Film v Digital

[MEB]

For those of you who think film is still better than digital...

http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3


Not that any of us are likely to need to blow up a print to quite that size.

 

[BrewStew]

i knew it wouldn't take long for digital to supersede film. just didn't imagine it's be quite so soon!

i'm curious to know how many megapixels that camera is, and how many pixels in height x width the image was!

 

[Aleman]

Load of ******** really :P

The 'film' image is still a digital one . . . it has to be scanned in order to print it digitally. which comes down to the operatives skill . . . It takes a lot of skill to do a good scan capture from a film image . . . Fundamental error in not spotting the colour cast, and scanning does not produce the same dMax as the tonal range of the film hence the blocking up of the shadows in the 'film' print

And then there is the RIP processor for the actual printer, and how it treats the two images . . .

Given this test I am not surprised they could spot the difference

But then you take a ISO 25 B&W film and do a partial enlargement (on real film) against the same enlargement digitally and the traditional wins hands down.

I loved the bit about the D700 and the F5 being the same camera . . . Like F*ck off, based around the same body maybe, but completely different inside.

Film processed tradtionally . . and printed traditionally . . has a range of tonal latitude that cannot be matched digitally . . . the gap is narrowing all the time, and the likes of the Mamiya 645 with the Phase one P45 back is way superior to 35mm film (colour), or the Blad H3DII-50 which is coming close to the quality achievable with medium format, and even large format 5 by 4 . . .

It is horses for courses though . . . a bit like mass producing a chemically enhanced beer, and crafting a quality beer traditionally . . . . the limit for 35mm digital is the heat produced by the sensors . . . which is why we are seeing a move away from the CCD sensor to the CMOS sensors . . . CMOS allows more photosensitive sites to be packed on the silicon (Higher resolution) with lower heat production (Less Noise) .. . and hence better quality Hence Nikon, Canon and Sony going for Full Frame sensors on their top end cameras . . .the sites are more spread out so less heat and less noise . . . the reason the Alpha 900 has had poor reviews is that Sony made the mistake of going for 24MP rather than producing a less packed sensor (like Canon (21MP) and Nikon (12.1MP) ) . . . Its difficult to control noise with that pixel density. . . . . If you want to be able to control the noise then you have to look at the likes of Phase one and Blad.

But you go into a low light situation (Say A gig), and I'll run my push processed ISO 1600 film (colour) up against any digital output . . . and I know several architectural photographers (Sean Conboy for one) who can't move over to digital for a lot of his work as it can't work the way he does (try 30 or 40 flash exposures for every click of the shutter . . . and then a long exposure on the same plate using the ambient light . . . Look at the interiors and the two of the Tower Ballroom and Grand Theatre I've seen as prints and they are inspiring you can see every detail in the cherubs faces on the paintings . . . and that cinema shot . . .

Enough, it's an impressive demo, but as one who does use both formats, sometimes interchangeably, I know its a meaningless discussion . . . Getting the image is what counts . . . how you get there is not important

 

[Louthepoo]

Had cannon EOS 300 for a few years and got some great pics of it, just bought a canon EOS 450D and likewise i've had some fantastic pics off it.
The benefit with digital is you know instantly if you've got the pic you want but i've taken loads more pics with film 'just in case'. i'm sure i'll make back the extra money by only developing pics i want.

 

[Wez]

Hey Lou I got the 450D a couple of months back, really pleased with it.

 

[MEB]

Load of ******** really :P

I wouldn't say that's a load of ********? They didn't really use like for like cam's. The F5 is Nikon's flagship 35mm film cam. The D700 isn't the digital equivalent. The D3 is. The Digi both use the same 12.1mp sensor and are full frame. If you took the worlds finest digi cam(any format) and then put it against the worlds finest film cam(any format) the film would win hands down. But film has been around for decades, digi for about one decade.
The bad part of the example is the fact that both wore black clothes and the background was white.

Aleman, my F4 comes no where even close to my D3 in most situations. Especially if you include the cost into things. I've had my F4 for years my D3 for days and for me it outperforms the F4 in every situation i want it to. Only drawback is it's far more complex than my F4. Actually my D200 did too. But then i shoot nature and landscapes almost exclusively. I don't use flash too often, fill flash from time to time. I don't do studio work as it doesn't interest me-i'm not very good at it either. For the vast majority of photographers film doesn't cut it nowadays. You need a darkroom, have to pay for 24 frame film and then the chem's to process. Changing a film cannister every 24 frames is a royal pain in the butt when shooting nature or action. A sport event is a typical example. As is not being able to vastly change the ISO without wasting film, then trying to write on the cannister how much you need it pushed or pulled. If you forget that's a potential image lost or ruined.
There is only a small percentage of photographers who use medium format, even less large format. Currently the market for these are still film. But that will change. The digi backs are already coming on in leaps and bounds.

