Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
end

Qwntm
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

Which is better for making large fine art quality prints? (With an Espon large format printer to about 20x30 inches)

Shooting Velvia and scanning with a Nikon coolscan V or shooting digital directly with a d70s? Or D2X?

At what point does digital capture get better? Or does it?

I'm not trying to start a range war here, I was just wondering if anyone has any real experiance with the two.

Thanks for any insight...I appreciate it.

Edward
www.edwardtmartins.com
www.pbase.com/qwntm

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 03:09 PM

gavin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #2 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

Digital!
Film? whats that!
OK, seriosly, I shot Velvia for years I loved and hated it. You had almost no latitude with tranny film. The constant was the film, it never changed (one of Velvia's good points) with digital, the constant is me not the film. I can use my imput to enhance the photo 'in camera' rather than in the dark room.
Lets not even mention low light performace.
As I say to those who want to work for me and start going on about film, "I did not come to work this morning in a horse and cart".
Also I make way more money now, and thats the bottom line for a working pro.
Gav

Edited by gavin on Oct 11, 2005 at 03:20 PM GMT

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 03:12 PM

jmcfadden
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #3 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

I know for all intents film is dead for Me. I have a 20x30 shot of the 261 Steam Locomotive from my D100 and I assure you it looks way better than even stuff from a hassy. It could easily go bigger still and hold together. Velvia is nice I love it , I esp love it when the scenario is perfect for that contrasty film, it is when everything is Not exactly the way the film likes things to be that my love for is quickly wanes. The world is my oyster with digital , it is whatever I need it to be , low contrast and smooth , higher contrast and sharp it really is a brave new world. The big thing you have to get over is that you MUST be committed to the computer side of this whole process to make any headway and not give up, it is hard work but it is so worth it

J

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 03:17 PM

gavin
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

I'm a bit differant here, I believe digital gives you more control in camera, so if done properly at the time you push the button the computer becomes mearly a print server.
This is what I try to instill in my staff, don't rely on a computer, get it right first time and collect the cheque.
Gav

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 03:25 PM

Jack OBrien
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

Edward, there are a lot of us diehard film shooters that would love to proclaim just how great film is

Not long ago, I bought a new F5 just to continue shooting film, because there is just a 'look' to film that I like. However, there is a reality that some of us choose to ignore, and that is, digital is just better. Like John McFadden, I too have D100 images that far exceed the quality of anything I could get from 35mm, and when it comes to the D2X, there's not even a contest. I've said this before, but again, the D2X blows away MF film. The closest I can come to the film look that I like so much is to shoot the D2X at ISO 800, and that gives me a great starting point. But, when it comes to bottom-line image quality, digital just cannot be beat.

When it comes to work-flow, digital is not always better. I'd much rather shoot a wedding with film, because I don't have all the labor involved in processing. Print film is very forgiving, and you can shoot fast and loose, where digital would kill you. There are just some jobs where it makes more sense to shoot film, and some, digital. It comes down to just how much time do you want to sit in front of the computer.

Jack

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 04:28 PM

KABeach
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

I just want to add another issue that most people don't mention... scanned film vs. film printed analog.... Once the film is scanned, it loses many of its advantages, and picks up many of the digital disadvantages, where analog printed film has a very different look and feel.

I still feel my MF Rollei images, when hand printed in a darkroom, are superior to digital. The film has an exposure latitude that digital cannot match, and with Plus-X a grain structure that is just short of spectacular.

However, in terms of real world workflow, where film is scanned and printed on digital printers, then I feel that digital holds its own against film.

Cheers,
Ken

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 04:51 PM

DragonflyDM
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

This is the Vanilla or Chocolate question.

If you are looking for exposure latitude, then film rules. If you are looking for workflow, then digital is king. Especially when you know that clients want their zits gone, the stain off their shirt, etc.

Still feel that MF film rocks over digital, but I don't have time to shoot, wait for processing, scan and then edit. I want to have weddings and portraits to the client within a week.

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 05:11 PM

snegron
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #8 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

Film is film, digital is digital. If you are printing the image yourself using a printer, then start with digital for the best possible results. If your print will be done by a pro quality photo lab, then film is great. The problem is when mixing both media. When you go from negative to enlarger to paper, then you get outstanding results. If you go from digital image to printer to paper you get outstanding results. For some oddball reason scanned negatives loose too much definition during the scanning process. I'm sure it would be just as bad if you shot a wonderful picture with a 12 or 16 megapixel camera, displayed it on a huge screen, then photographed the screen image with a film camera (even the best film on a medium format camera), the results would look less than professional. The two medias don't mix.

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 05:17 PM

Qwntm
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

Thanks all. Everything said here seems pretty straight forward.

I actually have no trouble shooting film, I've been at this game since 1984! I was just specifically curious about how good a dedicated film scanner scanning velvia might be?

I have shot weddings with 20D's for over a year now, about 20,000 frames worth, and have had a few blown up with excellent results. (I'm curently heading in the Nikon direction. I want some basic prime lenses that are really worth shooting. Funny how if you say to a Nikon person: "I have the AF 24mm 2.8, 35 F2, 60 Micro and 85 1.8 on order..." they instantly know your getting a bag full of the BEST. Canon land is VERY different! Any lens under $1000 is pretty much "consumer" grade... I'm tired of it. But that's a different story. sorry.)

The real issue is I plan on shifting my emphasis to more landscape shooting and I want to get the preverbial "sharp leaves on trees" at infinity and 20"x30" inch prints. come to think of it, though, even some medium format stuff has troubles with this!

What if I just shoot 4x5 and to hell with it?

Edward
www.edwardtmartins.com
www.pbase.com/qwntm

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 07:34 PM

Jack OBrien
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

Qwntm wrote:
What if I just shoot 4x5 and to hell with it?

Edward

Edward, more food for thought.....
I've been a fan of John Shaw's work for years. I don't know if you've seen any of his large prints, but to me, his work is one of the best examples of landscape/nature photography done well with digital. He does quite amazing stuff. Oh yeah, he shoots with a D2X

You can check it out as http://www.johnshawphoto.com

Jack

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 07:49 PM

Fundy
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

One issue many people don't talk about is what you are shooting in digital. My personal opinion is that if you are shooting in JPEG you more often than not will get better results with film because once you start adjusting that JPEG you lose data.

If you shoot in RAW, which I think everyone should, the resulting file is pretty dang nice.

Andrew

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 10:02 PM

schifferphotog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

I still shoot alot of film for stock and well as Digital it just depens on you
I'll shoot film as long as they still make, Even tho I am buying my 2nd D2x Body. I shoot my Film with the F4s, N90s, N8008s Camera's even there are time is shoot Film with the FM-10 body, so you could say I am just a die hard film guy to, why because I really enjoy shooting film and NOT Chimping all the time, to me when I get my film back is still it like Christmas it's always a suprise to see what I am getting.

Edited on Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM

Oct 11, 2005 at 11:57 PM

Qwntm
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · Which is better film or digital? (seriously now... :) )

jacko wrote:
Qwntm wrote:
What if I just shoot 4x5 and to hell with it?

You can check it out as http://www.johnshawphoto.com

Jack

Gosh darn it... There you go, making me realize that what I really want is only $5000 away!!!

THATS WHY I'm running away from CANON!!!

Iguess I knew that all along, what I was really trying to say is: "I am too cheap to spend $5000 on a camera, so could I use Velvia instead with a $550 film scanner until the D200 comes out for under $2500, and I buy that..."

And I agree, John Shaws work is inspirational to say the least! Thanks.

Edward
www.edwardtmartins.com

Oct 12, 2005 at 04:11 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload end