Film Vs. Digital

[aeon]

Well economically film is so unconvenient that probably becoming poor, some serious photographers start to see in black and white, that's why they see realism in black and white photography.

I call originals also the raw files, they do not degrade (just the media degrade, as is a negative), you can do copies if necessary, and many more advantages such as process your raw data differently, something not possible with negative.

The situation is comparable to vinyl records and cds, some still spend fortunes on hi-fi systems because there are less frequencies in digital sound, but they never consider the background noise of those records.

[Bard]

So you state that Michael Creagh is not a serious photographer then, as he shoots everything in digital and mostly B&W, and he is far from alone, most of the guys which must be total amateurs despite the fact they are world renowned and shoot digital.

Since the landscape photographers for National Geographic shoot digital they must be amateurs as well according to the above statement. As the matter of fact over 90% of the photographers who make a living of photography must be amateurs because someone thinks he get more sharpness and tonal range out of film, which btw must be processed the old way to do so.

Now do you have your own darkroom? If not I guess your fantastic film is getting digitized and printed by a digital transfer to a paper. So good luck to manage to see the difference, and also please write a letter to all the pro's telling them they are not serious photographers and don't know what there doing.

There are a lot of bold statements in this thread, it's an interesting debate but come on.

However fact;

1. Old film processing uses toxins to process, it is very environmentally unfriendly and uses rare raw materials exploited in a pretty disturbing way. Hence it is politically incorrect, you can't say you love to shoot landscape, nature or wildlife and in the same token ruin it by using toxins.

2. Film is now processed chemically but digitized and printed to paper, hence the sharpness or tonal range someone believes is superior is not there, only on the negative or the slide

3. The new digital cameras have more details in the photo than film as they record far more than 2048x1556 pixels, and more details show superior sharpness in print

For me The old film vs digital has this + and -

+ Film gives a film look and true grain in the picture

- Digital can give a plastic feel and unrealistic image if not processed correctly, sometimes you have to ADD noise to make it more realistic

+ Digital everything else

If you like the film look you can make it with photoshop, takes a lot of try and fail but you can do it, also grain can be made with photoshop and honest to God I cannot see the difference in good work, but maybe someone can I have no idea.

Should you have your own darkroom and lot of money to spend on film and like the film to work with, do it nothing stops you. Should you ever become successful in finding a good processor and can afford all the spending's on it, do it by all means. But what you create is not what you think is technically correct, great image or what have we, it's the viewers who judge. And when you see new photographers becoming famous with the crap camera in an iPhone you realize that all the focus on equipment is just stupid as that has little to do with what people like or not...

For the convenience of digital and the creativity you can do with it in photoshop and similar after is unbeatable for me, I shoot with film for a long time and I do not miss it a single second. Worst with the film is processing anxiety you got great shots but they processed it wrong, so it's all wasted. I had 3 rolls of film of a nebula, every single roll but one was crap processed, luckily I went to 3 different labs and one got it right, that was the one I just tried out one roll with as I never used them before. Everything else garbage. You cannot shoot one roll of a subject you need to shoot at least two in case the first roll is poorly processed. A famous street photographer in NY shoot 2 million rolls and of them he had 6000 image sellers, when Smithsonian studied the rolls they found so many with poorly processing which would have been great images if the processing was good. Do you think he would appreciated digital, I do, and most do which is probably why most pro photographers are digital.

So we are talking about serious money to successfully shoot with film. But some people are either passionate about it or rich and they do it.

I am passionate about digital especially because it allows me to make so much out of it after only your imagination stops you, you can experiment and if it looks bad delete it. I love this, I love to see immediately the image, check the ev adjustments there and ten and just play with everything. If someone prefers film that is good for them, but telling others it's better is meaningless, a picture is best in the eye of the beholder. What is the best tool to do so is in the hands and opinions of the photographer, that is basically it.

All this came up because Ken Rockwell stated something, send him an email and ask if he can DxO the film as well? OR does he have to live without it (yes) so all the vignetting and distortion will be there... Before that was his big thing... Digital he found out he could remove all these artifacts with DxO and this was the bees knees. If he don't come up with something new all the time his website dies and his business goes down, hence let's make a big bang and get lot's of talk and make money... Good idea from him, but I fail to find the point. I bet you a lot of people will now start to shoot film due to it, and after X amount of time they will figure out that the pictures didn't magically become winners, they will always be duped by gear talk, gear does not make great pictures the photographer does. Old salt screen images is still selling from great photographers and don't tell me they are sharp or tonal. They are great pictures people want to buy and hang on there walls.

[aeon]

3. The new digital cameras have more details in the photo than film as they record far more than 2048x1556 pixels, and more details show superior sharpness in print

I know really well that new cameras record more pixels, but 2048x1556 (when you use the full 35mm frame) is the standard resolution used to record from digital to film in motion picture industry, I was talking about movies, not still photography.

[Bard]

I was just taking the piss, seriously I can not see any difference in IQ on digital or film, and the ones who do are pixel peeking and do not enjoy photography for the picture just gearheads.

[The Vulcan]

So you state that Michael Creagh is not a serious photographer then, as he shoots everything in digital and mostly B&W, and he is far from alone, most of the guys which must be total amateurs despite the fact they are world renowned and shoot digital.