35mm film is virtually dead. The major players are spending less and less on the film 35mm and pouring millions into digi. In 35mm world the digi cam HAS taken over in terms of quality for 99% of shooting situations. Which is why virtually EVERY pro 35mm shooter uses digi. If it wasn't superior they wouldn't use it. And the fields of canon's have recently been swapping over to the D3 as can be seen at many sporting events.

Personally i love medium format film cam's. I'd love to get one but the cost! Sheez. Pound for pound(or buck for buck) they are far superior to film 35mm. But that's like comparing a Daewoo car to a Merc.
My nikon F4 images, scanned with a Nikon 9000 scanner aren't as good as what i can get with my D200. Even printed straight from the neg they aren't as good as my D200 images. And i'm expecting my D3 to be in a different league altogether. 35mm film is stuck where it is currently at. Whereas digi is leaping forwards by the hour, minute even. In say five years, medium format will be digi too.

The biggest advantage of digi over film though is for travelling overseas. Velvia print on the cannister DO NOT X-RAY. Which means you've got to convince customs to not run them through the X-Ray machine. Difficult if at all possible in my experience. My digi gear has been blasted numerous times. Digi wins hands down here.

 

[A T]

I totally agree with whatever it is MEB just said there. Hey mate that's 2 sober posts this weekend, are you ok? :lol:

 

[MEB]

I totally agree with whatever it is MEB just said there. Hey mate that's 2 sober posts this weekend, are you ok? :lol:

No i'm sober :shock:

 

[BrewStew]

yeah what's going on?

are you out of beer or something? :lol:

 

[MEB]

The tourists have started arriving

So i've got work to do. And my new cam has arrived.

I have lots of beer at the moment though. But after a couple of pints i fall asleep knackered.

 

[A T]

He probably drank the country dry :rofl:

 

[Aleman]

My point was that 'properly processed' film is still the equivalent (or better in the case of B&W) of digital, however, the real point is that it is the image that matters, what technology is used to capture that image is irrelevant . . . . most people using a digital camera have no grasp of the concept of aperture and shutter speed and how they interact. . . . most don't turn their very expensive cameras out of full auto mode . . .

I'm not a Luddite, I have two digital cameras, but so far, I have to say that the output from the digital is in no way superior to that from my film cameras.

Which is best Film or digital? Neither . . . Use what you want, to do what you want, its the output (the image) that counts.

 

[MEB]

Exactly Aleman. I love my film camera(Nikon F4) and would never sell it. Even though it only gets used rarely these days.
I never understand why people buy an SLR or DSLR and then shoot in auto mode(P)??? They are worse than point and shoots in auto mode. My Nikon's are anyway.

Your film camera's are bloody super dooper mate-way better than most DSLR's. You shoot B & W and do a lot of studio shooting. I would be using film for that style of work too. Medium Format is lovely. The majority of my customers want images for web use. No point in me shooting in film and then converting to digital-as you say your losing the edge that film gives you when you do this.

But for the travelling photographer shooting wildlife or sports. Digital is a must nowadays. I had 8 rolls of velvia blasted by X-Ray last time i went to Singapore. Ruined the lot :evil: But my digi images survived the same process as they were downloaded to my laptop.

You can get a great image with a brownie. Not much more basic than that.

 

[BillyB]

For my tuppence worth....

For years I was a 35mm SLR nutter but got a digital "cheap" point and shoot about 8 years ago. Loved the fact that photos were "free" - delete any you didn't like etc...

Currently got Nikon D80 with a few lenses and it blows the socks off the film SLRs I ever had. Other than the obvious advantages like limitless shooting for "nothing" is that the amount of superb software that is available to enhance and allow you to create pictures that just was not possible with film. I use DxO Optics Pro sofware for processing my digi-photos, most of which I take in RAW format. The results are outstanding.

But then, it's a bit like beer - what I like is not necessarily what you like! :?

 

[Louthepoo]

Hey Lou I got the 450D a couple of months back, really pleased with it.

well how about that!

Got mine for a bargain - £280!! from the new Currys megastore at J9 M6, they had a special opening offer and with a £50 off voucher and i haggled them down a bit more playing the skint, times are hard, you'll not sell many in this climate card