ok stanj, no problem... but having already saying that I have two HD's full of RAW files it seemed just a little condescending to tell me that both copies were identical... like, did you really think I didn't know that?
Also, yes, there will always be something better so if you lose your negative you won't be able to get anything more off your negative than you already have, BUT if I show a photo now that is coming from my film scans I don't put a disclaimer under them saying that it is just a temporary image hanging on the wall until a better scanner is available... when you present something as a finished piece it is what it is... whether it comes from a film scan or a soon to be obsolete DSLR sensor. Currently, by the time they are printed I think my b&w scanned images match a 5D... if I lose my negatives and am forever stuck with something that matches a 5D I am no worse off than a 5D owner... in ten years the 5D shooter will still have nothing but identical files... if I have my negatives I can give it another go I guess (and it is likely I will still have my negatives).
I am still in highschool (sophmore) and i am in photo class. We have to use film (black and white) and those pictures come out very clear. My 300d's pictures come out nicer but my film pictures arent that far behind in the quality scale.
In my own opinion, I like film more then digital photographym, but thats just me.
properly exposed slide film has a much higher resolution than an digital camera today (except maybe that $30,000 hassy), furthermore grain is not ugly, and is in fact quite plesant, especially with B&W. So yea, film is way way way better than digital. Of course if you don't know what you are doing you can get some awesome images with digital, whereas with film they'd get crappy images. A well created chrome or B&W silver emoultion print is a thing of bueaty, whereas a digital file is just a picture on a computer screen.
akpowdermonkey wrote:
properly exposed slide film has a much higher resolution than an digital camera today (except maybe that $30,000 hassy), furthermore grain is not ugly, and is in fact quite plesant, especially with B&W. So yea, film is way way way better than digital. Of course if you don't know what you are doing you can get some awesome images with digital, whereas with film they'd get crappy images. A well created chrome or B&W silver emoultion print is a thing of bueaty, whereas a digital file is just a picture on a computer screen.
I hear that a lot from photographers that back up their claims with mediocre images that are not even close to being in the same league as i have seen from an 8 megapixel camera that has been well photoshoped.
Your experience may be different to mine but i'm yet to be convinced.
I also think that a lot of shooters who believe that film has better resolution that digital are going on what they read somewhere as opposed to any real comparison. (that is not directed at your post).
35mm film (which i love btw) is not in the same league as 6 megapixel or above.
Marcus Watts wrote:
I also think that a lot of shooters who believe that film has better resolution that digital are going on what they read somewhere as opposed to any real comparison. (that is not directed at your post).
35mm film (which i love btw) is not in the same league as 6 megapixel or above.
I agree. It takes very fine grained very sharp film to get close to most digital images a 8mpix @ ISO 100-400 in 35mm. You can do it, get close, but it takes perfect technique and a film like Velvia or (gag) Technical Pan to see the difference. Tech Pan will resolve more than most sensors but it certainly isn't what most people shoot with.
Michael did a comparison between an old Canon D30 and Provia 100F back in the day, remember the D30 is a 3 megapixel SLR. His conclusions was that up to around 11x14 the D30 produced superior results. Check it for some history: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
I stopped shooting medium format film for 35mm DLSR's.
-------------
In reference to the OP I only shoot film if a client or a desired final output demands it. For example, someone recently wanted some work done with high speed infrared film. Out came the Canon FD's.
I have seen Illford recently started making their SFX film again. That gives me a bit of joy, it was one of my favorite films when I did my own printing.
That sort of thing is the exception rather than the norm.
There is a local guy who teaches darkroom technique. Great guy and he really knows his stuff and he produces art pieces for publication. He also touts about the superior quality of the darkromm image but his results are not comparable to most digital images i have seen.
Interesting that the comparison you link to compares digital to slide film.
I don't shoot film cause I don't have the space for developing film. My home was made to feel airy and open everywhere, so basically there's light leaking in everywhere anyway. If I'm going to have someone else develop it and adjust the exposure to his liking there's no point IMO..
To answer the original question, I personally have only shot one roll of film in the last three years and that was to help my daughter with her photography class in college.
The question comes down to something like this "When you are painting, do you perfer watercolors or oils?" They are two different mediums with different strengths and weaknesses. The one point I would like to make is that digital has opened the world of photography to more people than film ever could have. In the past, "average" people would shot a couple of shots at an event and then accept whatever came back from the drug store. They had no access to developing equipment, custom printing or labs. Today almost everyone is shooting pictures (perhaps to excess) and having fun doing it. Far more people are getting into editing and correction than would previously have been possible. For better or worse, digital has made photography more relavent today than film ever could have.
I am curious has anyone made transparencies from digital and compared to film chromes.
I was looking at some chromes I did recently after being sparked by this debate. I know that people will be thinking about the different lighting for prints and chromes. But I noticed that of the hundreds of ocean shots I have taken of breaking waves that the chromes render the white foaming wave section more accurately than any of my digital shots. No amount of exposure compensation or the pushing of curves can bring the detail back in my digital shots.
Is there some kind of highlight compression going on with the chromes?
I note that Canon's latest cameras like the 40D and the 1D3 are using highlight compression now or whatever they call it.
But that flies in the face of the D30 article on Luminous Landscape where Michael demonstrated the better highlight detail of the D30 on the tennis dome.
