Discussions about the basic look of film vs digital continue on FM. Some people argue that the grain in film is what makes it superior to digital. Meanwhile, digital camera makers seem to be determined to remove any grain at all. At the same time, Adobe and third-party vendors develop products that let you add the grain to digital image during post. I have a theory that much of the predisposition toward one or the other is age-related. So, answer this question...

All else being equal (photographer's skill,lighting, composition, subject, etc) which do you prefer, the look of a well done film image or a well done digital image?

Remember, this is based on looks alone...the workflow is irrelevant to this question.

EDIT: For the moment, let's leave format out of this and compare digital apples to film apples.

I prefer the tonality and highlight shoulder of medium format film over the look of my FF DSLR files. But then I doubt many would disagree with that .

I'm under 30 (just) and shot film professionally prior to the change to digital.

Neither. Both can be stunning when done well. Grain can be good or bad depending on the intent and the shot. I suspect that those who spend their lives making these arguments are actually only doing so because the grain/noise structure of their images is the most interesting part of their photos to look at.

Gordon

I have a theory that 99% of the viewers can't tell the difference, nor do they care.

I personally feel you can't even compare digital to film, when considering the dynamic range of film and the almost total lack of visible grain when using medium format.

If we are limited to 35mm, i would probably lean towards digital with todays full frame sensors being nice.

I have a theory that 99% of the viewers can't tell the difference, nor do they car

You may be correct, I was walking though an office the other day with some co-workers - 1 whos experience with photography is the vacation point and shoot, the other is a hobby/semi pro who shoots some weddings and various local kids sport teams etc. We went past a few framed prints and I made the observance on how much nicer the prints from a medium format film looks when you see them side by side. The other shooter concurred while the vacation PS operator couldn't tell which is which.

Based just on the "look", I prefer film. I am one of those that will add grain to a black and shite digital image to give it "depth".

Scott

If the apple is tasty does it really matter what type of soil its grown in?

What this poll really shows is that most FMers are over 30.

I can't help feeling that if film were being invented they would not be looking for a way to make it grainy!

I chose the last option only because you simply cannot duplicate Kodak HIE or EIR in software. For paid work I primarily shoot digital, but I still take my Leica M6 with a 35mm f1.4 attached with either Tri-X or HIE inside and my Rolleiflex with Fuji Pro 160S inside when I shoot weddings. I then hand process and print an image or two and give it to the couple as a present. There is something about a handmade print that makes them happy.

paulhodson wrote:
I can't help feeling that if film were being invented they would not be looking for a way to make it grainy!

When I shot film, from 1969 on, grain was always my enemy. I think this is like those people who speak nostalgically of "walking five miles to school in the snow."

RDKirk wrote:
paulhodson wrote:
I can't help feeling that if film were being invented they would not be looking for a way to make it grainy!

When I shot film, from 1969 on, grain was always my enemy. I think this is like those people who speak nostalgically of "walking five miles to school in the snow."


When I shot color film from 1955 on the ISO 10 speed was my enemy!

paulhodson wrote:
RDKirk wrote:
paulhodson wrote:
I can't help feeling that if film were being invented they would not be looking for a way to make it grainy!

When I shot film, from 1969 on, grain was always my enemy. I think this is like those people who speak nostalgically of "walking five miles to school in the snow."


When I shot color film from 1955 on the ISO 10 speed was my enemy!

Shooting concerts in the 70s, both grain and puny ISO 800 were my enemies.

I guess they can each have their own look, but I feel it has a lot to do with post production. Even only a few short years ago, it was not uncommon to see poorly printed digital images in publications. I believe much of that was due to photographers, designers, prepress operators and printers used to a film based workflow and a reluctance to really push digital files to the limit, fearing they might be too fragile (based on my own observations working in a prepress environment).

I don't have a preference for one over the other and I don't mind some grain in images. I don't like plasticized, excessively NR'd images. I'm >31.

rscheffler wrote:

I don't have a preference for one over the other and I don't mind some grain in images. I don't like plasticized, excessively NR'd images. I'm >31.

Exactly. Give me grain over plastic any day.

I just spent 10 minutes looking at the many film images posted in one of the other threads. Aside from a gorgeous model, I was sick at seeing 'off' color, featureless highlights and shadows, a lack of contrast between same, and the grain! the grain!

I DO like the tones of faces, but that's about it.

I can understand the artistry of how film looks, but my detail-oriented mind wants to see an image with all the tiny details that I would see with my own eyes. I like seeing twigs, leaf edges, and grass blades in my landscapes...

My mother recently found some shots that I had done on triX with the old Yashica of William Jefferson Clinton, and another picture that I had of myself holding my little brother. We thought all of my old stuff was lost in a move. Made me realize how much I miss hand made prints

Does anyone even bother about film any more? Even my stupid little obsolete 300D produces images that have more detail and are far easier to work with than film. Anything I get out of my 5D can figuratively and literally destroy anything shot on film from any era unless you're talking medium format Kodak TechPan shot with Schneider or Zeiss glass, and developed in Rodinal.

Think about it - is it easier to add grain to a clean digital image, or to break your head trying to remove grain from film?

vince wrote:
Does anyone even bother about film any more? Even my stupid little obsolete 300D produces images that have more detail and are far easier to work with than film. Anything I get out of my 5D can figuratively and literally destroy anything shot on film from any era unless you're talking medium format Kodak TechPan shot with Schneider or Zeiss glass, and developed in Rodinal.

Think about it - is it easier to add grain to a clean digital image, or to break your head trying to remove grain from film?


While I would not argue with the "easier to use" statement, I think there is plenty of evidince that would show film can capture more detail than lower megapixel digitals. The number I have heard is that it takes at least 16-18 Mp to capture the amount of detail of most 35mm film. Even then, most film will have a greater dynamic range than digital.

nathanlake wrote:
While I would not argue with the "easier to use" statement, I think there is plenty of evidince that would show film can capture more detail than lower megapixel digitals. The number I have heard is that it takes at least 16-18 Mp to capture the amount of detail of most 35mm film. Even then, most film will have a greater dynamic range than digital.

True , but if your post-processing and displaying/printing workflow is digital, then you will experience unavoidable lost of quality/detail/range during the scanning process.