What I said actually was serious B+W shooters use film - THAT ENABLES THEM TO PRODUCE FINE ART PRINTS which digital cannot. What tends to happen, and is indeed the trend for digital fine art, is the image is duped onto 5x4 film and then fine art printed

Since the landscape photographers for National Geographic shoot digital they must be amateurs as well according to the above statement. As the matter of fact over 90% of the photographers who make a living of photography must be amateurs because someone thinks he get more sharpness and tonal range out of film, which btw must be processed the old way to do so.

There are no landscape photographers working with NG. They are photojournalists and are recruited for their skills in this area. When NG require landscape images they use stock libraries like Getty and Corbis. Take a look at the credits in their landscape images for evidence.

Now do you have your own darkroom? If not I guess your fantastic film is getting digitized and printed by a digital transfer to a paper. So good luck to manage to see the difference, and also please write a letter to all the pro's telling them they are not serious photographers and don't know what there doing.

Yes I do. I dev all my own B+W and print via a Durst enlarger on Ilford Fibre Based paper. Of course, fine art printing is were digital collapses eh?

There are a lot of bold statements in this thread, it's an interesting debate but come on.

However fact;

1. Old film processing uses toxins to process, it is very environmentally unfriendly and uses rare raw materials exploited in a pretty disturbing way. Hence it is politically incorrect, you can't say you love to shoot landscape, nature or wildlife and in the same token ruin it by using toxins.

Agreed - can't argue with that.

2. Film is now processed chemically but digitized and printed to paper, hence the sharpness or tonal range someone believes is superior is not there, only on the negative or the slide

See above comment ref Ilford fibre based and the like - that's why we use film!

3. The new digital cameras have more details in the photo than film as they record far more than 2048x1556 pixels, and more details show superior sharpness in print

Already covered - NO THEY DON'T

For me The old film vs digital has this + and -

+ Film gives a film look and true grain in the picture

- Digital can give a plastic feel and unrealistic image if not processed correctly, sometimes you have to ADD noise to make it more realistic

My case rests!

+ Digital everything else

Except tonal range

If you like the film look you can make it with photoshop, takes a lot of try and fail but you can do it, also grain can be made with photoshop and honest to God I cannot see the difference in good work, but maybe someone can I have no idea.

Should you have your own darkroom and lot of money to spend on film and like the film to work with, do it nothing stops you. Should you ever become successful in finding a good processor and can afford all the spending's on it, do it by all means. But what you create is not what you think is technically correct, great image or what have we, it's the viewers who judge. And when you see new photographers becoming famous with the crap camera in an iPhone you realize that all the focus on equipment is just stupid as that has little to do with what people like or not...

For the convenience of digital and the creativity you can do with it in photoshop and similar after is unbeatable for me, I shoot with film for a long time and I do not miss it a single second. Worst with the film is processing anxiety you got great shots but they processed it wrong, so it's all wasted. I had 3 rolls of film of a nebula, every single roll but one was crap processed, luckily I went to 3 different labs and one got it right, that was the one I just tried out one roll with as I never used them before. Everything else garbage. You cannot shoot one roll of a subject you need to shoot at least two in case the first roll is poorly processed. A famous street photographer in NY shoot 2 million rolls and of them he had 6000 image sellers, when Smithsonian studied the rolls they found so many with poorly processing which would have been great images if the processing was good. Do you think he would appreciated digital, I do, and most do which is probably why most pro photographers are digital.

You keep referring to the need to shoot zillions of film exposures to acquire a few acceptable images, but not seemingly having this problem with digital! Why is it that someone can corectly expose with a digital camera and not be capable of the same accuracy with a film camera? Beyond me. Ok, I can't see an immediate playback, but I can tell you now, I am capable of correctly exposing film and my keep rate is NO DIFFERENT from my digital rate. Come on, if a scene demands 1/125th at F5.6 at 100 iso as the correct exposure, why would it differ on film v digital? In fact, because I cannot see immediate results I tend to take far more care in my film exposures. I've just received 10 rolls of 120 Velvia from IQ lab. 120 shots in total and not one of them is incorrectly exposed! I'm not saying I have 120 great shots, but I sure have 120 correctly exposed shots. Conversely, and this is a plus as well as a minus, I tend to be very casual with my digital shooting and reel off shot after shot knowing that it's not costing a bean. Great peace of mind, but it does make one a little "snap happy" . Not sure if this is good or bad!

So we are talking about serious money to successfully shoot with film. But some people are either passionate about it or rich and they do it.

See above - not neccessarily so. BUT, we are talking about serious money to buy the latest digital offerings

I am passionate about digital especially because it allows me to make so much out of it after only your imagination stops you, you can experiment and if it looks bad delete it. I love this, I love to see immediately the image, check the ev adjustments there and ten and just play with everything. If someone prefers film that is good for them, but telling others it's better is meaningless, a picture is best in the eye of the beholder. What is the best tool to do so is in the hands and opinions of the photographer, that is basically it.

All this came up because Ken Rockwell stated something, send him an email and ask if he can DxO the film as well? OR does he have to live without it (yes) so all the vignetting and distortion will be there... Before that was his big thing... Digital he found out he could remove all these artifacts with DxO and this was the bees knees. If he don't come up with something new all the time his website dies and his business goes down, hence let's make a big bang and get lot's of talk and make money... Good idea from him, but I fail to find the point. I bet you a lot of people will now start to shoot film due to it, and after X amount of time they will figure out that the pictures didn't magically become winners, they will always be duped by gear talk, gear does not make great pictures the photographer does. Old salt screen images is still selling from great photographers and don't tell me they are sharp or tonal. They are great pictures people want to buy and hang on there walls.

If you look at my opening comment I actually said that you need to take Ken with a pinch of salt

Anyway, great input and extremley interesting. My re-kindled interest in film has only come about within the last 9 months or so. I admit that it's (probably) nostalgic, but I just love looking into a 6x6 viewfinder and seeing that big bright image. It's magic. The slides come back, onto the lightbox and they look so beautiful. Of course, the backlighting impact can then only be fully captured with a Cibachrome print but that's another story eh

Good to debate

[astral]

I just love looking into a 6x6 viewfinder and seeing that big bright image

Film makes a difference to the image in the viewfinder???????????

Miracles never cease.

[The Vulcan]

I just love looking into a 6x6 viewfinder and seeing that big bright image

Film makes a difference to the image in the viewfinder???????????

Miracles never cease.

Yep, they don't do a WLF in prosumer Dslr's yet!

[aeon]

I just love looking into a 6x6 viewfinder and seeing that big bright image

Film makes a difference to the image in the viewfinder???????????

Miracles never cease.

Yep, they don't do a WLF in prosumer Dslr's yet!

No WLF they have a real time display, exposure preview, grid in thirds, and without the need to bend yourself in an uncomfortable positions.

[The Vulcan]

I just love looking into a 6x6 viewfinder and seeing that big bright image

Film makes a difference to the image in the viewfinder???????????

Miracles never cease.

Yep, they don't do a WLF in prosumer Dslr's yet!

No WLF they have a real time display, exposure preview, grid in thirds, and without the need to bend yourself in an uncomfortable positions.

I've got grid lines on my WLF, and a flip up microprism for accurate focusing. And looking down ain't much more effort (or uncomfortable) than looking through a viewfinder!

[Familyonthemove]

Interesting and intelligent debate ... thought I stumbled onto the wrong forum.

Just another thought .... my brother uses digital to produce some stunning pictures, but he can spend a whole day or more on Photoshop to produce the results he wants.

Link to his photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/testchamber/

Even in my old darkroom days I didn't spend that long manipulating an image. For the pro or ultra-keen amateur, perhaps film and a good lab could produce results faster than digital? Ironic really?

But I'm now just a happy family snapper, and the latest high-end compact digitals (currently a Cannon G7 but have my eye on a G10) produce what I want without any chemical abuse or Photoshopping. What I really want is a pocket sized camera with a Digital SLR sized sensor, then I reckon film would really be dead to all but the tradition pro?

[The Vulcan]

Interesting and intelligent debate ... thought I stumbled onto the wrong forum.

Just another thought .... my brother uses digital to produce some stunning pictures, but he can spend a whole day or more on Photoshop to produce the results he wants.

Link to his photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/testchamber/

Even in my old darkroom days I didn't spend that long manipulating an image. For the pro or ultra-keen amateur, perhaps film and a good lab could produce results faster than digital? Ironic really?

But I'm now just a happy family snapper, and the latest high-end compact digitals (currently a Cannon G7 but have my eye on a G10) produce what I want without any chemical abuse or Photoshopping. What I really want is a pocket sized camera with a Digital SLR sized sensor, then I reckon film would really be dead to all but the tradition pro?

Yep, that's what everybody is awaiting. The Sigma DP1/2 nearly got there (too slow) and the new Olympus "Pen" thing which seems to also lack. LX3 is superb but limited focal range.

But I guess we'll get it soon (fingers crossed)

BUT IT STILL WON'T KILL FILM (kidding)

[aeon]

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-c...t-printers.html

interesting article

[Bard]

So you state that Michael Creagh is not a serious photographer then, as he shoots everything in digital and mostly B&W, and he is far from alone, most of the guys which must be total amateurs despite the fact they are world renowned and shoot digital.

What I said actually was serious B+W shooters use film - THAT ENABLES THEM TO PRODUCE FINE ART PRINTS which digital cannot. What tends to happen, and is indeed the trend for digital fine art, is the image is duped onto 5x4 film and then fine art printed

Well Michael Creagh is producing fine art B/W and is a very serious very renowned photographer shooting digital. So hence I asked if he was not serious, he and other do prove you can produce fine art prints, so I disagree that digital cannot do this still.

Since the landscape photographers for National Geographic shoot digital they must be amateurs as well according to the above statement. As the matter of fact over 90% of the photographers who make a living of photography must be amateurs because someone thinks he get more sharpness and tonal range out of film, which btw must be processed the old way to do so.

There are no landscape photographers working with NG. They are photojournalists and are recruited for their skills in this area. When NG require landscape images they use stock libraries like Getty and Corbis. Take a look at the credits in their landscape images for evidence.

True but I also see they use digital when I go on there profiles in there private homepages. Working with... Or selling to, or whatever you want to call it, the images used are digital.

Now do you have your own darkroom? If not I guess your fantastic film is getting digitized and printed by a digital transfer to a paper. So good luck to manage to see the difference, and also please write a letter to all the pro's telling them they are not serious photographers and don't know what there doing.

Yes I do. I dev all my own B+W and print via a Durst enlarger on Ilford Fibre Based paper. Of course, fine art printing is were digital collapses eh?

I agree that film is a very good way of working with fine art, but I have been in several photo exhibitions with fine art made with digital cameras, and they sell well so it does not collapse on fine art, it's a different way of working with the art. That's all. For a some people film is better, for a some they don't care and for some prefer digital. When it comes to art nobody is right or wrong, I bet when oil colour paint came out the same debate raged. It is in the eye of the beholder what is art really.

There are a lot of bold statements in this thread, it's an interesting debate but come on.

However fact;

1. Old film processing uses toxins to process, it is very environmentally unfriendly and uses rare raw materials exploited in a pretty disturbing way. Hence it is politically incorrect, you can't say you love to shoot landscape, nature or wildlife and in the same token ruin it by using toxins.

Agreed - can't argue with that.

2. Film is now processed chemically but digitized and printed to paper, hence the sharpness or tonal range someone believes is superior is not there, only on the negative or the slide

See above comment ref Ilford fibre based and the like - that's why we use film!

You belong to a very lucky minority who have there own processing system, good for you man. Most don't however.

3. The new digital cameras have more details in the photo than film as they record far more than 2048x1556 pixels, and more details show superior sharpness in print

Already covered - NO THEY DON'T

I challenge anyone to find anyone but total gearheads peeking at images for the details you are talking about, <deleted> I seen massive digital prints and they're so sharp you feel you can cut your eye on them. And my argument is people who do are not enjoying photos they enjoy peeking at pixels and microscopic details and for most people these guys is better off shooting at reference cards and peeking than any subjects. People enjoy composition of an image and do not generally sit down with a magnifying glass looking for the microscopic differences.

For me The old film vs digital has this + and -

+ Film gives a film look and true grain in the picture

- Digital can give a plastic feel and unrealistic image if not processed correctly, sometimes you have to ADD noise to make it more realistic

My case rests!

+ Digital everything else

Except tonal range

Except HDR tonal range is superior in digital

If you like the film look you can make it with photoshop, takes a lot of try and fail but you can do it, also grain can be made with photoshop and honest to God I cannot see the difference in good work, but maybe someone can I have no idea.

Should you have your own darkroom and lot of money to spend on film and like the film to work with, do it nothing stops you. Should you ever become successful in finding a good processor and can afford all the spending's on it, do it by all means. But what you create is not what you think is technically correct, great image or what have we, it's the viewers who judge. And when you see new photographers becoming famous with the crap camera in an iPhone you realize that all the focus on equipment is just stupid as that has little to do with what people like or not...

For the convenience of digital and the creativity you can do with it in photoshop and similar after is unbeatable for me, I shoot with film for a long time and I do not miss it a single second. Worst with the film is processing anxiety you got great shots but they processed it wrong, so it's all wasted. I had 3 rolls of film of a nebula, every single roll but one was crap processed, luckily I went to 3 different labs and one got it right, that was the one I just tried out one roll with as I never used them before. Everything else garbage. You cannot shoot one roll of a subject you need to shoot at least two in case the first roll is poorly processed. A famous street photographer in NY shoot 2 million rolls and of them he had 6000 image sellers, when Smithsonian studied the rolls they found so many with poorly processing which would have been great images if the processing was good. Do you think he would appreciated digital, I do, and most do which is probably why most pro photographers are digital.

You keep referring to the need to shoot zillions of film exposures to acquire a few acceptable images, but not seemingly having this problem with digital! Why is it that someone can corectly expose with a digital camera and not be capable of the same accuracy with a film camera? Beyond me. Ok, I can't see an immediate playback, but I can tell you now, I am capable of correctly exposing film and my keep rate is NO DIFFERENT from my digital rate. Come on, if a scene demands 1/125th at F5.6 at 100 iso as the correct exposure, why would it differ on film v digital? In fact, because I cannot see immediate results I tend to take far more care in my film exposures. I've just received 10 rolls of 120 Velvia from IQ lab. 120 shots in total and not one of them is incorrectly exposed! I'm not saying I have 120 great shots, but I sure have 120 correctly exposed shots. Conversely, and this is a plus as well as a minus, I tend to be very casual with my digital shooting and reel off shot after shot knowing that it's not costing a bean. Great peace of mind, but it does make one a little "snap happy" . Not sure if this is good or bad!

Problem is when you shoot the oddballs like a nebula or similar it is not within the "book" and the processor screws it up trying to correct for it. The images was correctly exposed, but the processor "adjusted" so it would come out according to the book, hence ruined pictures.

The difference in digital is you see it there and then, the result, you see it's off shoot and shoot until it's there delete the duds no harm done.

Reel off shots is good in my opinion, I see something I like, say a colour on something, I shot different angles and try all sort of stupid stuff and settings, sitting with my computer looking at them after I find myself learning tricks. Nothing wrong with that.

Reeling off shots is not bad with digital, what's a big problem is the lazy people who thinks they can fix everything in photoshop. Photoshop is awesome when you see that little piece of garbage in your image you could not reach and remove when you took the picture, you remove it, that is Awesome, you can fix for architecture shots, straighten horizon, lens corrections, make collages and unbelievable lot of really great stuff. But taking pictures of say a statue mid day, and think photoshop can make it look good is a very bad habit, it can never replicate shooting in good light period.

So we are talking about serious money to successfully shoot with film. But some people are either passionate about it or rich and they do it.

See above - not neccessarily so. BUT, we are talking about serious money to buy the latest digital offerings

True we tend to spend money on our hobbies, that's what hobby stand for "wasting money" I am guilty there as well, no cost for shooting tho luckily so I save a lot there, especially when you see as above I experiment a lot. I also shoot a lot of sport so imagine the cost that would be... I sometimes come home with over a 1000 shots from a car/motorcycle race, there are probably tenfold of keepers, rest deleted. Would cost an arm and a leg in film so for me it's a substantial saving.

I am passionate about digital especially because it allows me to make so much out of it after only your imagination stops you, you can experiment and if it looks bad delete it. I love this, I love to see immediately the image, check the ev adjustments there and ten and just play with everything. If someone prefers film that is good for them, but telling others it's better is meaningless, a picture is best in the eye of the beholder. What is the best tool to do so is in the hands and opinions of the photographer, that is basically it.

All this came up because Ken Rockwell stated something, send him an email and ask if he can DxO the film as well? OR does he have to live without it (yes) so all the vignetting and distortion will be there... Before that was his big thing... Digital he found out he could remove all these artifacts with DxO and this was the bees knees. If he don't come up with something new all the time his website dies and his business goes down, hence let's make a big bang and get lot's of talk and make money... Good idea from him, but I fail to find the point. I bet you a lot of people will now start to shoot film due to it, and after X amount of time they will figure out that the pictures didn't magically become winners, they will always be duped by gear talk, gear does not make great pictures the photographer does. Old salt screen images is still selling from great photographers and don't tell me they are sharp or tonal. They are great pictures people want to buy and hang on there walls.

If you look at my opening comment I actually said that you need to take Ken with a pinch of salt

Anyway, great input and extremley interesting. My re-kindled interest in film has only come about within the last 9 months or so. I admit that it's (probably) nostalgic, but I just love looking into a 6x6 viewfinder and seeing that big bright image. It's magic. The slides come back, onto the lightbox and they look so beautiful. Of course, the backlighting impact can then only be fully captured with a Cibachrome print but that's another story eh

Good to debate

Agreed, been very interesting debate. I saw you commented on Ken as well, so think we are on the same page there. Nothing wrong with nostalgia, nothing wrong with film, and also nothing wrong with digital. I would love to come over and see your prints, I know you take great shots so it would be nice to have a flashback and see the prints.

Cheers

[taxexile]

as an amateur capable of taking decent enough shots i went digital about 5 years ago, purely so that i could carry a camera around in my pocket rather than have to lug a big slr and lenses around.

i soon found that my photography suffered, the throwaway images of a digital made me lazy and the complicated menus on even the smallest digital cameras are time consuming and take the eye away from the viewfinder.

i missed my filter kit , the sound of the shutter and fiddling with my lightmeter(nostalgia), i longed for the relative simplicity of the controls of my nikon fm2 and f-80. most of all i missed the wonderful shots i got with my 20mm prime.

i dont like altering images digitally, i just feel that they are not really the same as the photo i took, i crop and maybe tone the colours a bit, but that is all.

to buy a digital slr that can use the 20mm lens to its full extent will cost me more than i am prepared to spend and so i have recently dug out the old f-80 ( sadly i sold the fm), bought a few rolls of 200asa, and i'm working my way through the handbook and rediscovering the joys of using that old beast.

this is a great thread by the way.

[aeon]

as an amateur capable of taking decent enough shots i went digital about 5 years ago, purely so that i could carry a camera around in my pocket rather than have to lug a big slr and lenses around.

i soon found that my photography suffered, the throwaway images of a digital made me lazy and the complicated menus on even the smallest digital cameras are time consuming and take the eye away from the viewfinder.

i missed my filter kit , the sound of the shutter and fiddling with my lightmeter(nostalgia), i longed for the relative simplicity of the controls of my nikon fm2 and f-80. most of all i missed the wonderful shots i got with my 20mm prime.

i dont like altering images digitally, i just feel that they are not really the same as the photo i took, i crop and maybe tone the colours a bit, but that is all.

to buy a digital slr that can use the 20mm lens to its full extent will cost me more than i am prepared to spend and so i have recently dug out the old f-80 ( sadly i sold the fm), bought a few rolls of 200asa, and i'm working my way through the handbook and rediscovering the joys of using that old beast.

this is a great thread by the way.

why don't get a single use cheap plastic film camera? is lighter, you can easily carry around and throw away after use.

If you are interested in serious photography don't get a pocket digital camera.

[aeon]

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

just to keep the debate still on (scientifically):

"There seems to be an urban legend that says digital cameras have less dynamic range than film. The legend is wrong. The above plot shows the comparison of a DSLR with print and slide film. The slide film records only about 5 photographic stops of information (a stop is a factor of 2, so 5 stops is 32). The print film shows about 7 stops of information. The digital camera shows at least 10 stops of information (this test was limited to 10 stops). Other tests show the Canon 1D Mark II camera has about 11.6 stops of information (a range of 3100 in intensity). Other DSLR cameras, like the Canon 10D have around 11 stops. Point and shoot digital cameras, somewhat less."

sources:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/fil...l.summary1.html

and a practical test:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

Edited August 14, 2009 by aeon

[The Vulcan]

All this science is hard work!

The one BIG issue with film is iso rating. I really appreciate the flexibility using digital. I know XP2 can be rated at anything between 50-800 iso - BUT NOT ON THE SAME ROLL!

And the Colour v B+W issue

I'm not convinced that converting colour to B+W in film use, is as good as shooting B+W "straight" and the number of times I've loaded the wrong medium really is annoying. In fact, with my 35mm film stuff, I now have two Contax G bodies to counter this. One loaded colour (slide) and the other B+W. Fortunately, these bodies are cheap enough now to do this. Again, with my MF I load up two backs accordingly. Problem solved you may think ..................BUT I'M CARRYING A LOT MORE AROUND

Digital wins hands down here. One body, any iso and colour/B+W up to you.

I laugh when I see guys complaining about the weight of a G10 compact!

Another thing, silly as this sounds, I get more satisfaction from p***ing about with film. Digital requires no effort in pp really and it seems so clinical albeit the image is there as required. Now, with film, I really have to work. Dev it in a darkroom (or wait a week for the lab), carefully dust and clean the negs, scan it, (8 minutes per image ) spot it, and then I'm finally ready to work on it. But after all that, it just seems more satisfying because I DID IT, not some technician in the Canon factory (if you follow my reasoning). Of course, you need time on your hands which I've got. It's a no-brainer why the industry applauded digital in this respect. But, given the time, I'll take satisfaction against speed any day.

One massive plus for film (at last) is when I upload to my libraries. My 6x6 images stand out a country mile on their website. Sitting next to the tiny little 35m equivalent they sure do catch your eye. Might not be better shots, but you'll sure see 'em

And that's what I want

[Pez]

Its nice to read some very interesting responses so here is mine: Back in the 60/70's I very busy doing B&W photo journalism/industrial work - the thing was you could do so much to make up for difficult lighting conditions by adjusting the film development - then printing process hands bits of card were used to massage the finish print. I was lucky to have some of the best kit in the world to help me. Colour was becoming more popular, wedding clients requested it, pro film and pro processing outstripped the stuff Joe public got from the mail-order or high street outlets, however, you still felt you had no control esp the time when I had a deep scratch on a full length 35mm film of a wedding job. So a life change came along no darkroom and a world of colour. I gave - up photography, however my interest was awakened when the digital revolution arrived, like the CD when it arrived the results were BAD. But now if you have deep pockets you can achieve results almost as good as film and have complete control just like the days of the darkroom - without the smells and of a 'darkroom'. There is a lot less risk in the control of digital media than film, without doubt the digital wins hands down in being able to get a picture in most circumstances I refer to variable ASA - the King being the Nikon D3. Poor old film zero tolerance and low sensitivity at that.

I feel the main development for digital is to improve the quality further down the price chain.

There are just too many plus reasons for digital and very few for gelatine based products.

[aeon]

'The Vulcan' post='2943884' date='2009-08-15 09:27:25']

All this science is hard work!

Yes it is, but only after the hard work you can claim a "scientific fact"

The one BIG issue with film is iso rating. I really appreciate the flexibility using digital. I know XP2 can be rated at anything between 50-800 iso - BUT NOT ON THE SAME ROLL!

I agree, also the grain issue against noise (digital) is space for another debate, but each medium has it's pro and cons

And the Colour v B+W issue

I'm not convinced that converting colour to B+W in film use, is as good as shooting B+W "straight" and the number of times I've loaded the wrong medium really is annoying. In fact, with my 35mm film stuff, I now have two Contax G bodies to counter this. One loaded colour (slide) and the other B+W. Fortunately, these bodies are cheap enough now to do this. Again, with my MF I load up two backs accordingly. Problem solved you may think ..................BUT I'M CARRYING A LOT MORE AROUND

Digital wins hands down here. One body, any iso and colour/B+W up to you.

I agree, I don't think is the same, but I will underline that another advantage of converting color raw data to B & W is the ability to play with 3 separate luminances ( r,g,b ) while in straight B & W are lost (or merged). But this for the more traditional B & W shooters will sounds as a blasphemy, so I will not go deep on this argument, I will take this advantages for me

I laugh when I see guys complaining about the weight of a G10 compact!

Another thing, silly as this sounds, I get more satisfaction from p***ing about with film. Digital requires no effort in pp really and it seems so clinical albeit the image is there as required. Now, with film, I really have to work. Dev it in a darkroom (or wait a week for the lab), carefully dust and clean the negs, scan it, (8 minutes per image ) spot it, and then I'm finally ready to work on it. But after all that, it just seems more satisfying because I DID IT, not some technician in the Canon factory (if you follow my reasoning). Of course, you need time on your hands which I've got. It's a no-brainer why the industry applauded digital in this respect. But, given the time, I'll take satisfaction against speed any day.

I agree, the sense of satisfaction for doing it yourself is one of the most pleasant feeling in photography together with the visual result (maybe because they are related).

I follow your reasoning but even in digital world you get the same satisfactions, I spend less money in my tests, but not less time, I spend quite a lot of time (and I am not talking of photoshop work or any retouch) of course with the same amount of time you can work on much more images.

No technician in canon or wherever do the work for you, they research and develops (and most important for them "sell") tools that you use according to your creative and technical needs, in the same way for example as fuji or kodak technicians create film negative for you (they did a tool).

No brainers are in every field, they are essential for the big amount of money companies they makes with them, and I will add that even behind urban legends there are economic reasons, so always do your own investigation and researches.

One massive plus for film (at last) is when I upload to my libraries. My 6x6 images stand out a country mile on their website. Sitting next to the tiny little 35m equivalent they sure do catch your eye. Might not be better shots, but you'll sure see 'em

As I agreed on previous posts, on resolution is still film the winner, digital is very close on that, with some expensive product digital is higher than 35mm film, but far away if compared to 6x6 images.

Dynamic range is much more on sensors, there are no doubt on this!

Prints from digital, normally are lower quality than film (less colors), but there are great tools out there too, and if you know how to bring all the data you captured from your sensor without clamping or compress the ranges of colors (and is not so simple because you are unable to see them on traditional monitors), down until the print process, you can get fine prints.

And that's what I want

That is the important thing to consider when choosing between film or sensor, people need to ask themselves what they need or want, otherwise is like claiming english language is better than spanish...

What is funny is to hear people claiming that traditional photography has more years of experience compared to digital, not considering that the companies behind the two are almost the same and that the experience, research, technologies are transfered from film to digital.

There are other advantages on digital or in film as well (how many depend on the photographer needs and skills).

Enjoy whatever you feel is better for you, this is my way of considering things.

P.s.: talking so much of colors, I messed up

Edited August 15, 2009 by aeon

[The Vulcan]

Here's a link to a friend of mines website. He's good, very good. I think you'll agree

Marc's Site

Here's a link to his discussions on Film v Digital - great reading. It's a bit old now but sooooo informative

Film v Digital thread

Hope you enjoy.

[aeon]

I agree in full, he is very good photographer and very creative, I love his works!

The forum is very interesting too, but seems more a scanners discussion, more than a digital vs film.

By the way I think is really important to use an highend scanner to get the most of the "lower dynamic range than digital" from film negatives.

thanks for the link, very inspiring works.

[astral]

The forum is very interesting too, but seems more a scanners discussion,

Isn't it ironic that the people who advocate film are scanning it to digital................

[aeon]

The forum is very interesting too, but seems more a scanners discussion,

Isn't it ironic that the people who advocate film are scanning it to digital................

well is common when new technologies come in, it never happen a sudden radical switch, it takes time to switch.

Consider investments from big companies as number 1 factor on these delays in changing, and lobbies looking for economic interests for their elite of big names as another cause.

In the meanwhile the most clever come out with in between solutions that maximize the know how and resources that already exist to easily move into the new solutions.

Look at cinema for example, filmed then scanned and all the work in between the input and output is done digitally until the final is converted to film again, what is the advantage of this? or better who takes advantage of this?

[Bard]

as an amateur capable of taking decent enough shots i went digital about 5 years ago, purely so that i could carry a camera around in my pocket rather than have to lug a big slr and lenses around.

i soon found that my photography suffered, the throwaway images of a digital made me lazy and the complicated menus on even the smallest digital cameras are time consuming and take the eye away from the viewfinder.

i missed my filter kit , the sound of the shutter and fiddling with my lightmeter(nostalgia), i longed for the relative simplicity of the controls of my nikon fm2 and f-80. most of all i missed the wonderful shots i got with my 20mm prime.

i dont like altering images digitally, i just feel that they are not really the same as the photo i took, i crop and maybe tone the colours a bit, but that is all.

to buy a digital slr that can use the 20mm lens to its full extent will cost me more than i am prepared to spend and so i have recently dug out the old f-80 ( sadly i sold the fm), bought a few rolls of 200asa, and i'm working my way through the handbook and rediscovering the joys of using that old beast.

this is a great thread by the way.

First of all it appears that you went from film slr to a pocket digital camera,because you wanted to have something to carry in your pocket, right?

1. Any SLR digital or film will outperform the pocket or point and shoot cameras, that is beyond any doubt whatsoever, so the comparison between the film slr and digital point and shoot is not fair.

2. Complicated menus? All you really need to do with them is Auto and it does all for you, or you can manually set shutter speed or f/stop just like your film camera. The scene mode is also simple like most film auto slr you dial in sport, landscape or what have we. The only additional stuff you have to figure out is ISO (speed) and Whitebalance, leave it in Auto if you are unsure.

