Re: 35mm film VS digital

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Aug 27, 2008.

  1. On Aug 27, 9:03 am, "Bob Donahue" <> 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.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Aug 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    -hh Guest

    Don Stauffer in Minnesota <> wrote:
    > Bob Donahue" <> 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
     
    -hh, Aug 27, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Aug 27, 4:50 pm, -hh <> wrote:
    > Don Stauffer in Minnesota <> wrote:
    >
    > > Bob Donahue" <> 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
     
    RoushPhotoOnline.com, Aug 28, 2008
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin Riddle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    101
    Martin Riddle
    Apr 23, 2014
  2. Paul Ciszek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    106
    J. Clarke
    Apr 26, 2014
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    126
    Whisky-dave
    Apr 29, 2014
  4. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    96
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
  5. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    100
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page