selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Many of us have made the comparison side-by-side. You just haven't been paying attention.

There are several advantages to film, not the least of which is the extra resolution you can achieve with medium and large format film. I regularly end up with about 70 MP from from a 6x6cm frame and over 100 MP from a 4x5 scanned at 2400 ppi (more than 400 MP scanned at 4800 ppi).

Another is the availability of excellent and inexpensive pre-owned gear.

The cost of film and development is dwarfed by the price of newer digital equipment that can't come close to film.

It's too bad you have turned a blind eye to film.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

You right: I have not been paying attention. Please send me some of the truly reliable comparisons. Strike that because monitors may not show the difference in resolution and what I think we are really talking about are prints. You can, if you wish, mail me prints.

I am curious about what you say regarding resolution. What really matters? The resolution of the scanner or the "resolution" of the film? Is not the grain structure of the film its "resolution" so you assume it is finer than the resolution of the scanner? For prints under 11x14 or so, does it matter? I can see larger file sizes for really large prints if you want to stick your nose up to the surface. As you know, the bigger the print, the further away is the "idea" viewing distance. The old rule, true or otherwise, is that distance is the diagonal of the print. Moreover, I offer without citation that the eye only resolves 300 dpi at best.

For me, the issue is not resolution or sharpness but rather tonal range and contrast. What are your thoughts on that?

Next point: cost. Had I wanted to keep my superb darkroom, I would have. And I could have traded in my Mamiya C330f with its four lenses and numerous accessories for my dream cameras: Rollie's and Hasselblad's. However, I learned a long time ago not to buy something simply because the price is right.

Sure, film and cameras are cheaper but between my Canon 80D and LR, I have a lot more power and fun than with film. I do miss the chemistry and excitement of images coming up. LR will never beat that. Yes, I wax nostalgic over the odors of sulfurous and acetic acids. No, I do not miss pouring all that water and all those chemicals down the drain. Think enviornment.

No Scotty, I have not turned a blind eye to film. I say two things. If you start with film, end with paper. This is still a great combination. As for, I have moved on.

I look forward to your reply.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Would a comparison be meaningful in 2018? You seem to assume that people are making prints, or even caring about them. However, well over 90% of the uses of photographs are now digital. Graphic arts printing — what little of it remains — (offset litho, gravure, electrostatic, etc.) originates digitally.

That means, if you are going to need a super-high resolution image to make a few huge display prints that will be viewed from very close distances (18"), the only economical *capture* option is large format film. But if you need 24,000 by 30,000 pixel images to make 8 feet by 10 feet prints (in sections)... A box of Provia 100F, an E6 lab, an Epson V850 film scanner, and a 64" Epson inkjet are pretty good options.

Medium format digital cameras cost tens of thousands of dollars. Unless you do this sort of work daily, it's hard to justify the capital expenditure.

For small jobs, sheet film is far less expensive to buy, process, and scan. Those photographers who understand their ways around a view camera with its tilts, shifts, and WYSIWYG ground glass can play with a product photo in the studio, getting it just the way they want it before capture. Arguably, the medium format digital process IS much faster and more precise, but if you don't have the gear to do it all the time...

For hobbyists and artists who want the same advantages of large format, The same thing is true. Large format pigmented inkjet printers from Epson, and Canon rule the roost when it comes to making big, fine art quality prints to display in museums, offices, and homes.

Snapshooters now use digital cameras (or more likely, their smartphones). They put their images on sharing sites like Instagram, FaceBook, Shutterfly, Tinder, and on and on. Plenty of digital images just get sent via text or email. Very few digitally captured images ever get printed. Those that do are printed electronically.

Oh, a comparative few artists, artistes, hobbyists, and students still practice the tedium of film photography for many reasons. That's fine. They wanna? They gonna. I get it.

I HAVE compared the two media side by side. I was lucky enough to be deeply involved in the pro photo lab industry during the digital revolution. I got to run the digital operations of our lab as we transitioned from film capture and optical printing, to film capture, film scanning, and digital printing, to digital capture and digital printing. That was an interesting change, both to guide and to watch.

As Dr. Nicholas Negroponte, founder and Chairman Emeritus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab, once said at a conference I attended, "Bits beat atoms." By that, he meant that digital technologies won because they are more useful. An image (or text, video, audio, graphics...) can be captured, processed instantly, and immediately sent via the Internet to its useful destination, or broadcast for all to see. There is much less latency. There is much greater utility.

Does it look different? Quite possibly it does, but quite arguably, it does not have to. Digital systems are far more precise and controllable, with repeatable consistency. Outcomes of both processes largely depend upon the skill, knowledge, experience, and equipment choices of the users.

