DIGITAL vs. FILM (Round 2)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Nov 22, 2003.

  1. Annika1980

    Rafe B. Guest

    Oh, I sure have. Digital wins, hands down. I've
    been quite amazed.

    My only regret is that my 10D images are, and always
    will be, exactly 6 million pixels.

    Had I taken the same pic(s) with one of my 645
    cameras, that image would be much worth so much
    more, in terms of its ability to make really large prints.

    OTOH -- if I'm content to think only in terms of prints
    up to, say, 12 x 18", it's no loss at all.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Nov 27, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. (Charlie Self) wrote in
    I might add with digital you have a complete record of what you did
    when you experiment, while unless you are a dedicated note taker, with
    film you don't.
    Mike Latondresse, Nov 27, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. But the argument Justin advanced, that there may be advantages *for
    teaching purposes* to make people learn to deal with
    fixed-focal-length lenses first, may still be true. He didn't say it
    was always better for actually getting real pictures!
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 27, 2003
  4. Annika1980

    Mark Johnson Guest

    That's not a bad point. I used to have a pad and pencil in the bag,
    for the slides. And I'd have to keep the record with the box of
    slides. Easy for that to get mixed up. With digital, just read the
    EXIF data, and it's more than you even need to know. And when people
    ask, you can at least give them that info, whether they can use that
    to duplicate the experiments, or not. For good or ill, it even records
    to the second when you took the shot- so where were ya, Joe, the other

    The idea of taken 'found' shots, particularly, is not something you
    can set up or wait for with a tripod - though you could use a tripod.
    The more of those you take, the more likely you are to find something
    interesting. These can be things that occur faster than the eye can
    record - say macros of insect nests, or inflight, and just so on, with
    really fast shutters and strobes. So the more you take, the more
    likely you are to get just the perfectly composed shot of an
    interesting subject.
    Mark Johnson, Nov 27, 2003
  5. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    The low per-shot expense of digital encourages spontaneous rather than
    posed pictures of people, especially children, which can result in some
    really outstanding pictures. Children change their moods, and positions
    so often that one can shoot about as fast as the camera can go and
    capture that one 'keeper' in the 50 shots. Also, kids really like the
    opportunity to 'mug' for the camera and like to be able to see their
    pictures immediately.
    Doing that kind of thing with film would be rather expensive.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 27, 2003
  6. Annika1980

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    I take that for granted now, and get disenchanted when I realize that my
    use of certain teleconverter/lens combos don't record actual focal
    length and range, or that my polarizing filter was used.
    JPS, Nov 27, 2003
  7. Annika1980

    Mark Johnson Guest

    Or that you used your disco strobe 2 feet to the side, or a couple of
    white umbrellas, and so on. Of course, you know, these digicams allow
    you to speak into them, don't they - quick 10 second note for each
    photo? Now if only they could build in speech recognition and put
    _that_ in the EXIF. Seriously, you could even say how you felt, what
    thoughts flashed in your mind, and so on.
    Mark Johnson, Nov 27, 2003
  8. Annika1980

    Jeff Shoaf Guest

    Personally, I get enough odd looks from people without talking to my
    camera... ;)
    Jeff Shoaf, Nov 27, 2003
  9. Annika1980

    K2 Guest

    This article explains why high quality 35mm film resolves to the
    equivalent of a 22 megapixel digital camera.

    35mm film still wins in absolute resolution over today's largest Bayer
    sensors, and large format film cameras far outshine it. It also beats
    digital in subtle tonality, though digital is catching up.

    The only digital sensor approaching film resolution (per unit area) is
    the Foveon concept, or other future designs with discrete full color
    pixels. A pure digital sensor should need no anti-aliasing or other

    How does a slide scanner capture film colors, through a Bayer
    technique also? That must be taken into account if you really want to
    compare film to digital. You're taking film out of its normal realm
    where it doesn't need pixels at all and is limited only by silver
    halide grain size and lens quality.

    But I think today's digital images still look better on a computer
    screen than scanned film negatives or prints. Maybe it's because
    monitor pixels are more "friendly" to light that was also originally
    captured on pixels?

    I personally gave up on film because digital is so much more
    convenient and the extra resolution can be wasted unless you're making
    large prints all the time.

    K2, Nov 28, 2003
  10. SNIP
    That's not true.

    The sensor used in a Canon G5 and similar point-and-shoot cameras, has a
    theoretical resolution of 238 lp/mm. To avoid aliasing, and combined with
    the camera lens blur, this is reduced to something like 170 lp/mm.
    A very sharp and contrasty film like Provia , without camera lens blur, is
    'only' resolving 140 lp/mm. With lens blur, this would probably not exceed
    80 lp/mm if a good lens was used.

    What does count is final resolution after scaling to output size.

    Bart van der Wolf, Nov 28, 2003
  11. Annika1980

    Junque Guest

    I have a digital camera which exceeds your "per unit area resolution" of
    film, it is only 3.2Mpix. By its self the number of pixels per unit area
    is meaningless, you need to understand what you are measuring.
    Junque, Nov 29, 2003
  12. Annika1980

    zuuum Guest

    lmao!!! are you all still trying to pass 35mm film as "film resolution"???
    You start with a flawed premise if you think professional photographers use
    35 mm for serious imaging. 35mm is a convenience medium, NOT a professional
    standard. If you showed up with a 35mm camera for most studio work you
    would be laughed out of the place. What kind of equipment do you think a
    centerfold Playboy shot was made with. I can tell in a millisecond if a
    35mm cam was used.... when it should NOT have been used.

    You are going to have to compare at least a 4x5in neg resolution if you are
    going to win these arguments of film being "outdated", trust me.
    zuuum, Nov 29, 2003
  13. Annika1980

    Ray Murphy Guest

    RM: Everyone will keep comparing film and digital, but it's about time
    the various proponents stated precisely what they are comparing.

    You're right of course about 4 x5 film because they are 14.9 times
    larger in area than 35mm films, and if the same quality of emulsion is
    used, then they hold 14.9 times as much detail.

    This reminds me of the time I stuck a bit of B+W photo paper into the
    back of a full plate camera and took a photo (yielding a paper
    negative). I then copied the negative with the same camera at same
    size and got the most extraordinary detail!

    Ray Murphy, Nov 29, 2003
  14. The great "zuuum" has spoken. We should all trust his word and speak of
    this no further.
    Tony Whitaker, Nov 29, 2003
  15. A "paper negative"? Didn't you get a positive image on the photo paper?
    Tony Whitaker, Nov 29, 2003
  16. "You start with a flawed premise if you think professional
    photographers use
    35 mm for serious imaging."

    Then I guess all the guys and gals all over the world who shot and
    sold many chromes with F5's and Eos 1V's weren't pros eh?

    Got some news for you pal, lots of pro's are still using 35 , some
    even consumer grade dslr's.

    Talk about your equipment snobs, amazing.

    Thank God, I'm just an amateur, some of the threads on this group are
    enough to put even a "pro" in analysis!

    Bill Mcdonald in Joshua Tree.
    Olympus E-10, Olympus IS-3 DLX.
    Bill Mcdonald, Nov 29, 2003
  17. Annika1980

    Ray Murphy Guest

    RM: No, light makes ordinary B+W contact papers go black - therefore
    the lighter coloured images which reflected the most light into the
    camera caused the paper to go black, and the darkest areas (which
    didn't reflect much light) allowed the photo paper to remain almost

    I know what you are thinking here - the parallel between "positive"
    paper and "positive" film. If I had placed say Kodak's diapositive B+W
    film in the camera it would have come out as a positive image , but
    contact paper actually acts like a negative and gets reversed when
    exposed to light - unlike positive film.

    To sort of "confirm" this -- if it worked the other way around, there
    would be no need for film or glass negatives in plate cameras.
    Of course theoretically "positive acting" paper could be used in plate
    cameras to get a direct positive image, but the trouble with that is -
    all the images would be laterally reversed (mirror images). That could
    have only been overcome by building a prism (or first-surface mirror)
    into plate cameras.
    Another way would have been the fitting a prism on the exterior of the
    lens as they did with process cameras, but that would mean aiming the
    camera 90 degrees away from the subject!

    Ray Murphy, Nov 29, 2003
  18. Doh!. Of course. You project a >>negative<< image on photo paper normally.
    The reverse will give you the opposite.

    You can tell it's been a long time since I did any work in the dark room.
    Tony Whitaker, Nov 29, 2003
  19. Annika1980

    John Horner Guest

    How does a slide scanner capture film colors, through a Bayer
    Generally scanners use either separate sensors for red, green and blue or
    separately filtered light sources or multiple filters. In any case, they do
    not use a Bayer interpolation technique, but rather uniquely take RGB
    measurements for each pixel data point.

    John Horner, Nov 30, 2003
  20. Annika1980

    zuuum Guest

    As I said, 35mm is used for its convenience and portability, NOT its image
    quality. This is why I said I can tell in a millisecond when 35mm was used
    when it should not have been. Perhaps it was a pro who shot. But is there
    ANY pro that will say 35mm image quality is preferred over larger formats?
    We ARE talking about image quality, aren't we??? If so, we are not talking
    about 35mm as a film medium. It is not about equipment snobbery. It is
    about image quality, or so I assumed. But I agree, there are many shooting
    situations that do not lend themselves to large format cameras, but surely
    high quailty studio work does. The reason 35mm is often used is because the
    situation dictates either you use extremely portable grab-shot capable
    cameras or you miss the moment. That is another issue altogether from does
    digital image quality compare to film, isn't it?

    Even in the case of comparing 35mm with digital captures, the fact that film
    scanners do not interpolate color, while digicams do, makes a huge
    difference, to me anyway. The acid test, to me, is can you see the
    difference, at full resolution? Single scan digital cams offer the same
    advantage as 35mm... portability and convenience. I own 2 Nikon digicams.
    I still use film equipment as the primary cams for professional shoots. But
    I surely do bring my digicams along. LOL just as I used to take a Polaroid
    cams along.
    zuuum, Nov 30, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.