Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

[Kirk Gittings]

But the cost difference comes down with a $3500 Canon 5D with 50mp, or a $3000 Nikon D810 with 36mp, or a $3200 Sony A7RII with 42 MP.

Following the idea that the "best" camera is the one you have with you. A simple 2x or 4x stitch with these cameras with a decent lens can get you a pretty damn good file. As I am often on the road for commercial work and only have room for a DSLR kit and lighting gear, suitcase, ladders etc. sometimes I run across a personal image that can't wait. I have gotten very good at even hand holding the DSLR in good strong light for stitching purposes.

FWIW I recently dumped my Canon bodies for the Sony A7r (with which I can still use my Canon lenses). A7r camera bodies are like $1400.00 right now. Canon has fallen behind in the most important tech-dynamic range and I got tired of waiting for them to catch up with Sony and Nikon.

[Drew Wiley]

Sounds great. But you'd still need a wooden tripod and darkcloth hanging from the thing to look authentic. Too bad a simple purchase of flashgun powder now gets the attention of the FBI. But really... My favorite camera is indeed the one that I've got with me. But I choose that, or try to, in advance. Depth of field issues, size
of the intended prints, weather, exercise regimen that day (walking fast vs plodding with a heavy pack - I need both types of exercise). It's all fun and capable of
yielding excellent results. But when I'm shooting and printing Nikon negs I'm in a very different mindset than 4x5 or 8x10.

[prendt]

Sounds great. But you'd still need a wooden tripod and darkcloth hanging from the thing to look authentic. Too bad a simple purchase of flashgun powder now gets the attention of the FBI. But really... My favorite camera is indeed the one that I've got with me. But I choose that, or try to, in advance. Depth of field issues, size
of the intended prints, weather, exercise regimen that day (walking fast vs plodding with a heavy pack - I need both types of exercise). It's all fun and capable of
yielding excellent results. But when I'm shooting and printing Nikon negs I'm in a very different mindset than 4x5 or 8x10.

Now you got me really confused - don't know anymore what is better, digital or analogue? When even masters can't say what am I suppose to believe? Eh, what misery!

[djdister]

Now you got me really confused - don't know anymore what is better, digital or analogue? When even masters can't say what am I suppose to believe? Eh, what misery!

The answer is simple, it depends...

[prendt]

The answer is simple, it depends...

Thank you for the medicine, everything will do in the time of doubts and misery...

[Drew Wiley]

An ole acquaintance just stopped by a few minutes ago, trying to guestimate the value of any old gear he wants to sell off. He also runs the annual donated camera
sale for the Oakland Museum fundraiser, and still does prep work for a big auction house's collectrouble photo event. Since he can't maintain his own darkroom
space anymore, we were discussing the options. And Lo and Behold, some of the pro camera brands have indeed engineered continuity in their lens and accessory lines. He's a Lecia guy; and yes indeed, even Leica's digital cameras can still be used with existing stockpiles of flash powder. They think of everything, don't they?
I just don't think I could personally afford a darkcloth with a Leica logo on it.

[timparkin]

35mm film is pretty low res. It is not 12mp or 24 mp as was stated in the article. Flatbed scanned 35mm color neg film = about 3 or 4 mp with a ps cam. Do your own tests to see.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

Maybe 35mm tests would be better with a drum scan, but few have them at their disposal. You can see the sharpness difference plainly when looking at old film shots compared to the super sharp digital shots. You have to tone down the digital stuff to make it look like it was film...if that is the look your after. OK 4x5 and 6x7 offers some res. But I feel they are misrepresenting things with their claim for 35mm, although I didn't test slide film or drum scans. I ran my tests as the average photog would do it.

'I didn't test drum scans' - which sounds like you may have severely limited the potential results from 35mm. I used a 5600dpi scanner which outresolves many drum scanners. I also used an ICG which can supposedly exceed 6000dpi. If you scanned using a 4000dpi scanner then you only got 44% of the possible results from a 6000dpi scanner and if you only managed say 2500dpi (which many consumers scanners can - the Epson V750 for instance) then you only managed 17% of the possible results from a 6000dpi scanner. That means if you got 4mp then the real result could have been 24mp.

The results speak for themselves though. If I have a slide that is showing 4mp that could possibly be mean it actually resolved 10mp but I made a mistake. If I get a result that shows 20mp then it's unlikely to be a mistaken result that should have been 10mp (unless I'm counting aliased bars, which I wasn't).

Tim

[timparkin]

I agree with you. As the "first scientific test in the history" one would expect something more scientific than this amateurish kind of test. Will go down well with some people though.

The actual quote was "very few have approached the subject in a scientific fashion" and I stand by that. I have a PhD in experimental engineering and so I know what good methodology looks like.

Also approaching something in a scientific fashion doesn't mean abandoning all real world applicability. I suggest reading the original articles where the approach was documented in more detail and perhaps look at the past threads from this very forum where we solicited opinions on methodology, approach, lenses used etc. If you had something to say about the way the test were being done, that would have been a useful point at which to say it.

I'll take your constructive criticism to heart though - when I find it..

Tim

[timparkin]

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.

Because -

1) Film has qualities that you don't get with digital (obviously)
2) Post processing with digital has many advantages
3) printing very big with an enlarger is very difficult - a job for the experts. Printing very big with an inkjet is a doddle.

In this case it means that I get the qualities I love from film which I can't get from digital and I don't need to operate a darkroom. However, I have also started playing with making OHP films for contact printing. The process of scanning and processing in Photoshop to prepare an OHP for alt processes removes a lot of the 'problems' and gets your most of the way towards the classical look that comes from using film and finishing photo chemically.

Finally though - the answer is 'why not'! If it means lots more people use film even if they don't have the time, space, etc for a darkroom then it benefits those that do!

Tim

[djdister]

Because -

1) Film has qualities that you don't get with digital (obviously)
2) Post processing with digital has many advantages
3) printing very big with an enlarger is very difficult - a job for the experts. Printing very big with an inkjet is a doddle.

In this case it means that I get the qualities I love from film which I can't get from digital and I don't need to operate a darkroom. However, I have also started playing with making OHP films for contact printing. The process of scanning and processing in Photoshop to prepare an OHP for alt processes removes a lot of the 'problems' and gets your most of the way towards the classical look that comes from using film and finishing photo chemically.

Finally though - the answer is 'why not'! If it means lots more people use film even if they don't have the time, space, etc for a darkroom then it benefits those that do!

Tim

Right on! I find shooting on film and scanning it in (because I can't setup a darkroom) still yields results that are not identical to shooting the same scene digitally in the first place. So, a "hybrid" process out of necessity...