gdanmitchell wrote:
Let's see. Perhaps 100,000 images from the sensor — more actually, but let's use that number. A $3000 camera. That's about $.03 per frame....
Dan
Akshully using your new fangled digital camera as an example (by the way that sort of black magic will never catch on) would cost $3000 per shot, if you care getting a new sensor per shot. So while a roll of film would cost me $10, the equivalent would cost you $108,000.
Quite frankly sensors should be used in the same way as one would with bathroom tissue. Use once and dispose. The thought of re-using a sensor is just unhygienic. Yuck!
I have to admit that I have re-used my film sensors a few times when I have made mutliple exposure shots. I'm not proud of that fact but one occasionally has to suffer for one's art. I did wash very thoroughly afterwards.
Snopchenko wrote:
Frankly, the results are not surprising but I wonder whether the opinion was similarly unanimous ten years ago?
I get the impression that high output photographers (weddings, photo journalists etc) took up digital almost immediately and never looked back (on average) but landscape, fine art and "slower" disciplines hung on to it a bit longer.
I'm not surprised that pretty much all film users are only doing so for fun or personal work rather than professional. I am however, surprised that there is not a single vote for "important" film use so far - I wonder if this would be the same 5, 10 and 15 years ago?
I just wish there was a nice, affordable black and white film for my nicely restored Polaroid 180 Land Camera. I have a few packs of film left but the expense and dwindling supply sort take the fun out of it in a way. But shooting larger Polaroid film is generally a blast though...
Interesting story Dan, so Phase One is equal to 4 x 5 film, and the D810 is comparable to the Phase One (up to 30 x 40 prints)? So we can draw the conclusion that the D810 is comparable to 4 x 5 film? Interesting indeed!
freetime101 wrote:
Interesting story Dan, so Phase One is equal to 4 x 5 film, and the D810 is comparable to the Phase One (up to 30 x 40 prints)? So we can draw the conclusion that the D810 is comparable to 4 x 5 film? Interesting indeed!
While there may be little difference observed in resolution when viewing prints, there will still be noticeable differences when pixel peeping. More importantly, there will be large differences in DOF and perspective distortion/field of view at a given focal length between digital sensors and the larger film sizes. These differences are quite noticeable even with 6x7 film compared to FF or digital MF sensors. These differences may or may not be important to you based on your subject matter, style, etc.
OregonSun wrote:
While there may be little difference observed in resolution when viewing prints, there will still be noticeable differences when pixel peeping. More importantly, there will be large differences in DOF and perspective distortion/field of view at a given focal length between digital sensors and the larger film sizes. These differences are quite noticeable even with 6x7 film compared to FF or digital MF sensors. These differences may or may not be important to you based on your subject matter, style, etc.
Heron
Any comparison between film and digital must also take into account the need for film to be digitised in order to do anything other than conventional photographic prints (and dupe trannies)
The quality loss there is not insubstantial, giving digital another head start
dhphoto wrote:
Any comparison between film and digital must also take into account the need for film to be digitised in order to do anything other than conventional photographic prints (and dupe trannies)
The quality loss there is not insubstantial, giving digital another head start
That is true, however the quality lost when digitising film is really just a shortcoming of the available digitisation processes. The quality is there in the film, just waiting for technology to advance enough to digitise it properly
Regardless, the 'quality' differences quickly become vanishingly small unless you are obsessed with pixel peeping or are printing at enormous sizes. I don't think one format is ultimately 'better' than the other in any objective way, just that they have different characteristics that make them both interesting and valuable for my style(s) of creating images.
Snopchenko wrote:
Frankly, the results are not surprising but I wonder whether the opinion was similarly unanimous ten years ago?
I transitioned to digital in 2002 with the Canon 1D. It was a mixed bag convincing clients that a 4MP digital file was a superior alternative to a 35mm image (I worked primarily in editorial/news applications at that time).
One sports client, who I still have, transitioned their entire operation from E-6 process & scan to digital during the break in the NFL season at the beginning of 2002. They laid out an ultimatum: if you still want to shoot for us, you have to shoot digital (Canon 1D). Much of that was because of me, as an early adopter, sending them some 1D files shot concurrently with film at a couple games... Unfortunately my foresight wasn't very good as I didn't take the opportunity to convince them to increase the assignment rate to account for the additional hardware costs incurred by photographers or their considerable savings by eliminating film and processing expenses (sure, they also had to maintain suitable computers and storage)... Another consequence was that the number of jobs shot for them decreased because of the efficiency of digital. Digital provided more usable images per event and across a broader range of shooting conditions. On film we usually only shot daytime for the best light, but with digital, evening and night games became a viable option as digital high ISO quality improved.
As you would know, news clients were at the head of the digital conversion... but I had other types of clients who were reluctant to give up film. I think a lot of it was due to printers and prepress operators. There was a lot of early uncertainty about how to properly color proof digital originals... and IMO, some were uncomfortable with really working digital files to get the desired end result.
I think that reluctance lasted about 3-4 years, after which I can't recall anyone bemoaning receiving digital originals. By that time, it was pretty much expected.
For the work I do now - lot of events, some sports and some low-end commercial, I can get away with '35mm' FF digital whereas with film I really should have been shooting medium format for some of it. But I remember being off-put by the cost of MF systems.
As we know, the format equivalency in respect to resolution and color quality has generally shifted down one level. Those shooting MF film now shoot mostly FF digital. Those who shot 35mm film probably are happy with APS-C digital.
I 'grew up' with film. Self taught thanks to the influence of a middle school friend and his father who maintained a darkroom. I learned early how to self process B&W at home and then print in their darkroom. Yes, there was a certain magic to it. But also a huge time commitment with often inconsistent results. I remember the joy of cracking open a 'brick' or press-pack of film. The smell when opening the film canister... the chemistry... it was a process that definitely had a much broader sensory experience than digital.
But no, I have no plans to go back to film, seemingly in-line with many others here who started with film. Like any medium, digital has its share of compromises. But for my needs, it's so much more convenient while maintaining the degree of image quality I desire and likely would have had considerable difficulty achieving on '35mm' film.
I enjoy viewing the work of others who continue to shoot film and maintain a 'die hard' pro-film stance. I don't necessarily agree with their opinions re: film vs. digital. But it works for them. It seems Japan is a haven for film photography, particularly among younger photographers.
I developed my first roll of film in 1959 when I was 8. I've shot 35mm, medium format, 4x5, 8x10 and 8,16 and 35mm motion picture film. At one time my commercial photography studio was going through 1,000-2,000 sheets of 8x10 B&W paper a month (with the help of a Kodak Royalprint).
No, I don't miss film despite occasional waves of nostalgia. A well done B&W silver print is absolutely gorgeous but very difficult and time consuming to achieve. I can come very close if not match with Photoshop and a good pigment printer that does true B&W.
I'm doing better work and having more fun than ever shooting digital.
dhphoto wrote:
Or rather another limitation of the analog medium that is film
Funny how some people turn a reasonable discussion into a partisan argument. I will refrain from any more replies to your obvious trolling. Have a nice day
dhphoto wrote:
Or rather another limitation of the analog medium that is film
Which is why I always smile to myself when I see people who have never used film in their life having a moan about this "digital camera has too much noise at 3200-6400 ISO/only has 12 stops of dynamic range/etc etc. For the people who cut their teeth on film, digital is an absolute breeze in comparison!
I'm not even going to mention how we ever coped without autofocus!
