What's better, a hammer or a screw driver?
What's better, a hammer or a screw driver?
I deal with this everyday, hearing how portrait and wedding photographers just can't make it work compared to the quality of work they used to do when they were competing for state portrait and wedding portrait competitions and shooting film. Now they shoot 500 digitial exposures or more at various levels just to come up with photos that appear to me to be plastic people, people laying in their coffins. The average digitial quality level is so low I will not recommend anyone who does not shoot film for portraits or weddings.
A wedding photographer I know recently went to some wedding fair only to find out that he was the last one in the area to shoot film. The funny thing, he found out, was that even though everyone was now shooting digital, ALL their demo pictures were shot using MF film. And the quality of what they delivered with digital couldn't really match their former quality, he said.
He added that he got many good, lucrative contracts from clients ready to pay for quality precisely because he was the last one to shoot film exclusively. The guy is certainly the most vocal against digital I ever heard and frankly, if I was under pressure to produce a lot of images very quickly, I'd use digital just like everone. But the story shows that if you can tell the difference between apples and oranges to your customers, they might buy some apples even if they've been told for years that oranges are the future.
"I still don't get why we have this debate."
Want to know why? Because the rate at which the technology is advancing makes it worth it to revisit. Today's answer is different than one from a year or two ago. If you can have better image quality and reduced costs, wouldn't it make sense to switch? I'm no traditionalist, which seems contrary to many others here. I'll go with the best tool for the job (or hobby, in my case), and in the end, we'll obviously use what we want, no matter the medium.
35mm has been overtaken, and I'm trying to get rid of mine for the above reason. 6-8 MP digital cameras pulled that trick. They hold more detail than 35, and how does NO grain/noise sound at 12x18?
"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."
I agree with JB's response to this sinc that statement doesn't hold any water. The 1Ds Mark II is the current king, not the 1ds (11 MP). Now we're up to 16.7 MP. That's a rough equivalent to 6x7/6x9. The fall in MF prices also help to carry that point. 4x5 quality is likely closer than we think.
"And I still prefer the sound of vinyl to cd"
Do you have any windows in your house?
In any medium (photography, music, video, etc) the debate over analog vs. digital is usually misleading. It presupposes that there's this one medium called digital and this other medium called analog. In fact, each is a category that can include a wide range of mediums, and neither category imposes any limit on quality.
As an example, the digital/analog debate has been raging in audio since long before photographers even heard of it. Which is better? You'd have to look at the individual media to know. In general, CDs are capable of higher quality than analog cassette tapes. LPs are capable of higher quality than CDs. 24 bit audio DVDs and SACDs are capable of higher quality than LPs. half-inch, two track analog reel to reel tape is capable of higher quality than that. 32 bit, 128 khz digital tape is capable of higher quality still.
And it would be possible to create an analog medium that's higher quality than that. And so on and so on.
The primary difference between the two worlds (waves vs. digits) is in how you work, not in the ultimate quality of the work. Any other comparison, if it's to mean anything, has to be between specific media, not between these huge, vague worlds of analog and digital.
Find someone who knows how to process digital files and uses state-of-the art equipment.
Compare his 11MP+ file from a 35mm digital camera to your scanned 35mm slide, his file from a
22MP MF back such as the P25 to your scanned MF, his file from a LF scanning back such as a Better Light to your scanned LF 4x5, and I bet you will change your mind.
QT Luong,
You sure summed that up well.
QT, shouldn't the comparison be about total digital capture and printing vs. silver halide negatives and prints, not about digital prints from scanned negatives. (IMHO right now digital/digital is ahead for color, but silver/silver has still got it for B&W.)
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Thank you Bill.....just what I was thnking.
QT,
Possibly true, except that the film shooter can own all three formats, plus the applicable scanners, have his mortgage paid off and put his kid through college, while the digital guy will be making rather large monthly payments. So digital may be able to achieve technically superior results, in much the same way a Ferrari will get you to work in more style than a Honda, it all just depends on how much you're willing to spend. Let's face the facts, digital on a similar quality level to film is infinitely more expensive, and unless you shoot the volume to cover the capital cost of the equipment, it just doesn't make much sense for the majority of shooters in this forum. Honestly, how many here are out in the field shooting with a Betterlight back or P25 medium format back?
Rob,
The question really is about quality. With that said, the Betterlight will leave 4x5 in the dust for color accuracy and detail....for that matter, it will lay waste to 8x10 sheet film as well.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks