Our disposable electronic world is causing huge environmental and human health impacts in the developing countries where all the electronic recycling is done. Toxic fumes are given off from many components which are incinerated in search for high value metals such as gold and silver. The growth of electronic disposables is growing exponentially every year as we live in the throw away rather than fix it world. People buy printers full of ink, use them until the ink runs out and throw out the entire printer as it's cheaper to buy another printer full if ink rather than buy replacement ink.
That's the electronic world we live in and it's all toxic. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking electronics are clean...it's just not in our face like developers were...but it's hard to say what has more impact on our environment and health.
Steve Spencer wrote:
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....Show more →
Steve,
Think about what you are doing here--comparing a 35mm FF sensor to 8x10 film. That's evidence for just how good digital sensors have gotten. How about a comparing a medium format sensor to 8x10 film?
chez wrote:
Our disposable electronic world is causing huge environmental and human health impacts in the developing countries where all the electronic recycling is done. Toxic fumes are given off from many components which are incinerated in search for high value metals such as gold and silver. The growth of electronic disposables is growing exponentially every year as we live in the throw away rather than fix it world. People buy printers full of ink, use them until the ink runs out and throw out the entire printer as it's cheaper to buy another printer full if ink rather than buy replacement ink.
That's the electronic world we live in and it's all toxic. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking electronics are clean...it's just not in our face like developers were...but it's hard to say what has more impact on our environment and health....Show more →
I don't think anyone is saying it's clean, just that both digital and film have a lasting negative environmental impact.
Think about what you are doing here--comparing a 35mm FF sensor to 8x10 film. That's evidence for just how good digital sensors have gotten. How about a comparing a medium format sensor to 8x10 film?
Rob
Digital medium format sensors still aren't that large, so I still think 8 X10 film would outperform it quite noticeably. Film still has that advantage of offering a much much larger capture area than even the largest digital sensors.
panos.v wrote:
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.
The gain for me is more fun, and in researching the cameras/lenses/etc. I've learned quite a bit! Without my interest in ancient gear I would not have developed an interest in photo history. It's added a whole new dimension or two for me, and given me a context for my own photography. This has helped me better define my "vision" while improving my skills. As for cost, the 4x5 I shoot cost me about $5 per shot. Expensive? Two weekends ago I drove two hours southwest to a fading town called Geddes, SD. (Population 1908: 1,200. Population 2016: 192.) There's a hotel there that was built in 1908 and abandoned around 1964. It has a very wild history! I only brought my Chamonix 4x5 (modern) with lenses Dagor 90mm (1922), Heliar 150mm (1924,) and Dagor 240mm (1914). I shot four sheets of Ilford FP4, taking about half an hour per shot to carefully think each shot through in great detail. I then drove home. I spent $20 on film and processing. I spent about $25 on gas, $10 on snacks. The camera is worth about $800; all three lenses about $800 total of $1,600. My D800E is selling for ~$1,400 on ebay, and the three lenses that are equivalent to the three I brought are Nikon 24mm PC-E ($1,200), Sigma 50mm f1.4 ($700,) and Nikon 85mm f1.8G ($350.) Nikon system total: $3,650. Chamonix system: $1,600. And don't forget depreciation on the Nikon system over next "X" years. Depreciation on the Chamonix system will be very low to non-existent. The way I see it, in the end, film cost is the cheapest part of the experience. I spent almost as much on snacks.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Digital medium format sensors still aren't that large, so I still think 8 X10 film would outperform it quite noticeably. Film still has that advantage of offering a much much larger capture area than even the largest digital sensors.
Just as an anecdote for the question:
I get pixel level sharp scans around 35MP from 6x4.5 medium format black & white film. My A7rII can't keep up resolution-wise with my shots on 6x9 medium format. You'd probably need at least a 100MP Phase One sensor to achieve anything close to competitive resolution compared to 4x5, much less 8x10. My profile picture is actually a 115MP scan of a 4x5 photo I took on Ilford Harman Direct Positive film. It looks great and it would be even sharper if I had stopped down the lens--it was shot white open with a 135mm f/3.5 Schneider Xenotar (f/3.5 on 4x5 ~ f/1 on 35mm). The resolution potential of large format is only just beginning to be encroached upon.
I shot a couple rolls threw the Hasselblad this summer. I was surprised how slow (tripod work) the shooting was. I loved shooting that camera and the 4x5, but I have a hard time finding time for keeping my chops in the darkroom. Processing film is one thing, but making prints is really time consuming and takes practice. It's something I enjoy (well, enjoyed), but I don't do it because of the time.
I'm still hanging onto the darkroom hoping that retirement opens some doors.
Subscription required, unfortunately. I read the article before it was placed behind the paywall (and Charlie is a friend), so I know that he conducted extensive tests of MF digital before switching several years back.
Indeed, MF digital cannot be "the same" as LF film, but on balance it was his decision that moving from LF film to digital MF was a good move and that the technical quality of his photographs did not decline, but rather improved. He is among a large group of long-time LF film photographers who have made the move. (And, yes, among that same group there are a few who took much longer to switch, who switched only partially, or who still prefer film.)
That's an excellent piece. I think I've read it a few times now since it was published--and certainly carries far more weight than anything I could say!
My paid shooting is nearly completely digital, but I also have large format (5x7) as an option for weddings with Harman DPP because there's a certain appeal to it. And because it's a positive it means if a photo is taken at the beginning of the day of the wedding, they can have a large print to take home by the end of the day. Clients think it's pretty neat.
Environmental impact regarding film development have mainly two components - the fixer - which is ammoniumthiosulfate - forms a complex with silver ions, Ag2S2O3 (silver thiosulfate). This complex is toxic in waste water. The other one is selenium toner - both should be collected and brought to a waste disposal facility (most townships have them and take average amounts for free). Health impact in the development process itself also comes from the thiosulfate fumes - some long term effects are known if inhaled too often for a longer period of time in a non-vented room. Ventilation of the wet darkroom part is a must IMO.
MAubrey wrote:
Just as an anecdote for the question:
I get pixel level sharp scans around 35MP from 6x4.5 medium format black & white film. My A7rII can't keep up resolution-wise with my shots on 6x9 medium format. You'd probably need at least a 100MP Phase One sensor to achieve anything close to competitive resolution compared to 4x5, much less 8x10. My profile picture is actually a 115MP scan of a 4x5 photo I took on Ilford Harman Direct Positive film. It looks great and it would be even sharper if I had stopped down the lens--it was shot white open with a 135mm f/3.5 Schneider Xenotar (f/3.5 on 4x5 ~ f/1 on 35mm). The resolution potential of large format is only just beginning to be encroached upon....Show more →
You may get huge files from scans of film, but a large proportion of those MPs are just grain/noise, not detail.
Rob
Dec 25, 2016 at 12:17 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
robgo2 wrote:
You may get huge files from scans of film, but a large proportion of those MPs are just grain/noise, not detail.
Rob
Have you tried this with large format film? With large format film I have seen files with greater resolution and less noise than from even miniMF cameras, but maybe these were a fluke. What I do know is that large prints from large format film can look spectacular and in my view have a look that is not easy to match from digital images. That said digital has many huge advantages, I just think it is unbalanced to say that it is better than even larger format film in every way. I remain totally unconvinced of that.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Which is probably why no one actually said that.
Ok, let me be more specific. I think it is unbalanced to assume that large format film will show lots of grain under high resolution and that digital will do better with signal to noise ratio. I think that is still one of the advantages of large format film and Rob's statement (and his previous statements) do not seem to take this advantage seriously.
Different medium and different experience. You process and develop your own films. Nail the scanning work flow. It would be as convenient as digital. You can shoot a roll in the morning and to have it digitized by the end of the day. Nothing matches BW film photography, period. Digital conversion is often meh....because many people don't understand the Ansel's Zone System and how a BW SHOULD look. They rely on plugin and software to make their digital shot like a BW film photo...heheheheh...
I shoot both digital and film (35mm and Hasselblad medium format).
Yeh, it's kind of ironic that many digital shooters try to emulate the film look by using different plugins for both B&W and even colour.
As far as noise goes, I find noise from digital files...especially colour noise to be extremely degrading to prints where noise from grain in film to be somewhat pleasing. Definitely the noise generated by digital is totally different than the random grain structure in film. This is one of the big differences in B&W film that cannot be duplicated IMHO in digital. One of the reasons I still enjoy shooting B&W film.
TooManyShots wrote:
Different medium and different experience. You process and develop your own films. Nail the scanning work flow. It would be as convenient as digital. You can shoot a roll in the morning and to have it digitized by the end of the day. Nothing matches BW film photography, period. Digital conversion is often meh....because many people don't understand the Ansel's Zone System and how a BW SHOULD look. They rely on plugin and software to make their digital shot like a BW film photo...heheheheh...
I shoot both digital and film (35mm and Hasselblad medium format).
+1. Well said - I do my 35 mm film development and scanning easily in one day - the longest is to have the film dried (depending on the film thickness, Ilford film is about an hour, Kodak takes about two hours).
Regarding signal to noise, yes, the 35 mm film format negatives contain more grain/noise. But when I use B&W film photography, this is something I want - not too much of grain, but some is just fine. I don't expect to see the same high resolution what I can get out of my A7R files. I use both - small format film and digital FF - for different purposes. Best of luck to reproduce good B&W film shots in digital - and even then the silver gelatin print from a B&W negative beats the inkjet print.
Medium and large format film negatives provide of course a much better resolution then 35 mm film format. But also the bulk of the gear increases - I personally prefer to have a camera as flexible and inconspicuous as possible and don't want to carry bulk. Some medium format cameras are still okay size-wise, but the number of available frames with one roll of medium format film is another limiting factor, too.
Is called grains....