3. Lightmeter works great with digital cameras I use my flashmate all the time.

4. Why do you think you have to like post processing with digital camera to use it, most of them have picture bridge and you print straight out on the printer with them, or go to the print shop and they'll do it for you.

I see you ended up with a SLR again which is great, much better than P&S also see you use film, good for you man enjoy it.

Cheers Bard

[Bard]

The forum is very interesting too, but seems more a scanners discussion,

Isn't it ironic that the people who advocate film are scanning it to digital................

well is common when new technologies come in, it never happen a sudden radical switch, it takes time to switch.

Consider investments from big companies as number 1 factor on these delays in changing, and lobbies looking for economic interests for their elite of big names as another cause.

In the meanwhile the most clever come out with in between solutions that maximize the know how and resources that already exist to easily move into the new solutions.

Look at cinema for example, filmed then scanned and all the work in between the input and output is done digitally until the final is converted to film again, what is the advantage of this? or better who takes advantage of this?

I also find it funny that "film" shooters end up scanning the images, you never get full nature on any picture... Full tonal if you like, then a reduced reality is reshot digital when they could just shoot digital in the first place and not taken a picture of a small flat thing but the real thing you supposed to make image from.

Most new film now are filmed digital anyway with full 3 * 35 mm sensors, extremely dear stuff but makes sense. Why they digitized the films was so they could work on them, you know fx and stuff which is 1000000000 times easier to do digital than the old way. However since a load of cinemas are unable to show digital on the big screen they simply transfer the final edit into film and show it in those theaters. You do see the difference believe me from a full digital show on the big screen versus the burnt to film again, the lack of additional process makes it much clear in colors and sharper, which is logical, as more times we add processes like, subject to film, film to digital, digital to film decreases IQ as you inherit the bad sides form all media that way.

For me the; I shoot film because it's "whatever" then I scan it makes just no sense whatsoever. But whatever makes you happy I guess.

[aeon]

Most new film now are filmed digital anyway with full 3 * 35 mm sensors, extremely dear stuff but makes sense. Why they digitized the films was so they could work on them, you know fx and stuff which is 1000000000 times easier to do digital than the old way. However since a load of cinemas are unable to show digital on the big screen they simply transfer the final edit into film and show it in those theaters. You do see the difference believe me from a full digital show on the big screen versus the burnt to film again, the lack of additional process makes it much clear in colors and sharper, which is logical, as more times we add processes like, subject to film, film to digital, digital to film decreases IQ as you inherit the bad sides form all media that way.

For me the; I shoot film because it's "whatever" then I scan it makes just no sense whatsoever. But whatever makes you happy I guess.

Not most, but still few are captured (not filmed) on 35mm digital sensors camera, and I add unfortunately.

I know exactly why films are scanned and transfered into digital images (I work on this field) but is not easier to do digital, something is easier something more difficult, something impossible to do without digital techniques, but my question (rhetorical) was referred to why still filming and not capturing, and why still cinema are not able everywhere to project digital.

On that I agree, projecting digital it keep more quality because avoid the recording on film, and then making copies.

[The Vulcan]

From what I read the industry still uses film because of the enormous cost they face moving across totally to digital.

If this cost is in direct relation to using MFD in "our" world who can blame them eh?

I seem also to recollect that is why the "Red" group set themselves up. They seem to be seeking to encourage the switch to Movie Digital.

Red.Com

Edited August 20, 2009 by The Vulcan

[aeon]

From what I read the industry still uses film because of the enormous cost they face moving across totally to digital.

If this cost is in direct relation to using MFD in "our" world who can blame them eh?

I seem also to recollect that is why the "Red" group set themselves up. They seem to be seeking to encourage the switch to Movie Digital.

Red.Com

Yes I agree, but there is also more than that, consider also big names that are not into digital to slow down the switch.

I don't think digital capture is the ideal world at this moment, still has some negative side but compared to the advantages I think is quite convenient.

Of course more customers, more new R&D so better solutions.

I am a new Red camera user, and also worked few times using the red workflow, and I advocate for them!

[aeon]

From what I read the industry still uses film because of the enormous cost they face moving across totally to digital.

If this cost is in direct relation to using MFD in "our" world who can blame them eh?

I seem also to recollect that is why the "Red" group set themselves up. They seem to be seeking to encourage the switch to Movie Digital.

Red.Com

Yes I agree, but there is also more than that, consider also big names that are not into digital to slow down the switch.

I don't think digital capture is the ideal world at this moment, still has some negative side but compared to the advantages I think is quite convenient.

Of course more customers, more new R&D so better solutions.

I am a new Red camera user, and also worked few times using the red workflow, and I advocate for them! ( the name and color used by this brand is not related to the current political situation in thailand )

[astral]

The digital domain does offer much more opportunity for processing.

I remember a film shot, with poor exposure.

The local shops just could not get a decent print from it.

I scanned on my negative scanner, and the standard sw immediately produced a decent image

with no additional processing needed.

That was in addition to removing the orange bias of a colour negative