Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: Digital or Film?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    159

    Digital or Film?

    Hi.

    Ok...not that I need external confirmation; I just want to know if I am truly from this planet or not.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else out there see a marked superiority, in terms of pure quality of image recording, of film capture to digital capture? True, I have only played with Canon, Nikon and Fuji digital cameras (including profesisonal and semi-pro dslrs). True, I am comparing the quality of digital capure (mine as well as others) to that of scanned film. But, two things come to mind.

    First, I have had the opportunity as of late to work with a well known (locally) advertising and portrait photographer who discreetly laments the "quality imagery" he is able to produce with his Nikons (d100, d70). After looking at his previous (to the switch to digital) work, I see a TREMENDOUS difference with respect to depth, clarity and color. I had to see them side by side to note the difference however; I wondered for weeks how he was able to make a living churning out such...ahem...work. After viewing his work from the 70s-90s, I understood: he is truly talented. The style is still there today; it is simply muted by the inferiority of the mode of capture he uses. Significantly so. I thought for a while that he was oblivious. Come to find out he was not.

    Second, I have recently scanned film--not slide film--just plain old Kodak vc 160--I shot on a 20 year old hassleblad and a 15 year old Fuji 6x9. The color, although exagerrated somewhat (red) before processing, was absolutely amazing. When comparing these scans (plain old Nikon 9000) to digital portraits I'd done a year ago (d70, prime lenses), I actually laughed out loud. It was like I had been going to a gun fight brandishing a butter knife.

    I talked with someone at lenghth (directly after the shoot, looking for yet another FILM camera) regarding this phenomenon, looking as I am now for a reality check. Is everyone else blind?? Is the emperor wearing clothes, and am I afflicited with fashion blindness?? What the hell is going on here??? Or, was the person I spoke with correct: we in the U.S. tend to assume that anything denoted as being digital, e.g. television, music photography, is assumed to be superior. I tend to agree. I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone can, with a straight face, assert that dslr imagery is on par with. let alone superior to film capture, even when the film is scanned.

    Whew! Just had to get that off my chest.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    184

    Digital or Film?

    Apples and oranges. Man.. talk about an unfair comparison.

    You can't compare a D70 to a medium format neg. Ever. Even the 1ds - current king of dslr's doesn't really hold up to a well made medium format neg IMO.

    There are limitations to digital capture... once you know those, and work within them, it can be a very expressive and deep medium.

    You do have to shoot digital differently from the way you shoot film. Just as you shoot chromes differently from neg film, and from b&w.

    I agree with you... digital does not automatically mean better... but neither does analog.

    I would say...and absolutely stand by, a professional dslr...shot well... eliminates my need to shoot 35mm film. But it does not eliminate 120 and sheet film from my arsenal. Perhaps a digital capture back from my 120 stuff...if I had a spare 25k... those are gorgeous - and do give 120 film a run for its money.

    Different horses for different courses.

  3. #3
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Digital or Film?

    Please don't feed the trolls.

    Bruce Watson

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    159

    Digital or Film?

    I take exception to the implication that I am a troll. This is an issue that truly puzzles me. If you do not apppreciate the topic, please ignore. I have a right to my opinion. I am NOT trying to start a debate. Looking for those who have had similar experiences, observations, nothing more, nothing less.

  5. #5

    Digital or Film?

    Please explain how you have to shoot differently with digital. Are you saying the only difference is one of exposure latitude or something? That would seem to be your implication by the reference to shooting slide film differently. I would be interested in what you meant exactly, Will.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    184

    Digital or Film?

    Dave - I meant it in that choosing to shoot digital is influenced by the intened end product. ie. projection, digital submission, fine art prints, web site... inherent in that is exposure latitude... but other things as well. Intended workflow, white balance, tone curves, etc... all factor in - and have to be considered just as much as choosing which film and format to shoot.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Richmond Virginia
    Posts
    139

    Digital or Film?

    Film or digital??? Digital or film??? ... and on it goes.
    All the local pros I know are using digital today. It's not that they have given up film completely or like digital better, but more and more, they are using digital, and by that I mean camera, as well as scanning, etc.
    I don't make my living from photography, so I'm not pressured to keep up. Which is superior?
    The means that satisfies the needs of the photographer! Deardorff, Leica, Rolleiflex, ... they're tools. Tri-X, Dektol, Forte, ... they're materials. The photographer has to use tools and materials and know how to use the tools and materials be it film or digital, to know which is better for the desired result, regardless of the science comparing resolution, sharpness, contrast.
    Excellent computer/digital skills will trump lousy darkroom techniques every time, but the reverse is also true.
    For me its film. Its what inspired me to do photography, and continues to inspire me. I've spent 15 years learning to use it, struggling to control it. Maybe if I was 20 years old starting from scratch, I would persue digital, but I'm not and I won't as long as film tools and materials are available.

  8. #8

    Digital or Film?

    I'm with you Percy. There is just something about a good film image that digital has yet to match. It seems more organic, lush, even alive. I suspect that digital capture will eventually close the gap.

    It reminds me of the folks that liked LPs over the first CDs because of the "warmth" of the analog sound. There are few of those folks left. Perhaps film photography will last longer because we a visual creatures and will be more sensitive to the subtleties of an image than an audio recording.
    Or, maybe that's wishful thinking.

  9. #9

    Digital or Film?

    So what's the defining difference? There are all sorts of rationalizations that resolution of xMP digital is adequate for prints up to X size. There is proof of color accuracy. What is the limiting factor that makes digital still, in some people's opinions, inferior to film?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    159

    Digital or Film?

    Dunno, Dave.
    And I still prefer the sound of vinyl to cd....

Similar Threads

  1. High-End Digital Vs. 4x5 Film
    By Eric Leppanen in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 21-May-2006, 18:11
  2. Film vs. Digital
    By Richard Boulware in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 13-Feb-2006, 07:44
  3. Post why film is better than digital, a dare!
    By Ed Burlew in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 27-Jan-2006, 09:13
  4. Another 'digital vs. film' thought
    By Ben Calwell in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 22-Jun-2004, 09:49

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
  •