Film Vs. Digital

[bazmlb]

INTRODUCTION

I use both digital and film cameras all the time. They each serve a different purpose.

Film and digital capture are completely different media. They are used for similar purposes, but they themselves are completely unrelated to each other. I'd have an easier time and get in less trouble comparing my mom to a maid or my wife to something else than attempting a comparison of film to digital cameras. That said, here goes.

Most people get better results with digital cameras. I prefer the look of film. Film takes much more work. Extremely skilled photographers can get better results on film if they can complete the many more steps from shot to print all perfectly. Because there are so many ways things can go wrong with making prints from film, especially from print (negative) film, beginning photographers and hobbyists usually get better prints from digital because there are fewer variables to control.

Read More

[The Vulcan]

Well, the first thing is of course to remember to take Ken Rockwell with a pinch of salt.

Having said that, I agree it's a lot easier to end up with a usable image from digital which is pretty obvious considering instant preview, as many shots as you cam muster etc etc.

BUT, and it's a big but, are they BETTER images?

More and more pro's are using film. A lot never stopped, and a lot more are returning to it. Whilst digital sales are down 30% we see Fuji and Kodak launching new film stock!

Why?

IMHO there's a depth to film that digital will NEVER emulate. Sort of 2d versus 3d I reckon.

I've never stopped shooting film and enjoy the discipline of film shooting. And discipline, with its spin-off attributes, is really what film is all about. Plus of course the discipline of cost. I mean, at $6 a roll and $3 developing plus hours scanning I can hardly afford to rattle off shot after shot to get one right.

So I concentrate a lot more and produce (I think anyway) far more pleasing results.

Try shooting B+W from digital and comparing it with a film shot - no contest. Film wins outright. Despite all the claims, digital B+W just doesn't cut the cake and people are beggining to accept this.

The old saga of digital having surpassed film is another myth. A 24 megapixel sensor is finally the equivalent of 35mm slide film in llpm resolution! The latest Hasselblad 60mp monster NEARLY equals 5x4 - nearly? For that money it should destroy it, but it doesn't. And what a lot of film you can buy for a million baht!

And try shooting the attached image in digital. It's called reciprocity failure - it just doesn't happen with film and it's brilliant. (p.s. Mamiya RZ 6x7 with Velvia shot 25 years ago)

Don't get me wrong, digital is great - but film is still the King

"film ain't dead - it just smells funny"

[astral]

As a pure amateur, digital is King, for me.

The main benefit is the processing.

I have a computer anyway.

I do not need to set up a darkroom.

I remember my Dad going up in the loft in the summer to use his enlarger,

in the winter he could use the dining room.

It was all pretty elementary, he never got beyond black and white, too expensive I guess.

Also the chemicals for colour are a lot more temperature sensitive, with a shorter life.

Unfortunately he did not live to see digital and all that we can do with it today.

I feel sure he would have loved it.

[The Vulcan]

As a pure amateur, digital is King, for me.

The main benefit is the processing.

I have a computer anyway.

I do not need to set up a darkroom.

I remember my Dad going up in the loft in the summer to use his enlarger,

in the winter he could use the dining room.

It was all pretty elementary, he never got beyond black and white, too expensive I guess.

Also the chemicals for colour are a lot more temperature sensitive, with a shorter life.

Unfortunately he did not live to see digital and all that we can do with it today.

I feel sure he would have loved it.

Plus of course, we've now got Ilford XP2. Great tonal range and C41 processing. Pop down to your local D+P shop and "Bobs ya uncle"

Don't need a darkroom!

[angiud]

The old good times with an enlarger and packs of Ilford paper.

But how much more creativity now with thousands of clicks nearly for free, a powerful tool like Photoshop and a professional inkjet printer.

[The Vulcan]

The old good times with an enlarger and packs of Ilford paper.

But how much more creativity now with thousands of clicks nearly for free, a powerful tool like Photoshop and a professional inkjet printer.

What is ironic is I spent 20 years in a darkroom trying to eradicate grain and now they produce software to emulate it!

Edited July 15, 2009 by The Vulcan

[canuckamuck]

I didn't read the whole article, but I can't help feeling that most of the appeal for film is nostalgic. Sure you can do some things with film that you can't with digital. But none of those things make any difference to 99 percent of the shooters. There are definitley benefits to digital that more than make up for the difference.

My studio was on the first wave of photographers using digital for commercial work. Previously we had used all the formats from 8x10 to 35mm. We had our own color darkroom and before that I spent 5 years in art school and university majoring in photography; long before any of us had taken digital serious. So I can say I have been heavily invested in both ends of the discipline. I can say without hesitation: there is no way I am going back to film.

I can understand the fine art guys using film, it is a great way to get that whole artist mystique going. Digital has no romance, no heritage, it is just to sterile. But the artist actually has way more latiitude to push boundaries in digital. He just won't be invited to as many bohemian wine and cheese snob fests to show his work. Success in the art community has little to do with the works on the wall.

My main argument about the superiority of digital over film is, there is no limit to where digital might go, film on the other hand hasn't advanced much at all in the last 20 years, and it is hard to see how analog imaging will ever keep up in our digital universe.

[The Vulcan]

I didn't read the whole article, but I can't help feeling that most of the appeal for film is nostalgic. Sure you can do some things with film that you can't with digital. But none of those things make any difference to 99 percent of the shooters. There are definitley benefits to digital that more than make up for the difference.

My studio was on the first wave of photographers using digital for commercial work. Previously we had used all the formats from 8x10 to 35mm. We had our own color darkroom and before that I spent 5 years in art school and university majoring in photography; long before any of us had taken digital serious. So I can say I have been heavily invested in both ends of the discipline. I can say without hesitation: there is no way I am going back to film.

I can understand the fine art guys using film, it is a great way to get that whole artist mystique going. Digital has no romance, no heritage, it is just to sterile. But the artist actually has way more latiitude to push boundaries in digital. He just won't be invited to as many bohemian wine and cheese snob fests to show his work. Success in the art community has little to do with the works on the wall.

My main argument about the superiority of digital over film is, there is no limit to where digital might go, film on the other hand hasn't advanced much at all in the last 20 years, and it is hard to see how analog imaging will ever keep up in our digital universe.

My case rests !

Long live film

[bonobo]

Film has it, but I can't quite put my finger on what "it" is.  I do think it is better, although the advantages of digital are making me attempt to master it.

I recently re-created a series of shots done in the desert of California, at the same spot and time, with similar models, same lens, even, this time using digital.  The film shots were much, much better, in my opinion.  That is the only head-to-head test I have done, but still, it is grist for the mill.

Fantastic shot, The Vulcan, by-the-way.

[The Vulcan]

Film has it, but I can't quite put my finger on what "it" is.  I do think it is better, although the advantages of digital are making me attempt to master it.

I recently re-created a series of shots done in the desert of California, at the same spot and time, with similar models, same lens, even, this time using digital.  The film shots were much, much better, in my opinion.  That is the only head-to-head test I have done, but still, it is grist for the mill.

Fantastic shot, The Vulcan, by-the-way.

Thanks

There are massive debates on the large pro forums relating to switching "forward" to film. The amount of dissatisfaction with even the high end digital backs is frightening.

Problem is effeciency. Digital is so immediate, so easy to get to the client.

But the client is forever seeking "more" and digital isn't providing it.

So, what's the answer? Beats me.

I shoot both and I can tell you now, I sell many more digital BUT get bigger payments for the film shots!

Funny old world.

[The Vulcan]

Just extending the film "debate" here's a couple of film shots.

Lion is a Rollei 6002 MF camera - Velvia @ 50 iso - scanned on an Epson V700 flatbed

Boat is my recently acquired Contax G2 35mm camera - Velvia @ 50 iso - scanned on a Minolta film scanner

Both are almost straight from the trannies - scanned at 2400 dpi and 3200 dpi respectively. Very little post processing other than spotting, tidying up and resizing for posting.

I just can't replicate this depth and richness of colours in digital.

[canuckamuck]

I can understand the fine art guys using film, it is a great way to get that whole artist mystique going. Digital has no romance, no heritage, it is just to sterile.

My case rests !

Long live film

The artist in me hears you loud and clear, but the pragmatist in me has the artist locked up in the cellar.

Edited July 16, 2009 by canuckamuck

[phetaroi]

I didn't read the whole article, but I can't help feeling that most of the appeal for film is nostalgic. Sure you can do some things with film that you can't with digital. But none of those things make any difference to 99 percent of the shooters. There are definitley benefits to digital that more than make up for the difference.

My studio was on the first wave of photographers using digital for commercial work. Previously we had used all the formats from 8x10 to 35mm. We had our own color darkroom and before that I spent 5 years in art school and university majoring in photography; long before any of us had taken digital serious. So I can say I have been heavily invested in both ends of the discipline. I can say without hesitation: there is no way I am going back to film.

I can understand the fine art guys using film, it is a great way to get that whole artist mystique going. Digital has no romance, no heritage, it is just to sterile. But the artist actually has way more latiitude to push boundaries in digital. He just won't be invited to as many bohemian wine and cheese snob fests to show his work. Success in the art community has little to do with the works on the wall.

My main argument about the superiority of digital over film is, there is no limit to where digital might go, film on the other hand hasn't advanced much at all in the last 20 years, and it is hard to see how analog imaging will ever keep up in our digital universe.

Very well said.

I come from a slightly interesting perspective -- a Kodak family. What I mean by that is that we lived near Rochester, NY, and several members of my family worked for Kodak for decades. Kodak WAS King. They were generous with their workers. They paid all the bills for the school system in which their main plant was built. Our family was loyal.

Then, for me, along came CDs. Now, what's that got to do with film versus digital? I was quick to move to CDs for my music. Clarity, no hisses, pops, or significant degeneration of quality over time. But some audiophiles kept telling me they preferred vinyl's sound. They preferred the hisses, pops, and degradation over time???

On the other hand, when digital photography came along, I wanted to stick to film (now, I'm only a somewhat serious amateur). And did, for a while. Until I started seeing really high quality digital photos. Then I switched quickly and would never go back.

I do think it's nostalgia or just plain old preference. And for those who like to fiddle with all that, fine. Good for them. I hope they do keep film alive. Like anything, there's a place for it.

But for me, digital has really got me thinking more about my photography. Composition has become more of a focus, so to speak. Because I travel a lot, I love KNOWING I've got the photo instead of wondering for days or weeks IF I got the photo, particularly at a place I can't go back to.

It's a big world. Lots of tastes out there. A good photo is a good photo, whether digital or film. But, perhaps it's more about the old Kodachrome concept:

"Kodachrome

They give us those nice bright colors

They give us the greens of summers

Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah...

If you took all the girls I knew

When I was single

And brought them all together for one night

I know they'd never match

my sweet imagination

everything looks WORSE in black and white."

Film gives us something just a little less real. Digital is a little closer to reality. Maybe that reality makes some just a little uncomfortable.

Great thread.

[The Vulcan]

Good debate (and friendly eh)

What is interesting is the amount of prime film gear current for sale at ridiculous low prices. Obviously everybody's offloading their film stuff but for the likes of me (devoted film buff) it's a God send.

I'm currently bidding on EvilBay for a Leica M6 with a pre-Asph 35mm F1.4 - all in mint condition and with a few hours to go I'm best at $1,100 !

A year ago EACH item would have been $2,000 at least.

OK, I may not win but what a bargain if I do. And if I don't - there's always next week

[astral]

Plus of course, we've now got Ilford XP2. Great tonal range and C41 processing. Pop down to your local D+P shop and "Bobs ya uncle"

Don't need a darkroom!

What?

For scratched negatives and indifferent print quality?

No Thanks.

[Bard]

I was using film before and I don't miss it one single bit.

