Film versus digital
Jan 19, 2013 01:30:24 #
markymark
Loc: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Does any one out there still think that film is superior to digital, I must admit that I have never owned a film camera, but I have owned records and and CDs and digital all the way! Can a film camera do what the hubble telescope can do when it comes to its telephoto lens, I think not! Just wondering how many of you folks on this website still perfer film? Looking for a healthy debate not a lecture, sincerely Markymark.
Jan 19, 2013 04:31:04 #
Yes.
Though you would have to be there to know what I mean.
In "35mm format" ie DSLRs of ANY format, not any more.
BUT, you need to be in the country, setting up a shot with tripod, 6x6 Bronny, metering, taking time to enjoy the "experience" much the same as fishermen must simply sitting watching and waiting, just the "doing" is as much a pleasure as the taking.
I sold my Bronny, I would not get another, unless MF film could be guaranteed, or perhaps I will, yes I will, as they are a good price, camera, Weston master meter, tripod, cable release and a nice warm summers evening, oh yes.
Though you would have to be there to know what I mean.
In "35mm format" ie DSLRs of ANY format, not any more.
BUT, you need to be in the country, setting up a shot with tripod, 6x6 Bronny, metering, taking time to enjoy the "experience" much the same as fishermen must simply sitting watching and waiting, just the "doing" is as much a pleasure as the taking.
I sold my Bronny, I would not get another, unless MF film could be guaranteed, or perhaps I will, yes I will, as they are a good price, camera, Weston master meter, tripod, cable release and a nice warm summers evening, oh yes.
Jan 19, 2013 04:45:55 #
markymark wrote:
Does any one out there still think that film is superior to digital, I must admit that I have never owned a film camera, but I have owned records and and CDs and digital all the way! Can a film camera do what the hubble telescope can do when it comes to its telephoto lens, I think not! Just wondering how many of you folks on this website still perfer film? Looking for a healthy debate not a lecture, sincerely Markymark.
In my view, it is not a matter of "preferring" one or the other. It is not just "either, or" Inasmuch as you state that you have never used film, you cannot appreciate what I have experienced and continue to experience.
For me, it is not a matter of "preference." Frankly, I keep a foot in both camps. I started in photography in 1999 with a flea-market Nikon FTn, a 35mm film SLR. The digital camera age was just dawning and was in the one megapixel stage. It was possible to make 4x6 prints,but nothing much larger.
Times have changed. Digital cameras are very much improved and often produce results superior to 35mm film. I appreciate digital for its convenience, its immediacy and its ease of manipulation. Nevertheless, when I want superior quality, I abandon digital and 35mm film as well, and turn to my RB-67 with its 6x7 cm image or go to my 4x5 view camera. I like film for its smoother tonal range and its ability to record finer detail, especially in the larger sizes.
Digital is still in relative infancy, whereas chemical based photography, i.e. "film," has over 150 years of development behind it. I cannot begin to conceive of what improvements might be made in the next decade ot two. For the moment, digital has largely supplanted film for use by "snapshooters" and other casual users, as well as by sports photographers and photo-journalists who need fast turn-around in order to meet tight deadlines. I do not digitize my film images, because I would likely lose the benefits of using film in the first place. I am fortunate in having the use of a fully equipped lab with the necessary high precision temperature control equipment needed for color film processing.
For the moment, we seem to be limited to using monitors and printers that are only 8-bit devices, although most cameras record images in 12 to 16 bits. I wonder what kind of quality we could have with, say 32 bit cameras and printers.
As long as you are happy with digital, use it. It is wonderful technology and will get better with the passage of time. Let those of us who also enjoy film do as we wish. Film will remain available as long as producers find it profitable.
Jan 19, 2013 09:15:03 #
Digital still has not equalled film in many respects, but it is getting much closer. In 35mm film sizes, it has been equalled, but for medium format or large format film, digital is still struggling to equal the final output of these larger film sizes.
Jan 19, 2013 09:23:01 #
Almost not quite, I miss Kodachrome! But digital is easier to manipulate and you can afford to take take way more images.
