Film vs. Digital - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

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

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1 2 3

end

mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #1 · Film vs. Digital

Ok, what is the "original?" Why the importance on the "original?" Do you ever view the original negative in a Museum? No, you view the artist's final print, which includes all the decisions as to how it should be printed, not a negative. A negative has nothing to do with an original Picasso.

Yes, a film scan was the starting point for all my current film image prints, but nothing more. Yes, there is more on the film than I can get off it, but there is also more data coming through my lens than my digital sensor records too... you get what you get and use the equipment you use because you feel it is good enough for producing work that meets your expectations (film or digital). Your final image is your full interpretation of how the image should be executed... and even if you feel you have to go back later, as long as you haven't clipped your data, a 16-bit/channel scan is the equal of any RAW file for further editing IMO.

Duh

Dec 27, 2007 at 05:00 AM

mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #2 · Film vs. Digital

Well, for b&w and velvia, and basing quality on resolving power only, kind of... but there is still a difference and many people still prefer the look of fine film images.

For general color imaging, I agree that digital is "better" in most ways.

You can't make blanket statements.

>>I believe digital technology has reached the analog film quality.
Digital is the way to go now IMO.

Dec 27, 2007 at 05:05 AM

mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #3 · Film vs. Digital

I think it depends on your skill in the darkroom and as a photographer... I haven't seen anything printed digitally that can match the very best traditional b&w prints... but since very few of *my* prints ever came out that good... digital processing is far superior for *me.

>>So can we all agree that whether we scan film or capture digitally that digital processing is far superior than the old chemical darkroom?

Dec 27, 2007 at 05:11 AM

stanj
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.4 #4 · Film vs. Digital

mh2000 wrote:
Duh

Copies of CR2 files are really all the same? I guess your just trying to paint me as an idiot, right? Or does rudeness just make you feel better about yourself?

Why do people get so nasty whenever film and digital get discussed? I guess humans are just bred to be sheep... and find something in everything to follow as absolute truth.

Oh my. I am just trying to explain. I am not aware that I ever attacked you, or anyone else for that matter. Sorry if you felt offended.

Let's take the example of the Apollo moon images, taken by the moon walkers with their 6x6 Hasselblads. I am sure you have seen a photo or two. When the astronauts came back, the film was copied and locked away. All prints and digital representations we've seen were made from these "master copies".

Then, in 2000, NASA let some folks at the original negatives. The result was Full Moon, a book published in 2002 (and if you are a space nut, I definitely recommend it, man I paid $50 for the hard cover when it came out...). Also, it was an exhibition that was going around museums around the country - I saw it at the SFMOMA. The difference between the 1970s prints and the 2000 prints from the original negatives was stunning.

My point is: if you scan your negs or slides with the best technology money can buy today, there will be something better tomorrow. Something will be able to "get more out of your negative". This is not about that a better capture would be possible - that, too. But you can get more out of your capture, too. Printing technology will also change. This is why I am talking about the original negative - if you scan it today, you're not giving it a proper representation that you maybe wish you had in 30 years. I am not saying that you *want* to have that detail, or if you'll even care in 30 years. Most people don't, but that's not the point. The original point was about backing up / keeping safe your images. All I am saying is that it is easier to preserve the full potential of a digital capture than an analog one.

I hope this did not offend you in any way.

Edited on Dec 27, 2007 at 06:04 AM

Dec 27, 2007 at 06:02 AM

photo1canada
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #5 · Film vs. Digital

People, the question was WHO STILL USES FILM? Who gives a crap how you store it? It seems that the people still playing with film love it, as do I. You can see by the responses that film has won one or to people back, and it will probibly continue to do so. I do use both, but for large wall protraits and high end weddings I use M/F film. As I have said before my 10 year old film cameras are still making me money. I spent approx. $11,000 for 2 Nikon D1's that you can now buy on EBay for $300. I think you digital guys have more money than brains. You spend more time sitting in front of a computer than trying to take the perfect photo. Ansel Adems wouldn't care if he had a digital or film camera as long as he has his eyes. Yes, his negs are still around. Stop talking about film and digital and go out and find the perfect photo.

Dec 28, 2007 at 01:42 AM

mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #6 · Film vs. Digital

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).

Dec 28, 2007 at 02:14 AM

zach mundzic
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #7 · Film vs. Digital

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.

Dec 28, 2007 at 04:36 AM

akpowdermonkey
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #8 · Film vs. Digital

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.

Dec 28, 2007 at 07:21 AM

Marcus Watts
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #9 · Film vs. Digital

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.

Edited on Dec 28, 2007 at 07:46 AM

Dec 28, 2007 at 07:41 AM

Jammy Straub
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.4 #10 · Film vs. Digital

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.

Edited on Dec 28, 2007 at 08:07 AM

Dec 28, 2007 at 08:01 AM

Marcus Watts
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #11 · Film vs. Digital

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.

Edited on Dec 28, 2007 at 08:47 AM

Dec 28, 2007 at 08:39 AM

Liak Yuan Howe
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #12 · Film vs. Digital

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..

Dec 28, 2007 at 08:49 AM

mhuebner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #13 · Film vs. Digital

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.

Dec 28, 2007 at 02:50 PM

craig_oz_land
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #14 · Film vs. Digital

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.

Edited on Dec 28, 2007 at 03:40 PM

Dec 28, 2007 at 03:38 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 end