Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 104

Thread: Film vs. Digital

  1. #11
    Photographer, Machinist, etc. Jeffrey Sipress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    641

    Film vs. Digital

    I evolved from 35mm and MF film to high-end digital (canon 1Ds) nearly three years ago, and gave up film. Just over a year ago, I took up LF. I'm baaaack! I have great images from both worlds. My friend has great images from his 10D. They are NOT snapshots. My point is that you can adapt to applying your craft to whatever tools you choose if you put your mind to it and don't allow yourself to get caught up in the techno arguement of the century. Personally, if an imaging opportunity appears to me, I'll do my best with whatever camera or medium I have at hand. I try to be a photographer, not just a user of a particular kind or brand.

  2. #12

    Film vs. Digital

    As someone who shoots both extensively, I'll have to say you're trying to replace apples with oranges. It'll have a different taste.
    "I meant what I said, not what you heard"--Jflavell

  3. #13

    Film vs. Digital

    Y`al l can complain about batteries in the cold and you are right, except I can`t pull darkslides with gloves either and the darkcloth is a pain in wind and cold.

    a local camera shop told me 6MP makes accepatable 11x14, 8 MP is better. 12 MP required for good 16x20. I was shopping a small digital slr for when I want pics fast or do not want to waste most of a long roll for a few pics. Like most photography, you can spend as much as you want and I decided it is cheaper to waste a few rolls than spend $1-4 grand on a camera that will outdate in a few years. You would be suprised how crummy the camera is $1000. That is low to middle consumer grade. I can waste 100 rolls for that amount and that will never happen. Staying with Leicas and Zone VI 4x5 `til they stop making film.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB Canada
    Posts
    617

    Film vs. Digital

    Try them both. Rent equipment if you have to. Make a print. Pick the one you like best. Go with that one. Have fun using whatever your choice is.
    *************************
    Eric Rose
    www.ericrose.com


    I don't play the piano, I don't have a beard and I listen to AC/DC in the darkroom. I have no hope as a photographer.

  5. #15

    Film vs. Digital

    I got a Canon EOS 5D yesterday and have been testing it a bit. The files are very clean, and at ISO 3200 the noise resembles film at ISO 800. I need it for enlarging to no more than 16x20, and as a carry-around camera to compliment my LF and 6x7 gear. The picture styles setting is great, with very neutral RAW files that do not need a lot of work in Photoshop. I also see a difference between the 5D files and scans from my Mamiya 6x7, so they are definitely not equal (the Mamiya is higher resolution). I only have Canon L-series lenses, so it is not the glass. The 5D is also very well built, although not like the 1D series, but still exudes high quality. The 2.5 inch review screen on the back is excellent. The shutter is very quiet. Compared to the 10D I previously owned, it is a big improvement. All in all, I like it very much. I am still totally committed to film, but really like this new digital camera. It has its place in my toolbox.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    783

    Film vs. Digital

    Hey, different Bill up there, vs. the "hot" thread I participated in! I changed my screen name to fly under the radar....

    Anyway, I think Jacks answer is on par to the simple response you desired, however, I fully disagree with his numbers :-( Easy, Jack, I am still licking my wounds from the last thread of flame throwers :-) I would say these numbers below are closer to what I, and many other Digital vs. film buffs concluded...



    10 MP = good scanned 35mm Chrome film, (Maybe Velvia can top this a bit)

    7 MP = good scanned negative film.

    Now, to interpolate from here, just take the 35mm area, and divide it by other formats, such as, it takes 4 35mm frames to equal one 6x7 frame, so 40 MP to match good scanned MF chrome film....

    The advantages of digital are so obvious and desireable, not worth mentioning, but films advantages have not been so well advertised....

    1. Neg film still blows away exposure lattitude vs. digital sensors, chrome film does a tad worse.

    2. Film can withstand bigger enlargements since you can keep going up in format size.

    3. Super wide angle shots are NOT friendly to digital sensors as the angle of light does not strike the sensor cleanly, so you get fringing and artifcacts.

    4. Tonal range of B&W film will beat digital capture consistently.

    5. Good film gear is relatively inexpensive vs. high end digital, whereas a 40 MP back alone can cost $30k which only replaces film, not the bodies, lenses, etc. Film / processing is dirt cheap if you don't shoot many shots per year.

    6. film cameras are more "movement friendly" but even digital can be adapted to enjoy movements.

    If one is not bitten by any of these issues above...... ahhhhh, they probably already went digital :-) Once digital overcomes all these issues, well, people will still use film, just like people still listen to Vinyl music albums..... however, I can see film slipping from the planet.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    783

    Film vs. Digital

    checking.....

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    953

    Film vs. Digital

    what colour depth are these digicams giving? 24 or 48 bit.

  9. #19
    Jack Flesher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    1,071

    Film vs. Digital

    WG: No flames here, but the data you are espousing is probably gleaned from the "older" generation of DSLRs -- and I would have agreed with all of it two years ago. However, things have improved quite a bit. Notably DR in a good DSLR is better than even scanned color neg film (this happened with the 1D2 era cameras) and cleaner files AND better RAW processing software are allowing far more detail to be extracted from a given file than before. Hence, I'll stand by my numbers above.
    ~~~

    rob: Most of the high-end DSLR's are 36-bit. The Leica DMR and most of the higer-end digital backs are 48-bit, but these sensors are Bayer and thus are interpolated. The Foveon is of course different, but lower true resolution.
    ~~~

    FWIW the BetterLight scanning back I referred to in another thread is 48-bit TRUE-COLOR per pixel. Many folks believe this effectively doubles the detail-gain at the sensor since there is no Bayer interpolation happening, so a BL 48MP file is roughly equivalent to 100MP of conventional digital capture.

    I don't think you gain that much personally, but I can tell you that a BL file is definitely more detailed and has broader DR than any scan, of any film, at any size, I have ever seen. Period.
    Jack Flesher

    www.getdpi.com

  10. #20
    Doug Dolde
    Guest

    Film vs. Digital

    "40 MP to match good scanned MF chrome film.... "

    I definately have to disagree here. I had a Kodak 16mp Pro Back and it easily surpassed 6x6 film.

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. 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
  3. Digital or Film?
    By Percy in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 29-May-2005, 02:51
  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
  •