Jan 19, 2013 10:04:25 #
As a lifelong recreational sailer and a digital photography enthusiast for the past 4 years, comparing film to digital is like comparing celestial navigation to a GPS. Both celestial navigation and film photography are more challenging and require more patience than GPS/Digital. Nonetheless, a modern GPS unit can get you withing 3 feet of your destination while the sextant/compass combination will get you within 1/4 mile at best. Guess what? I have no intention of breaking out either my sextant or my 35mm SLR
Jan 19, 2013 12:16:18 #
I still can't make a digital monochrome print to equal my film - silver halide prints. Especially those from MF or 4x5 film.
Jan 19, 2013 22:34:06 #
markymark
Loc: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I believe you about black and white photographs.
GrahamS wrote:
I still can't make a digital monochrome print to equal my film - silver halide prints. Especially those from MF or 4x5 film.
Jan 19, 2013 22:44:01 #
markymark
Loc: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
But could you tell the difference between two identical photos that where 13" X 19" one taken with a full sensor dlsr and one taken with a 35mm film camera, both cameras of equal quality.
MT Shooter wrote:
Digital still has not equalled film in many respects, but it is getting much closer. In 35mm film sizes, it has been equalled, but for medium format or large format film, digital is still struggling to equal the final output of these larger film sizes.
Jan 20, 2013 05:31:12 #
Jan 20, 2013 05:43:22 #
markymark wrote:
But could you tell the difference between two identical photos that where 13" X 19" one taken with a full sensor dlsr and one taken with a 35mm film camera, both cameras of equal quality.
MT Shooter wrote:
Digital still has not equalled film in many respects, but it is getting much closer. In 35mm film sizes, it has been equalled, but for medium format or large format film, digital is still struggling to equal the final output of these larger film sizes.
I believe I could.
Jan 20, 2013 05:44:56 #
oldmalky
Loc: West Midlands,England.
I have only ever used a kodak brownie (my first camera)and a polaroid and that is my total experience with film so obviously for speed,results, amount, i find digital is better,
but those who took photographs will know far better than I how good film was.
but those who took photographs will know far better than I how good film was.
Jan 20, 2013 05:53:40 #
GrahamS wrote:
I still can't make a digital monochrome print to equal my film - silver halide prints. Especially those from MF or 4x5 film.
Me neither, but I have to say that finally all my time in Photoshop is paying off and my results are much better!
I don't believe however that they are of the same order of quality as silver prints, however good.
Jan 20, 2013 06:05:38 #
jeryh
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
You really are looking to open a can of healthy worms here !
Yes, I do use film, and i also use digital; as a photojournalist, there is a need for both mediums; If I wish to record a superb landscape, I still feel that a medium format camera such as a hasselblad superwide with fuji Velvia, is unbeatable, and likewise a Fuji 6X9 GSW with a 65mm lens. having said that, a canon 5dMk11 with a 17-40 F4 L will give you a superb landscape
and likewise the canon TSE lens on either the film or digital bodies.
The difference really is convenience, and if you need it, speed of operation.
On one side you have the images recorded on film, which can be retained for a very long time; on the other, you have electronic media, which can not be realistically guaranteed for any specific life span. Its a case of what you fancy really.
Yes, I do use film, and i also use digital; as a photojournalist, there is a need for both mediums; If I wish to record a superb landscape, I still feel that a medium format camera such as a hasselblad superwide with fuji Velvia, is unbeatable, and likewise a Fuji 6X9 GSW with a 65mm lens. having said that, a canon 5dMk11 with a 17-40 F4 L will give you a superb landscape
and likewise the canon TSE lens on either the film or digital bodies.
The difference really is convenience, and if you need it, speed of operation.
On one side you have the images recorded on film, which can be retained for a very long time; on the other, you have electronic media, which can not be realistically guaranteed for any specific life span. Its a case of what you fancy really.
Jan 20, 2013 06:06:00 #
Digital allows me to take more pictures and that means more practise and hopefully improvement - though I don't see much yet.
I have a no. of 'direct cut' vinyl LP's and I much prefer the quality on those to a CD. I find the rendition to be more natural, smoother if you like, less clinical.
I suppose digital wont 'match' film until pixels get down to molecular size, but that is not a concern for most shots.
I have a no. of 'direct cut' vinyl LP's and I much prefer the quality on those to a CD. I find the rendition to be more natural, smoother if you like, less clinical.
I suppose digital wont 'match' film until pixels get down to molecular size, but that is not a concern for most shots.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.