36 shots in a roll, no preview, no changeable ISO, filter like an idiot for white balance, mold on film in storage, tons of prints to throw away, no boost in colors on the fly etc... Normally pro's tell us they shoot 100 shots to get 1 great one, digital rocks, delete the dud on camera keep shooting. No cost for experimenting and so on. The quality of pictures (interesting, different, experimental) has gone through the roof due to the convenience of digital.

Also note to "pro" shooting film, never left, going back etc. According to National Geographic they have one single film shooter left, and they would prefer him to go digital for the convenience of editing and printing. Every news photographer is digital, every wedding photographer, 99% of the nature photographer, travel photographers, studio photographers. So who is left? The stubborn ones, and the ones shooting for art. I read so much about quality, megapixels, film etc. For 20x24" prints 15 megapixels is all you really need, OK more is great but that's all you need for dead sharp images. Plug your laptop to a projector and show a big crowd the images, unless it's cinema size 12 megapixels is more than enough, in a cinema the new 5D Mk ii is more than enough.

Honestly when I look at slides I find them dull and very painful to look at compared to say a HDR or a beautiful edited digital image, also it's a pain setting up the stupid projector and unless you really are on top of it missing out what the &*^% is the next picture again, Burn your images in HD quality and bang them on your widescreen TV, music, description pretty awesome compared to the fan with the noisy picture change seeing every dust particle in the room in between listening to ohh ehh oh yes that was over in ehh ehh ehh Grand Canaria. Color prints are to say the least a pain to bladder through, again a CD/DVD rocks. If the image is good enough print it pretty cheap in A4, A3+, or what printer do you have. Make a postcard cheap and send. The options are almost unlimited, OR take your negative hope the person knows how to process it properly and pay through the nose for your prints... Then some clowns tell you never mind I just scan it... defeats the whole argument...

Black and White better? Based on what? I seen b&w huge art prints from digital looking absolutely brilliant. Better how? Technically an image is only as good as the photographer, quality is only as good as the people who look and enjoy or pay for them... All in all digital is the definite king in almost everyone eyes. Plus film is very politically incorrect, to process them you use toxins and it required special waste, and is very polluting so even though film is not completely wiped out yet, it will in not to distant future due to the toxins and environmentally more aware governments just like the 2 stroke engines are getting killed, so will the film in the future.

See the famous guy just using an iphone camera, the camera is total crap but people pay for his images and love them. Why? Because the appeal to them, all the talk about megapixles, IQ, film vs digital, L or not L, camera brand, dslr vs pocket camera, it is all completely uninteresting really, if you take good images/pictures people will love them and that is what it is all about I guess???

The future is digital, like it or not. Even radiography is slowly moving digital due to governmental and public pressure to get rid of the toxic chemicals.

If you love film and use it, good for you, if you're into digital good for you, it has no importance, use what you like and enjoy taking pictures and have fun doing so... My preference is digital, and I have no regrets ditching my film camera at all, the convenience alone is worth it, the way you can play in post process is just so unbelievable film is miles away in my photo joy...

[aeon]

I just can't replicate this depth and richness of colours in digital.

Maybe your problem is with using software for developing your raw data.

What most of photographers who switch from film to digital don't understand is the importance and versatility of software.

Shoot on raw, use professional tools that allow you to process with the maximum versatility the raw data, and you will change your mind about digital.

You get the most from film when you know how to develop creatively, to get the image you want. The same is for digital. Don't expect the camera to "develop" a nice pic for you on the display after shooting.

Personally I think I can't go back to film, I feel more than comfortable with digital, on color but even more on black and white.

Consider also that the pics you show they have the same number of colors of a digital photo, you can't have more richness than 256 colors per channels on a conventional monitor using 8bit images, then the difference rely on film sensibility and on the print.

Sensors are different than film, but you can achieve great results with the right tools, same as you achieve that in the darkroom, because on a film negative you don't have an image until you develop it, the same is for raw data (density vs numbers not so different)

Of course you can't compare the quality of a film print with a inkjet print, but I suggest to spend a bit more money and go into lambda prints, that uses photosensible paper and you will forget that you shoot pixels.

Edited July 30, 2009 by aeon

[phetaroi]

I just can't replicate this depth and richness of colours in digital.

Maybe your problem is with using software for developing your raw data.

What most of photographers who switch from film to digital don't understand is the importance and versatility of software.

Shoot on raw, use professional tools that allow you to process with the maximum versatility the raw data, and you will change your mind about digital.

You get the most from film when you know how to develop creatively, to get the image you want. The same is for digital. Don't expect the camera to "develop" a nice pic for you on the display after shooting.

Personally I think I can't go back to film, I feel more than comfortable with digital, on color but even more on black and white.

Consider also that the pics you show they have the same number of colors of a digital photo, you can't have more richness than 256 colors per channels on a conventional monitor using 8bit images, then the difference rely on film sensibility and on the print.

Sensors are different than film, but you can achieve great results with the right tools, same as you achieve that in the darkroom, because on a film negative you don't have an image until you develop it, the same is for raw data (density vs numbers not so different)

Of course you can't compare the quality of a film print with a inkjet print, but I suggest to spend a bit more money and go into lambda prints, that uses photosensible paper and you will forget that you shoot pixels.

Yesterday I was cropping some digital pics I had recently taken at a temple. I was fascinated by the rich and sparkling colors.

I say great to those who still love film (or vinyl records)...but I just don't get it.

[aeon]

I just can't replicate this depth and richness of colours in digital.

Maybe your problem is with using software for developing your raw data.

What most of photographers who switch from film to digital don't understand is the importance and versatility of software.

Shoot on raw, use professional tools that allow you to process with the maximum versatility the raw data, and you will change your mind about digital.

You get the most from film when you know how to develop creatively, to get the image you want. The same is for digital. Don't expect the camera to "develop" a nice pic for you on the display after shooting.

Personally I think I can't go back to film, I feel more than comfortable with digital, on color but even more on black and white.

Consider also that the pics you show they have the same number of colors of a digital photo, you can't have more richness than 256 colors per channels on a conventional monitor using 8bit images, then the difference rely on film sensibility and on the print.

Sensors are different than film, but you can achieve great results with the right tools, same as you achieve that in the darkroom, because on a film negative you don't have an image until you develop it, the same is for raw data (density vs numbers not so different)

Of course you can't compare the quality of a film print with a inkjet print, but I suggest to spend a bit more money and go into lambda prints, that uses photosensible paper and you will forget that you shoot pixels.

Yesterday I was cropping some digital pics I had recently taken at a temple. I was fascinated by the rich and sparkling colors.

I say great to those who still love film (or vinyl records)...but I just don't get it.

I forgot to mention that after processing (even who shoot on film can access that) there are infinite possibilities with digital post processing (photoshop).

That anyway is something else, on photography generally I do not post process, I reserve that only for retouches if necessary or for graphics.

[tw25rw]

This may be of interest to those missing the old cameras: http://tokyocamerastyle.com/

Can't believe what some of these people are carrying around on the street..

[The Vulcan]

This may be of interest to those missing the old cameras: http://tokyocamerastyle.com/

Can't believe what some of these people are carrying around on the street..

Yep, picked that link up myself from the same forum as you (can't mention other forums here can we!)

Wonderful to see and proof that film ain't dead.

[Scytale]

I didn't read the whole article, but I can't help feeling that most of the appeal for film is nostalgic. Sure you can do some things with film that you can't with digital. But none of those things make any difference to 99 percent of the shooters. There are definitley benefits to digital that more than make up for the difference.

My studio was on the first wave of photographers using digital for commercial work. Previously we had used all the formats from 8x10 to 35mm. We had our own color darkroom and before that I spent 5 years in art school and university majoring in photography; long before any of us had taken digital serious. So I can say I have been heavily invested in both ends of the discipline. I can say without hesitation: there is no way I am going back to film.

I can understand the fine art guys using film, it is a great way to get that whole artist mystique going. Digital has no romance, no heritage, it is just to sterile. But the artist actually has way more latiitude to push boundaries in digital. He just won't be invited to as many bohemian wine and cheese snob fests to show his work. Success in the art community has little to do with the works on the wall.

My main argument about the superiority of digital over film is, there is no limit to where digital might go, film on the other hand hasn't advanced much at all in the last 20 years, and it is hard to see how analog imaging will ever keep up in our digital universe.

Whoa! Why the anti-artist rant? That was uncalled for.

Any decent artist knows his tools and knows what their advantages and limitations are. A decent artist may have a preference for a particular tool based on its suitability to his needs, but not for any reason other than that. A art photographer with a preference for film who eschews digital because it "isn't real" or some shit like that simply doesn't know his craft, but for all the stereotypes, I've never met a fine art photographer who holds that opinion.

Anyway, at our current level of technological development, digital and analog photography are simply different tools. Doing away with meaningless terms like "richness" that romanticists often ascribe to film photography in an attempt to explain why it looks better to them, we can easily quantify what film has over digital.

Film photography, when using a decent quality film, records a higher dynamic range than digital sensors can. That is to say, the range of light to dark it can record without losing shadow or highlight detail into pure black or pure white is higher. As an example, suppose that you're taking a picture of someone under a tree on a sunny day. Your picture will include both sunny areas and shady areas. Depending on the difference in real-world brightness between the two areas, there is a danger that your picture will be either black (or too dark) in the shady areas or white (or too bright) in the sunny areas, depending on how you expose. With film, you are more likely to get both areas coming in with a usable amount of detail. With digital, one area or the other is more likely to be too bright or too dark.

Film photography also still remains on top in terms of clarity. The most recent round of digital cameras that came out have just begun to match the clarity of film (at least in the pro-sumer market... there are some serious professional digis out there which can do slightly better). At 20-25 megapixels, you just start to match the detail level of a fine-grain 35 millimeter film. If you're slightly more knowledgable and willing to put in the work, medium format and large format films are still vastly superior in terms of the detail they can produce. It's not even a contest between what the best digicam will give you and what a good 4x5 will give you, when shooting under equal conditions.

It's only a matter of time (hopefully), of course, before digital technology catches up to analog in these regards, and film will no longer hold any advantages. For now the average consumer and the commercial professional markets have already decided that the major increase in convenience is worth the cut in quality (like when we chose to replace CDs with MP3s... sorry audiophiles), and film is already gone from those areas. For the serious hobbyist, and for the artist, who are concerned with image quality to the point where they are willing to do the extra work required for film... film is the way to go.

What? How did I get caught up in writing all of that?! I actually just signed on to this board to ask if anyone knows of anywhere in Thailand that operates a color darkroom. Does anyone know any image labs, schools, or universities that have a color darkroom? So far, I've only found analog B&W labs. If anyone has any leads, I'd appreciate it.

[Bard]

See you're also looking for a reliable colour darkroom, which is very hard to find now.

HDR beats film no hands down, I sat down with an old retired photographer from Scotland who shoot film his entire career as a photographer. Sold his work for 500 pounds and so on. He never shoot digital before, but letting him play with mine for one day he told me if he would have killed for the digital world we now have, let him play with digital darkroom and he was overwhelmed. He also told me how many rolls of film he needed to shoot of one subject, due to post processing was not reliable.

As artists such as Michael Creagh mostly B&W don't see any need for film, and see the digital as a superior way of working. National Geographic prefer digital, Discovery Magazine, any press, any wedding, Personally I fail to see the benefit of film all more tonal and more whatever is 100% dependent on getting the post process 100% spot on when it comes to film, the chances you do get that is very narrow, and there is little to nothing you can do about it after.

Shooting in RAW capture capture much more details than jpg, and you can really make an image very tonal with a single RAW processed correctly. I see much more contrast and tonal ranges on a post processed RAW then I've ever seen on a film.

[aeon]

Shooting in RAW capture capture much more details than jpg, and you can really make an image very tonal with a single RAW processed correctly. I see much more contrast and tonal ranges on a post processed RAW then I've ever seen on a film.

totally agree, a raw data contains much more tonal ranges than a film negative.

[The Vulcan]

Shooting in RAW capture capture much more details than jpg, and you can really make an image very tonal with a single RAW processed correctly. I see much more contrast and tonal ranges on a post processed RAW then I've ever seen on a film.

totally agree, a raw data contains much more tonal ranges than a film negative.

No it doesn't.

Film is scientifically proven to contain MUCH more tonal range and detail than the current Dslr sensors.

Film superiority is mostly attributed to chemistry. Film grains are much smaller than photosites on the CCD/CMOS sensor (or pixels in digital image). A silver halide grain can be as small as 0.1 micron compared to 10 microns for a pixel. What's there to fight?

Another thing is that grains are diffused into film, layer upon layer. Grains often partly overlap each other but they are more tightly packed than photosites/pixels. Hence, film would register more detail.

In fact, Kodak says that ISO100-200 film is at least 24 megapixels equivalency of digital. Popular Photography magazine tested ISO100 film to be equivalent to 40 megapixels.

There was a scientific research paper by AFIP that reported ISO100-200 film having about 54 megapixels.

Print films (negative films) have the widest exposure latitude; wider than slide films. Some articles say negative films have up to 7 stops of latitude! Slide films has about 3 stops. Digital is also about 3 stops. I can't do the maths to tell you how many stops of latitude the human eye has (because it's a hel_l lot of latitude) but negative film would produce images most similar to human vision.

It's not very difficult to suspect why Hollywood movies are still shot on 35mm film. Watch the end credits for proof. For your information, motion picture film is mostly rated ISO250 and ISO500, and are still capable of being projected on to a large screen more than 100x it's original frame size.

[The Vulcan]

See you're also looking for a reliable colour darkroom, which is very hard to find now.

HDR beats film no hands down

What's the difference in shooting 3/5 bracketed exposures on digital and the same on film, then scanning in the latter to create HDR?

The difference is there's more detail and tonal range to play with in the film shots.

And that's a scientific fact!

p.s. we won't talk about cost though

[Scytale]

Shooting in RAW capture capture much more details than jpg, and you can really make an image very tonal with a single RAW processed correctly. I see much more contrast and tonal ranges on a post processed RAW then I've ever seen on a film.

totally agree, a raw data contains much more tonal ranges than a film negative.

Sorry, this isn't something you can agree with or not. Whether film or digital photography produces more dynamic range (tonal range) than the other is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. The fact is that film captures a higher dynamic range. Shooting digitally in jpg captures a dynamic range of about 4 stops. Shooting digitally in raw captures a dynamic range of about 6 stops. Shooting in film (with a decent quality film) captures a dynamic range of 8-10 stops. This is fact, not opinion.

I'm not saying this as an advocate for film. I, myself, shoot digital almost all the time (unless I'm using my 4x5). For my needs, like most people nowadays, in casual shooting the convenience of digital far outweighs the loss in dynamic range and detail. The point is, I love digital. But we should be clear and factual about the capabilities of each. It remains a matter of fact that film provides more dynamic range (tonal range) and detail than digital sensors can provide.

Also, again, if anyone knows of a color darkroom in Thailand, please hook a brother up (with contact information).

[Bard]

Good luck with a processor with reliable results in Thailand, there were two before but they are no more last time I checked so happy hunting.

Also over to the HDR, I knew this would come blabla just scan it and there you go digital and how can that be more tonal then digital then? You digitized your image with the scanner, the film is less tonal than reality so in fact your chances of getting the same tonal qualtiy from a scan than a digital image is smaller...

And how will you show your film work? Even the film labs only process your film scan it and photo print it now, so how can you get better results? Your image has been digitized during the process now, unless you shoot slide film, like Velvia 50 or whatever, your film will be digitized before it's shown anywhere. So NO there is NO more tonal range in film than digital anymore unless you shoot slide, and the moment you want that slide printed you do NOT get more tonal range as it will be digitized again.

They do NOT process film like previously by developing it onto the prints, they digitize and print it. And nobody can tell me that a digitized image is better than a digitized image, that is just nonsense.

Whatever people shoot is up to them, however I see to much debates about cameras, lenses, film vs digital etc etc all about just a tool. For me it becomes gadgetry, and looking at say flickr it's easy to see how many total clueless people with extremely good and expensive gear, and you see absolute excellent photographers there with crap cameras and lenses. Lesson learned is the bloody thing is just a tool and the person with the tool is what makes it great not the tool.

You look at former famous photographers with cameras so crap compared to what we have today its a joke, still people are unable to recreate what they did by trying to copy, the only way is to be better with the tool, then the tool sing and the images are awesome, digital, film, camera phone or whatever you use.

[aeon]

Shooting in RAW capture capture much more details than jpg, and you can really make an image very tonal with a single RAW processed correctly. I see much more contrast and tonal ranges on a post processed RAW then I've ever seen on a film.

totally agree, a raw data contains much more tonal ranges than a film negative.

No it doesn't.

Film is scientifically proven to contain MUCH more tonal range and detail than the current Dslr sensors.

Film superiority is mostly attributed to chemistry. Film grains are much smaller than photosites on the CCD/CMOS sensor (or pixels in digital image). A silver halide grain can be as small as 0.1 micron compared to 10 microns for a pixel. What's there to fight?

Another thing is that grains are diffused into film, layer upon layer. Grains often partly overlap each other but they are more tightly packed than photosites/pixels. Hence, film would register more detail.

In fact, Kodak says that ISO100-200 film is at least 24 megapixels equivalency of digital. Popular Photography magazine tested ISO100 film to be equivalent to 40 megapixels.

There was a scientific research paper by AFIP that reported ISO100-200 film having about 54 megapixels.

Print films (negative films) have the widest exposure latitude; wider than slide films. Some articles say negative films have up to 7 stops of latitude! Slide films has about 3 stops. Digital is also about 3 stops. I can't do the maths to tell you how many stops of latitude the human eye has (because it's a hel_l lot of latitude) but negative film would produce images most similar to human vision.

It's not very difficult to suspect why Hollywood movies are still shot on 35mm film. Watch the end credits for proof. For your information, motion picture film is mostly rated ISO250 and ISO500, and are still capable of being projected on to a large screen more than 100x it's original frame size.

I didn't talk about resolution or details, on that I agree film is still higher now (not for long I guess), and also depends on how far you can consider acceptable an image.

Anyway 54 megapixel sounds like a joke for me, try to extract a 2000x2000 pixels image from that 54 megapixel scanned image and try to print or project it, and you understand what I am talking about.

Shooting raw files at 14bit you get an extra +2ev and -2ev (so if you do the math is not 3 stops) to add to the range captured with the normal exposure, and you can play with these values at any time, but what I think you are not taking in consideration is how much you sacrifice developing the negative.

Human vision I think is over 24 stops or more, I can't remember, but you can't see all these ranges together, your vision will adjust automatically to "expose" for what you are focusing on.

Working on hollywood movies I can say that most are still filmed but there are some steps into digital even on the bigscreen, watch the upcoming peter jackson's movie shoot in digital.

Even a digital image of 2048x1556 pixels (equivalent to a full gate 35mm film) when reversed into film is projected on a large screen more than 100x it's original frame size.

[The Vulcan]

A good discussion with lots of positives.

Don't get me wrong, I think digital is a great medium and absolutely spot on to accomodate todays immediate demands and needs, beit press, wedding, photojournalism or the like. I just like the "feel" of film.

A further issue for consideration is longevity. I always worry about my digital storage. Despite having it backed up almost everywhere (cyberspace, libraries, external H/D etc) it's vunerable. No negs you see

Now, with my film stuff, scanned in and backed up as above, I've still got the originals . And carefully stored as they are, they are not de-grading.

Some of the stuff I upload onto TV is from slide/neg that's 25/30 years old, and I'm selling these images as stock.

Anyway, horses for courses I guess. And despite previous claims, film is still the preferred medium for serious B+W shooters, beit 35mm street work or 120/5x4 landscape or portraiture. It's just got so much more tonal range, sharpness and a realistic feel.

Maybe one day, as you say, digital will catch up :D