Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

  1. #1
    Random Pixel Generator
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Weimar, TX
    Posts
    298

    Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    The results didn't surprise me. I see them every scan

    I got the link from Frank Doorhof's G+ page. He still shoots and develops film

    http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comp...-film-digital/

    The link to the right about Amanda Marie Ellison is interesting and a little disturbing. But it's real life...

    Frank's page: https://plus.google.com/+FrankDoorho...ts/gHm7M6SnzpU

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    8,193

    Re: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    Thanks for posting it.

    I read that last year and it was great to re-view it.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Lower Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    83

    Re: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    Probably depends more on who you believe and what you personally accept.

    I don't understand why, if film is believed to be superior, people shoot and process film then scan it. Surely film is designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through.

  4. #4
    Random Pixel Generator
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Weimar, TX
    Posts
    298

    Re: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath View Post
    Probably depends more on who you believe and what you personally accept.

    I don't understand why, if film is believed to be superior, people shoot and process film then scan it. Surely film is designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through.
    This is the POV that I can't get my head around. By far, the most frequent manifestation of this POV is on the web, which is most assuredly a digital medium. It is impossible to display an analog image on a forum or website. Even a print has to be scanned (converted to digital) to be displayed on a computer. The process of converting a print to digital affects it (and not in a good way imho).

    I can tell you why I scan. I don't have a choice. Trust me, scanning is a pain in the neck (or elsewhere). If I didn't have to I wouldn't. Dealing with clogging and the other problems that come with inkjet printers is also a pain in the neck. Digital is expedient but it's not enjoyable.

    I don't have a wet darkroom. I have the "stuff" to have a wet darkroom but I don't have a place to use it. I would prefer to analog print. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

  5. #5
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,712

    Re: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    "I don't understand why, if film is believed to be superior, people shoot and process film then scan it. Surely film is designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through."

    I print digitally and traditional silver. Why scan? Some images will print better on inkjet and some with silver. Some scenes just need the total control that you can get in PS with a file. Silver prints can also now be made from files and enlarged negatives can be made digitally from scans for alternative processes.

    Therefore why shoot film rather than digital to begin with? IME&O I can get more satisfying tonal control (fewer artifacts) most often from film filtered in the field than digital capture converted to b&w.........and also I like grain. Its about control based on standards learned through traditional printing. In many ways shooting film and scanning is the best of both worlds.

    The digital vs. film debate based on resolution is pretty irrelevant to me as I can easily get the the resolution I need by either form of capture.
    Last edited by Kirk Gittings; 29-Jun-2015 at 11:50.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 67
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  6. #6
    fishbulb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    406

    Re: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    The article linked in the first post of this thread originally appeared at OnLandscape, and is part of an ongoing series of articles on resolution and film vs. digital. Much higher-brow stuff than the usual forum-based beatings of the film vs. digital dead horse.

    The big camera comparison (2011): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/
    Diffraction and resolution (2012): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/0...-is-too-small/ (well not really film vs. digital but relevant to the discussion)
    Article from first post (2014): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/1...vs-6x7-velvia/
    Printing and resolution (2015): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2015/03/resolution/

    I would also check out this page on Tim's site, which has a lot of comparison shots of LF, MF, and digital from the original 2011 article: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static...t-2/800px.html
    -Adam

  7. #7
    Mark Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    5,109

    Re: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    It would've been nice if they'd mentioned what lenses were used, especially since the results were quite close. Testing two different 4x5 lenses could easily have given more of a difference than that between 4x5 and the digital back images. For that matter, so could sending identical film to two different professional film processors.
    "I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."

  8. #8
    fishbulb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    406

    Re: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer View Post
    It would've been nice if they'd mentioned what lenses were used, especially since the results were quite close. Testing two different 4x5 lenses could easily have given more of a difference than that between 4x5 and the digital back images. For that matter, so could sending identical film to two different professional film processors.
    Check out the first link I posted in the post above yours. PetaPixel did not print the full article, so some information is missing.

    8x10: For the 40mm equivalent we chose the Fujinon 240A ... For the 70mm equivalent ... a huge 360mm Schneider Symmar-S
    4x5: For the 40mm equivalent we chose the Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon N ... For the 70mm equivalent we chose the Fujinon 180A
    -Adam

  9. #9
    Mark Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    5,109

    Re: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    Thanks, Adam!
    "I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,406

    Re: Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath View Post
    I don't understand why, if film is believed to be superior, people shoot and process film then scan it. Surely film is designed to be contact printed or enlarged optically. Why go backwards in perceived quality by going digital part way through.
    Surely the single factor of optical quality is not the only reason to do something one way or another!

    For me it's not about quality but about a working method that yields different results, for me. I shoot portraits, and people act totally differently in front of an 8x10 view camera from how they act in front of a tiny digital Nikon, and I work differently when I plan on shooting only two shots and making them work. I'm not saying my Nikon couldn't do the same thing, but it's a matter of the work flow leading to the results, naturally--a holistic process that is giving me better results.

Similar Threads

  1. Paper Woes? Things seem pretty good lately!
    By David Karp in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 21-Jul-2010, 21:34
  2. have you ever seen this? Big, pretty & stange In a good way?
    By Louis Pacilla in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 24-Dec-2009, 09:45
  3. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 2-Aug-2009, 21:05
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 5-Jan-2008, 09:12
  5. large format article discussion
    By john g in forum On Photography
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26-Jan-2001, 13:30

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •