shooting digital vs film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=, Feb 26, 2004.

  1. What would be the most drastic difference in shooting digital vs.
    shooting film? Is there any aspect that the thinking or approach would
    be different? It seems aperture and DOF would be the same, for
    example, but white balance vs film type would be approached
    differently. In film, not all 100 ISO films are the same, and white
    balance seems to be the digital variable of what type of film one is
    using, if that makes sense.

    --
    "Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the
    surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us,
    'Something is out of tune.'" - - - Carl Gustav Jung
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=, Feb 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    k Guest

    film = 7-9 stop range
    digital = 4 stops


    "The Dave©" <> wrote in message
    news:Ksb%b.968$...
    > What would be the most drastic difference in shooting digital vs.
    > shooting film? Is there any aspect that the thinking or approach would
    > be different? It seems aperture and DOF would be the same, for
    > example, but white balance vs film type would be approached
    > differently. In film, not all 100 ISO films are the same, and white
    > balance seems to be the digital variable of what type of film one is
    > using, if that makes sense.
    >
    > --
    > "Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the
    > surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us,
    > 'Something is out of tune.'" - - - Carl Gustav Jung
    k, Feb 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The Dave© wrote:
    > What would be the most drastic difference in shooting digital vs.
    > shooting film? Is there any aspect that the thinking or approach
    > would be different? It seems aperture and DOF would be the same,


    Not exactly ..

    > for
    > example, but white balance vs film type would be approached
    > differently. In film, not all 100 ISO films are the same, and white
    > balance seems to be the digital variable of what type of film one is
    > using, if that makes sense.


    It's a new tool. You need to learn how to use it. Some differences are
    more aparent than others. There is a great deal of difference over all.

    I know that is not the answer you were looking for, but what difference
    is most drastic is going to depend greatly on you.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 26, 2004
    #3
  4. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Mxsmanic Guest

    The Dave© writes:

    > What would be the most drastic difference in shooting digital vs.
    > shooting film?


    Speed and convenience.

    > Is there any aspect that the thinking or approach would
    > be different?


    Not really. The effect of digital vs. film has been tremendously
    exaggerated. About 99.99% of photography does not change.

    > It seems aperture and DOF would be the same, for
    > example, but white balance vs film type would be approached
    > differently.


    The differences still are not that great. With film you do your white
    balance in Photoshop; with digital the camera tries to do it (not always
    successfully, so you may still have to do it in Photoshop).

    > In film, not all 100 ISO films are the same, and white
    > balance seems to be the digital variable of what type of film one is
    > using, if that makes sense.


    Except that digital white balance doesn't actually change the image
    sensor, whereas changing films does. This has consequences for things
    like image noise.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Feb 26, 2004
    #4
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Mxsmanic Guest

    k writes:

    > film = 7-9 stop range


    Depends on the film.

    > digital = 4 stops


    Depends on the sensor and hardware/software behind it. This figure is
    probably accurate for most digicams on the market right now. It's
    higher for pro digicams, and much higher for specially built and cooled
    image sensors (not practical for use in still cameras, though).

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Feb 26, 2004
    #5
  6. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Flycaster Guest

    "k" <> wrote in message
    news:Lzb%b.3820$...
    > film = 7-9 stop range
    > digital = 4 stops


    Oh boy, here we go...




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
    Flycaster, Feb 26, 2004
    #6
  7. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    bmoag Guest

    Expose as you would for slide film.
    Don't try to judge if focus is correct by the teensy LCD image.
    With electronic viewfinder cameras you really have to depend on autofocus.
    Images will look "flatter" than film: I call it the Jan van Eyck effect. It
    is not visible with all subjects and possibly occurs because all the pixels
    are in the same plane whereas with film, especially color, the imaging
    surface has depth and irregularity.
    bmoag, Feb 26, 2004
    #7
  8. "k" <> wrote:

    > film = 7-9 stop range


    That's _negative_ films. Color slide films are 5 stops. And most negative
    films are grainy enough that they look a lot worse than dSLR digital. It
    takes slide film and good technique to complete with dSLR digital.

    > digital = 4 stops


    The dSLRs are all well over 5 stops, and the 10D at ISO 100 in RAW mode
    should be well over 6.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 26, 2004
    #8
  9. "The Dave©" <> wrote in message
    news:Ksb%b.968$...
    > What would be the most drastic difference in shooting digital vs.
    > shooting film?


    Film is a gainy disaster at ISO 400 and over, and dSLR digital isn't. You
    can make grain-free A4 prints from ISO 1600 shots right out of the camera
    with the 10D or 300D (if you turn off in-camera sharpening and don't mind
    soft prints).

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 26, 2004
    #9
  10. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    GLC1173 Guest

    The Dave wrote:
    >What would be the most drastic >difference in shooting digital vs.
    >shooting film?


    You can do a lot more to "clean up" imperfect digital photos than color film
    ones.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    <B>Dissident news - plus immigration, gun rights, nationwide weather
    <I><A HREF="http://www.alamanceind.com">ALAMANCE INDEPENDENT:
    official newspaper of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy</A></b></i>
    GLC1173, Feb 26, 2004
    #10
  11. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Lisa Horton Guest

    The Dave© wrote:
    >
    > What would be the most drastic difference in shooting digital vs.
    > shooting film? Is there any aspect that the thinking or approach would
    > be different? It seems aperture and DOF would be the same, for
    > example, but white balance vs film type would be approached
    > differently. In film, not all 100 ISO films are the same, and white
    > balance seems to be the digital variable of what type of film one is
    > using, if that makes sense.


    Compared to shooting slide film, it's fairly similar. If anything, I
    think digital may be slightly more unforgiving to overexposed
    highlights.

    While shutter speed and aperture would be the same, DOF is usually
    different because of the APS sized sensor.

    White balance functionally exactly like film color temp, except that
    it's infinitely variable after the fact. It is as though you have a
    roll of film in your camera that is all different color temps at once,
    and can be any of a wide range of ISO values frame to frame.

    Lisa
    Lisa Horton, Feb 26, 2004
    #11
  12. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > White balance functionally exactly like film color temp, except that
    > it's infinitely variable after the fact. It is as though you have a
    > roll of film in your camera that is all different color temps at once,
    > and can be any of a wide range of ISO values frame to frame.


    Which is really one of the most awesome features of digital versus film. :)

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, Feb 26, 2004
    #12
  13. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Jim Waggener Guest

    "k" <> wrote in message
    news:Lzb%b.3820$...
    > film = 7-9 stop range
    > digital = 4 stops
    >

    With the D100 it is -5 to +5




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
    Jim Waggener, Feb 26, 2004
    #13
  14. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Mxsmanic Guest

    David J. Littleboy writes:

    > That's _negative_ films. Color slide films are 5 stops.


    No, slide films manage about the same as negative films, depending on
    how you deal with them.

    > And most negative films are grainy enough that they look
    > a lot worse than dSLR digital.


    That depends on how much you care about grain, how much you enlarge, and
    how much you look for it.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Feb 26, 2004
    #14
  15. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Joseph Meehan writes:

    > There is a great deal of difference over all.


    There is virtually no difference.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Feb 26, 2004
    #15
  16. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Mxsmanic Guest

    David J. Littleboy writes:

    > Film is a gainy disaster at ISO 400 and over, and dSLR digital isn't.


    Portra 400BW looks fine at ISO 400; so does Portra 400UC.

    Unfortunately, Kodak, in another of its neverending series of stupid
    mistakes, has just discontinued both of these films.

    > You can make grain-free A4 prints from ISO 1600 shots
    > right out of the camera with the 10D or 300D (if you turn
    > off in-camera sharpening and don't mind soft prints).


    Now if only the colors were in register. Much of the image noise is
    hidden by interpolation, at the expense of resolution. But if you like
    silky smooth pastel colors, no problem.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Feb 26, 2004
    #16
  17. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Mxsmanic Guest

    GLC1173 writes:

    > You can do a lot more to "clean up" imperfect digital photos than color film
    > ones.


    It's actually the other way around, since film captures more
    information. With digital, what you see is what you get. With film,
    there is often a lot more there than you can see.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Feb 26, 2004
    #17
  18. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Lisa Horton writes:

    > White balance functionally exactly like film color temp, except that
    > it's infinitely variable after the fact.


    Not infinitely.

    > It is as though you have a
    > roll of film in your camera that is all different color temps at once,
    > and can be any of a wide range of ISO values frame to frame.


    The results are inferior, though, because in digital, you are playing
    with signal levels from a single sensor, whereas with film, you are
    dealing with a different, custom image sensor for every purpose. In
    other words, tungsten film really is balanced for tungsten light,
    whereas a digicam's white balance will simply boost signal in the blue,
    increasing image noise.

    The best way to compensate for color casts with both digital and film is
    to use filters at the time the photo is shot, but that does reduce
    sensitivity to light.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Feb 26, 2004
    #18
  19. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Guest

    In message <c1ji66$6l2$>,
    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    >The dSLRs are all well over 5 stops, and the 10D at ISO 100 in RAW mode
    >should be well over 6.


    What are we talking about here, the range of exposure compensation
    possible for an average contrast scene, or the difference between the
    darkest usable shadows and the brightest highlights in a single
    exposure?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Feb 26, 2004
    #19
  20. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Mike Kohary writes:

    > Which is really one of the most awesome features of
    > digital versus film.


    It's very deceptive, so beware.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Feb 26, 2004
    #20
    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. Phil Edry
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,181
    Derek Gee
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. Sharp Shooter

    DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o)

    Sharp Shooter, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,068
  3. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,152
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,897
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
  5. PaddleHard

    Questions on shooting film

    PaddleHard, Feb 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    520
    Ray Fischer
    Mar 22, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page