It's been a while since I read a good film vs digital debate, but here are the usual topics:
Image quality - is film still better? With DLSR's now giving up to 14 stops of DR and 50MP I'm not so sure...
You can be sure - digital surpassed film image quality some time ago.
Roll size, remember you only got 24/36 shots per film, then there is down time while reloading. So the 1DxII at full tilt would give you 3 seconds of shooting before needing a refill...
Backup/security - no such thing as dual card slots with film, and only one negative for the archive
And you cannot "develop" the same image twice
No chimping - you had to wait until the film was developed to see if the shot worked
Limited editing options - imagine a world without lightroom!
People can scan the developed negatives and edit them digitally
Cost - film is now more expensive then ever, plus the processing fees...
Given the above, could you go back to it? Anybody still using film for professional work?
I think one of the issues overall is that most people who just don't want to do anything with film base their experience either with:
1. cheap labs of 15-20 years ago
2. expensive labs of 15-20 years ago
3. crappy self-scanning of 15-20 years ago
4. crappy self-scanning of today
5. cheap labs of today
6. some so so expensive labs that claim they are "pro"
Having experienced all of the above I would honestly say that going back to film would be just crazy, expensive, a hassle and no gain. Starting with cheap labs, they are just a liability, back then and now. Bad scans (2MP scans with auto everything that won't even challenge a 5 year old phone camera), bad service, damaged film, I've experienced the lot. Then you have expensive labs that in the past would charge you an arm and a leg and if you were not some big volume big name that makes them $$$$$ they would be marginally better than the cheap labs yet at 10x the cost (experienced a few of those too). Finally scanning...well. For anything less than sheet film I just don't see the point. Weeks wasted trying to find the right settings, hours scanning just a roll of 35mm film and for what...nothing that would get even close what a mildly adjusted Noritsu/Frontier can will be.
So, that brings us to a handful of labs *worldwide* which will scan things like no other lab will ever do and they are the ones that make film relevant today. They are not cheap, they will charge you $15-30/roll (whatever roll that may be so do the math for either 36exp or 10 shots of 6x7) but they will correct each frame individually, they will give you feedback on what went well/wrong and what you get back is something that will showcase what film can do and in the end, if you value your time, it is not actually that expensive.
If you get a frame from a Hasselblad or a 6x7 camera (say a RZ67) scanned by those guys following their advice on how to meter and expose for a particular scene then you get that something extra. That still doesn't make it "better" than digital, it makes it different. And that's the end of it.
I started to shoot film for fun in 2010 only because i came back from my vacation in USA in 2009 carrying 2 film backs for 2 cameras and many films, but i started in 2010 next year, and i didn't give it much use until 2013 almost, then stopped by 2014 until this year.
I do use medium format and large format, but LF only 5 sheets with one sheet lost due to a mistake [double exposed one sheet so the other one is blank], and i am planning to give LF more use by next year when i use film again, but i am not sure if film is for fun or serious things or just to be knowledgeable about photography in general?!!!
panos.v wrote:
I think one of the issues overall is that most people who just don't want to do anything with film base their experience either with:
1. cheap labs of 15-20 years ago
2. expensive labs of 15-20 years ago
3. crappy self-scanning of 15-20 years ago
4. crappy self-scanning of today
5. cheap labs of today
6. some so so expensive labs that claim they are "pro"
Having experienced all of the above I would honestly say that going back to film would be just crazy, expensive, a hassle and no gain. Starting with cheap labs, they are just a liability, back then and now. Bad scans (2MP scans with auto everything that won't even challenge a 5 year old phone camera), bad service, damaged film, I've experienced the lot. Then you have expensive labs that in the past would charge you an arm and a leg and if you were not some big volume big name that makes them $$$$$ they would be marginally better than the cheap labs yet at 10x the cost (experienced a few of those too). Finally scanning...well. For anything less than sheet film I just don't see the point. Weeks wasted trying to find the right settings, hours scanning just a roll of 35mm film and for what...nothing that would get even close what a mildly adjusted Noritsu/Frontier can will be.
So, that brings us to a handful of labs *worldwide* which will scan things like no other lab will ever do and they are the ones that make film relevant today. They are not cheap, they will charge you $15-30/roll (whatever roll that may be so do the math for either 36exp or 10 shots of 6x7) but they will correct each frame individually, they will give you feedback on what went well/wrong and what you get back is something that will showcase what film can do and in the end, if you value your time, it is not actually that expensive.
If you get a frame from a Hasselblad or a 6x7 camera (say a RZ67) scanned by those guys following their advice on how to meter and expose for a particular scene then you get that something extra. That still doesn't make it "better" than digital, it makes it different. And that's the end of it....Show more →
I agree that labs are not the best option to use for film as you pointed out - But you totally neglect the option to do the development yourself - this is fun, and you are in full control over the whole process. I can scan all my 36-39 frames of one film cartridge (35 mm film) at 3600 ppi in about 45 minutes - with not a lot post processing required afterwards. Compared to digital, I am definitely not faster with film development and scanning, but I get something different (as you said above) which is worth the time spent on it.
George Orwell wrote:
You are very much mistaken here. What you saw was the limitation on the scanner, not the film.
This. When you view an Adam's print, you get the full "information" contained in the photographic negative.
You have everything backwards.
All this talk about information skirts the more important issue of signal to noise ratio (SNR). There is no question that the SNR for digital capture is much higher than for film capture, which is why digital images may look more detailed even if they contain no more information. Low SNR is a significant limitation of film that cannot be overcome even with the best scanners.
Rob
Dec 24, 2016 at 11:59 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
robgo2 wrote:
All this talk about information skirts the more important issue of signal to noise ratio (SNR). There is no question that the SNR for digital capture is much higher than for film capture, which is why digital images may look more detailed even if they contain no more information. Low SNR is a significant limitation of film that cannot be overcome even with the best scanners.
Rob
Rob you are right, but the size of the capture medium is crucial for SNR. A big area to capture light means a lot more signal so the signal to noise ratio gets a lot larger. Film still has some huge capture media compared to digital a 4 X 5 film or a 5 X 7 and even 8 X 10 inch film is so much larger than even the largest digital sensors that the blanket statement that SNR is better for digital is not correct. I am pretty sure that 8 X 10 inch film will have a better signal to noise ratio than FF 35mm, and not by a small amount.
I do think that 35mm film does not have as good of a SNR as a good 35mm digital sensor, and the 35mm digital sensor probably even has a resolution advantage over most 35mm film, but if you are comparing even the best 35mm FF sensor or even the new miniMF sensors (which are very good) to 8 X 10 film, I think the much much larger film capture will have both a better SNR and better resolution.
So, we should all be careful what we are comparing when we make statements. For full disclosure, although I haven't shot film for a couple of years. I enjoy doing so, and I didn't really know how to answer the poll so I didn't. I don't really shoot film anymore, but I am considering getting some large format technical view camera lenses that I will use on digital, but I might at the same time get a large format camera. I am interested in trying at least 6 X 9mm and 4 X 5 inch film to see what it produces. I will not be surprised at all if it is, at least in some important ways, still quite a bit ahead of even the best digital images.
With an optical system, there are losses at every stage. Was the negative exactly flat in the roll-film holder or the sheetfilm holder? In the enlarger, is the negative exactly parallel to the lens? Is the easel exactly parallel to the lens? Is the light source even? Are the chemicals fresh? They are a perishable product, like wine or cheese and are oxidizing even as they are being used. The same goes for film. Is it Monday at the lab? Did someone leave the agitator on all weekend, oxidizing the developer to uselessness? Did I mention the arguments about color balance? The negative is orange. As a photographer, you really have no say as to what's in there.This list merely scratches the surface.
With digital, all the information captured by the sensor can make it to the paper. Sure, a 'Blad lens can out-resolve a 3MP sensor, but in the real world, a properly burned, dodged and finished inkjet print will look way better than any but the finest optical prints. Up to 8x10, anyway. And with larger sensors, larger prints can be just as easily produced.
In my view, the industry went from alchemy to science in the changeover. Colors now have real hard numbers, reproducible on my system or yours or the lab's. Black and white has been similarly improved.
Your experiences may vary, but I did this day in and day out for more than 40 years. This is my judgement and experience and I'm stickin' to it.
I find this thread very amusing. Just as the wider society is giving up on traditional cameras, both film and digital, people here are asking whether they would go back to film. The answer seems unequivocal. It wasn't so 10 years ago.
Now pose this alternative question to the wider population: "Would you go back to traditional cameras?" That will be an interesting thread, no? Now, wait 10 years from now when maybe 2 million (if that many) traditional cameras are sold a year and ask the same question. Perhaps the response will go like this, "hell no, the cost of lightroom, flash memory, and computer and the time it took to post process? Why would I torture myself?" Put aside the possibility that we've hit a technological wall with digital sensors, this scenario I laid out for 10 years from now is very plausible.
I sometimes stop and think what amazing times we live in where we not only see one technology (film) get phased out but also see the successor get phased out within 20 years. It really gets my thoughts flowing when I think of how people will end up using photography and video 10 years from now. While traditional digital cameras were a disruption, they were still traditional cameras. It's going to be a brave new world that we won't recognize.
sflxn wrote:
I find this thread very amusing. Just as the wider society is giving up on traditional cameras, both film and digital, people here are asking whether they would go back to film. The answer seems unequivocal. It wasn't so 10 years ago.
Now pose this alternative question to the wider population: "Would you go back to traditional cameras?" That will be an interesting thread, no? Now, wait 10 years from now when maybe 2 million (if that many) traditional cameras are sold a year and ask the same question. Perhaps the response will go like this, "hell no, the cost of lightroom, flash memory, and computer and the time it took to post process? Why would I torture myself?" Put aside the possibility that we've hit a technological wall with digital sensors, this scenario I laid out for 10 years from now is very plausible....Show more →
This is a very good point - I expect to see cellphone camera technology further improving, we already started to see there apps which can sort of change the DoF / focus point after the photo was taken. We likely see a merge between video and photography - just being able to take a frame from a video as final photo. On the other side you start seeing youngsters with Polaroid cameras which I have last seen in the 80s because they want an instant hardcopy of the photo.
I believe the more digital flattens out - meaning the more common it gets with less and less skills required (not that this is a bad thing, just saying this is a trend), the more we will see people going back to the basics and the roots of photography.
I gave up on 135 format film when I bought my first FF digital. I was happy enough with the quality of the 5D and thrilled with the convenience. So for that format, I never looked back.
More recently, I have shot larger format film, 645 to 5x7 and pretty much everything between. I joined a darkroom collective that shared facility and maintenance expenses on a rented space so I could learn more about developing and enlarging. I agree with @retrofocus - it is fun. Malodorous and time-consuming, but fun, with the exception of recovering a negative from pos/neg film. I can't imagine that being anyone's idea of fun, and, in the end, I would've been happier shooting a simple negative and developing it. Still, there are aspects of working in the darkroom that are far more satisfying than sitting at a computer and coaxing an image into it's final state.
In the end, my environmentalist-guilt made me choose one or the other. I don't know if producing digital cameras is any more or less environmentally impactful than the manufacture and processing of film, but I know both have a negative impact, so I went with the one where shooting errors on my part could be deleted without sucking up any more resources.
Interesting to see the environmental argument coming in here - definitely a valid point, just not one I've thought of before. I wonder what the feelings were on this 10 years ago?
robgo2 wrote:
All this talk about information skirts the more important issue of signal to noise ratio (SNR). There is no question that the SNR for digital capture is much higher than for film capture, which is why digital images may look more detailed even if they contain no more information. Low SNR is a significant limitation of film that cannot be overcome even with the best scanners.
Rob
Signal to noise ratios are discreet mathematical calculations. Where have you seen these compared?
freetime101 wrote:
Interesting to see the environmental argument coming in here - definitely a valid point, just not one I've thought of before. I wonder what the feelings were on this 10 years ago?
Valid point? How so? What resources are we talking about here? Water? People "consume" 10 times that amount of water daily just using the bathroom. Yet that water is recycled every day.
I use 6 mls of developer per roll of film. Hardly a lot. I use water as a stop bath and my gallon of fixer lasts me a good several months. Hardly a measurable drain on "resources".
I conducted my wedding and events business with film. I was sorting two weddings when 911 occurred. Hell no. Too much wedding anxiety waiting for for another processor to decide my fait. I could not meet delivery schedules if I processed myself. I was beating competition with fast delivery. Not enough control of the output like you get with Lightroom..
gdanmitchell wrote:
A. I'm impressed with your ability to decry what you imagine to be my "contempt" and while describing this as a "friendly" exchange.
I was speaking about my own input. I respect digital photographers and would never posit that they are inferior in any way. Unlike some here who show a distinct feeling of superiority over film shooters. gdanmitchell wrote:
B. Not all arguments require or appropriately rely on data, and not all data are numerical. For example, "You have everything backwards."
But carry on[/url].
Dan
No, but your argument clearly did require data which you visibly declined to supply. Given the chance to raise your argument to a substantive level, you took a pass.
George Orwell wrote:
Valid point? How so? What resources are we talking about here? Water? People "consume" 10 times that amount of water daily just using the bathroom. Yet that water is recycled every day.
I use 6 mls of developer per roll of film. Hardly a lot. I use water as a stop bath and my gallon of fixer lasts me a good several months. Hardly a measurable drain on "resources".
Do you put the silver laden fixer down the drain? I did for over 15 years, probably a couple hundred rolls worth per year. Think of when everyone shot film and the exponentially greater environmental impact production, transportation, processing and disposal had. Of course labs used silver recovery systems as well as proper waste disposal services.
That's of course not to say digital is a free lunch. Energy consumption to run computers, charge batteries, environmental impact of electronics manufacturing and disposal/recycling... IMO neither are clean. Both consume resources. But from an end user perspective, digital comes across as better, cleaner. Like electric cars...
George Orwell wrote:
I was speaking about my own input. I respect digital photographers and would never posit that they are inferior in any way. Unlike some here who show a distinct feeling of superiority over film shooters.
No, but your argument clearly did require data which you visibly declined to supply. Given the chance to raise your argument to a substantive level, you took a pass.
Are we reading the same thread? I haven't seen this contempt that you keep going on about. Who are you? Your account was made it would seem just to post to this thread, which makes me wonder if it's a regular poster just trolling...
George Orwell wrote:
Valid point? How so? What resources are we talking about here? Water? People "consume" 10 times that amount of water daily just using the bathroom. Yet that water is recycled every day.
I use 6 mls of developer per roll of film. Hardly a lot. I use water as a stop bath and my gallon of fixer lasts me a good several months. Hardly a measurable drain on "resources".
There is an environmental impact to the production, transport and disposal of chemicals (there is also an environmental impact for the production, transport and disposal of electronic goods such as digital cameras). I said it was an interesting and valid point, I have no idea of the scale, or which is worse.
I know some of the chemicals used to develop film can be pretty nasty, and I would imagine most home developers simply pour these down the drain once done. Food for thought is all
