Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: 35mm film VS digital

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: 35mm film VS digital

 
 
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2008
On Aug 27, 9:03*am, "Bob Donahue" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
> of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember
> grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
>
> --
> Bob D.


Depends on what speed you used. If you used a fast film, 400 or 800 or
higher, then I agree. !00 print film did make fine 8 x 10s, though.

That being said, I haven't used my film camera in a looong time. I am
keeping it, but haven't found much use for it lately.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2008
Don Stauffer in Minnesota <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Bob Donahue" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Just curious what people think about this comparison...

>
> Depends on what speed you used. If you used a fast film,
> 400 or 800 or higher, then I agree. 100 print film did
> make fine 8 x 10s, though.


I've found that ISO 100 has also generally been fine when digitized
and then printed at 8 x 12 with an inkjet. Of course, there's also
been ISO 64, 50 and 25 for finer grain, plus there's still something
about the luminocity of a projected slide...

> That being said, I haven't used my film camera...


Once we've crossed certain "resource" threshholds (eg, computer,
printer, storage, etc), digital is a lot like a music CD versus
classical vinyl: it may not necessarily be some so-called "ultimate"
in performance, but there's not much reason to debate that because
what it does do is make it "very easy" to be "very good".

As such, digital imaging has now clearly progressed to the point where
it raises the bar of what can be expected to be achieved on 'average',
which is effectively also why it has been embraced by the
mainstream.

And what this also means is that the question of if it also exceeds
the 'ultimate' performance potential of the medium of film really
isn't germane to the basis of why the mainstream adopted it.


-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RoushPhotoOnline.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2008
On Aug 27, 4:50*pm, -hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Bob Donahue" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > > Just curious what people think about this comparison...

>
> > Depends on what speed you used. If you used a fast film,
> > 400 or 800 or higher, then I agree. 100 print film did
> > make fine 8 x 10s, though.

>
> I've found that ISO 100 has also generally been fine when digitized
> and then printed at 8 x 12 with an inkjet. *Of course, there's also
> been ISO 64, 50 and 25 for finer grain, plus there's still something
> about the luminocity of a projected slide...
>
> > That being said, I haven't used my film camera...

>
> Once we've crossed certain "resource" threshholds (eg, computer,
> printer, storage, etc), digital is a lot like a music CD versus
> classical vinyl: *it may not necessarily be some so-called "ultimate"
> in performance, but there's not much reason to debate that because
> what it does do is make it "very easy" to be "very good".
>
> As such, digital imaging has now clearly progressed to the point where
> it raises the bar of what can be expected to be achieved on 'average',
> which is effectively also why it has been embraced by the
> mainstream.
>
> And what this also means is that the question of if it also exceeds
> the 'ultimate' performance potential of the medium of film really
> isn't germane to the basis of why the mainstream adopted it.
>
> -hh


Very well said - most of us shooting high end digital really don't
have systems to view the real quality, nor do we have printers to view
the same. Thus the reasons for my comments. 95% of what I shoot
leaves my workstation in Large Hi Res Tiff files and goes to a
commercial printer for publication - not to a printer at Sams Club or
Walgreens. Are the results better than 15 years ago in the finished
printed materials ? of course they are - commercial printing has also
excelled parallel to the digital cameras.
Jeff Roush
photo instructor
http://www.roushphotoonline.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
how does an 8mp digital camera compare to 35mm film? Mike Henley Digital Photography 18 05-21-2004 06:32 AM
What makes 35mm film different than digital? mark_digital Digital Photography 16 04-17-2004 07:58 AM
Moving from 35mm film to digital for Black and White Keith Cooper Digital Photography 3 04-12-2004 02:33 AM
Help - digital transfer of 35mm film o r b s c u r e DDJ Digital Photography 2 07-11-2003 05:14 PM



Advertisments