ago, I started differentiating "art" from "craft" in photography. Craft being the technical side, the ability to "take a picture" ... to know how to use the gear to get the results you want. Like knowing how to use your woodworking tools to cut straight and make tight fitting joints. It's something that takes time to master, and in the end lets you produce technically good results. Art is, well, art ! The visionary side ... knowing what to photograph when. Previsualizing an image then putting together the pieces in the studio ... knowledge of how lighting affects the image. Craft is knowing that slow shutter speeds make flowing water blur; art is deciding which one you want for the results you want. Art is "photographing with intent" to quote Norman Rich !

So digital affects the craft to a great extent, but not really the art. You hear all this garbage about how anyone with a digital camera can create art because they can take a lousy picture and fix it in photoshop. To me, that's someone who's a lousy craftsman when it comes to using their camera, a good craftsman when it comes to using photoshop (and folks will argue that photoshop makes it "easy") but ultimately a good artist ! You can take a "crappy" photo, "fix it" in photoshop by clicking auto levels and red-eye reduction and sharpen ... but you're not going to get art ! If you can take a lousy photo then go into photoshop and dodge & burn and simulate soft illumination that wasn't present when you took the photo, change the shape of a stream to an eye-pleasing S-curve, eliminate distracting lines and ultimately end up with a "good" image, then guess what - you're an artist ! You have to know what makes art to create art with a digital camera or with photoshop. So maybe digital provides tools that make the craft easier for some people, but that's just a question of how traditional you are ... is fine woodwork "art" if done with power tools ? (Just as C.M. indicated ... the answer determines how much of an elitist ... or at least a traditionalist ... you are).

Auto focus makes photography easier. Auto exposure does, too. Multi-segment metering certainly does. Maybe we should photograph with cameras that don't have built in meters. Or maybe no meters at all ! Just use the guidelines in the film box ! Or isn't that cheating ? We should read a book on how to estimate exposure and then learn to trust our eyes in any given lighting situation ! Heck, isn't photography as a means to create an image cheating ? Shouldn't we all learn to paint with colors made from berries with brushes made from the bristles of a boar that we kill ourselves with a spear made from a tree branch sharpened with a rock ? (I read how C.M. still uses a fountain pen, so he's probably agreeing with half of this

Anyway, my thoughts on the matter ... actually, I think it was NRich whose posts got me thinking about separating art from craft.

• Dennis

 

[Ulysses]

Some very nice thoughts there, ctyankee. Nice delineation between "craft" and "art". We need both aspects of expertise. One is much easier to develop than the other.

Heheheh... I guess it goes to show that it's never too late to join a good thread.

--

Ulysses

 

[Mitchell Regenbogen]

I'm into digital only for the practical reason that my 1GB memory stick gives me about 360 high-res shots on one "roll" -- much preferred to jerking around with and keeping track of multiple rolls of film.

By the way, anyone who thinks that digital won't eventually replace

film is being unreasltic -- as soon as digital SLR's are pushing 15 million pixels and are in the same price range as film SLR's film is dead. Film users will be relegated to the same circles as people who pay $2000 for a turntable so they can play their aging vinyl records.

I'm sure that digital photographers are just as interested in
quality as the "film" guys. I'm guessing you're posting with a bit
of hyperbole so as to elicit some reaction.

But even if not, I do understand where you're coming from. It's
very interesting to see the variety of input that an article like
this has generated!

Digital is a technology that emphasizes speed over quality and, as
such, is the preferred choice for photojournalists who are in
direct competition with broadcast media...but photohjournalists are
not the only camera professionals around and in those situations
where quality is more important than speed...film still reigns.

Digital has been pushed to non-professional photographers who used
to own a plastic point and shoot or a manual SLR with a single 50mm
lens and who shot a single roll over the course of a year. The idea
would be to put pictures on the web or email them to your relatives
and that is an essential element. If there was no Internet there
would be no digital photography.

--

Ulysses

 

[johnrweb]

Have never been to film except for a point and shoot. Can't have nostalgia for something that I've never really experienced.

--
John
http://www.pbase.com/johnrweb/ A PBase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/domdom/

 

[The Patriot]

In America, everyone wants to get from point A to point B faster
and with less effort.

Yes it's us dirty scoundrel Americans. We always want everything to be convenient, efficient and god help us sometimes we even like it to be fun

Really it is no different than anything else. When my 60 year old father listens to rock music he says it’s not “real” music, when he sees a Toyota Camery it’s not a “real” car, when he sees people playing golf it’s not a “real” sport, when he goes to Mc Donald’s it’s not a “real” burger (well this in fact may be true, lol ), when he watches a movie that isn’t in black and white these aren’t “real” actors like Humphrey Bogart, when we watch TV it’s not “real” comedy, when we use a digital camera its of course not a “real” camera.

This 85% of the article was poetically spoken as someone would talk nostalgically about an old 55 Chevy they had in high school that “filled their nose with the sweet smell of power when they stepped on the gas and they rolled down the window (because, there was no air conditioning) and felt the wind wisp through their golden hair.” Journalism is an art just as photography is and the obvious aim of this article was to evoke a nostalgic emotion not neccisarily compare the quality or proffesionalism of one particular medium. I find the article to be quite good, although I can’t say that I have any of these emotions since I haven’t used film since photography class back in high school (which was not that long ago for me being 25). I only recently have returned to the hobby of photography (and for me it is strictly a hobby) due to the affordability of digital photography and since it intersects with another hobby of mine which has been creating digital graphic art for some local non-profit organizations.

It’s all about what you enjoy, what your needs are, what you can

--
The Patriot