When we switched from film capture and film printing of portraits to film capture, film scanning, and digital printing of portraits, we worked with Kodak to tune their high end film scanners so the output from our mini-labs was as close as possible to what we had had with fully chemical/optical systems.

When we went to digital capture (using simple mid-range Canons like the EOS 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 7D, 5D...), we worked with the Canon menus and adjusted our lighting to make the portraits look as close as possible to what the fully chemical/optical systems had provided. But then we took things a few steps further and improved the accuracy of the process.

The end product of the fully digital lab in 2007 looked far better than the end product of the fully film-based lab in 1997. Our turnaround time for complete jobs was cut by 2/3. Our costs were reduced. Our lab footprint was reduced by about 60%. And then, the digital tide rolled over us. Our customers — mothers who bought school portraits — quit buying them. The evolution of the cellphone camera, then the smartphone camera, plus other digital cameras, the Internet, and all the social media sharing sites, combined to make our product practically obsolete.

I also did my own darkroom work for 40 years. I loved it until I burned out on it (after eight years of 70 hour weeks doing multi-image AV production in the 1980s). I DO NOT miss it. But I hang onto all my film cameras and darkroom equipment, "just in case."

Meanwhile, I've begun slowly re-photographing the best of my old B&W negatives and slides... much the same way I used to make slide duplicates.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I will cover some of the points you have missed while your attention was elsewhere. It's going to take a commitment on your part to get through these articles but if you have the patience to take them in you will understand my viewpoint more clearly.

There are two related forms of resolution. Area resolution is often measured in megapixels as in 24 MP has twice as many MP as 12 MP. Linear resolution is usually expressed as line pairs per millimeter or lines per picture height.

What really matters is system resolution and that is a combination of lens and sensor, lens, film and enlarger or lens film and scanner. They can be combined mathematically based on linear resolution. See Photographic System Resolution. Linear system resolution is lower than the least capable component - the weakest link.

A camera with a Bayer array starts off with a 50% penalty since the true resolution is degraded by the RGB filters over each sensel. A 36 MP color array has 18 MP green and 9 MP each of red and blue. These pixels can be combined artificially to produce a 36 MP image but their real linear resolution will be lower than a 24 MP sensor that does not have a Bayer array.

If you set resolution and sharpness aside, film and digital each have a different way of recording tonal range and contrast. See Film vs. Digital Characteristic Curves and B&W Tonal Distribution – 35mm vs. 120 roll. Once you scan the film to a TIFF you have just as much flexibility to manipulate the tone curves as you do with a raw image.

I have considered the environment since my days of making Cibachrome prints from slides. Those chemicals were self-neutralizing and safe for disposal in a septic tank. So are all of my B&W chemicals. I don't use any heavy metals for B&W processing.

Your concern for the environment reminds me of a segment on Top Gear where they debunked the notion that the Prius was safer for the environment. They pointed out that what is usually left out of that argument is the manufacture and disposal of batteries as well as the displacement of the power source from the car engine to a power plant. There is no free lunch.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Conventional B&W, C-41, E6, and RA-4 color films and papers do contain silver. The silver has to go somewhere. Only B&W conventional materials retain some silver. But unexposed silver salts are removed by fixing and washing. ALL color materials have most of the silver metal extracted by bleach-fix solutions.

The lab I worked in used silver electroplating recovery equipment. All our bleach-fix, fixer, and wash water went through a three-stage reclamation process to recover 99% of the silver metal, as required by the EPA. We recovered several hundred thousand dollars worth of silver every year. Of course, we bought film and paper by the truckload for school portraits, back in the 1990s. So the silver was sold to smelters to help offset our other costs of doing business.

As for the Prius, I own four of them. They use NO power from the electrical grid. All energy comes from the burning of gasoline. Only the "Plug-in Prius" uses some grid power.

A Prius is roughly twice as efficient as a typical six-cylinder sedan because it recovers kinetic energy via regenerative braking — energy that would be wasted as heat by conventional braking.

The nickel-metal hydride batteries are fully recyclable. Often, they find a second life in solar power grids. Good cells are reconditioned and sold as replacement parts for used Priuses.

The small 12-volt lead-acid batteries in Priuses and the larger ones in all conventional cars and trucks are potentially far worse as environmental hazards... yet we seem to recycle most of them, too.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Of course, Top Gear (and I) were poking some fun at the bleeding heart environmentalists who get a bit defensive about the Prius. They went into a little more detail about the environmental worldwide environmental havoc caused by the process of manufacturing the batteries. For example, consider what happens during the mining of lithium. See also Does hybrid car production waste offset hybrid benefits?

I worked for a couple of years in the Environmental department of a major southeast utility during the 1970s. I know from first-hand experience the rigors of getting an environmental impact statement accepted and approved by the EPA. If the UN had placed similar requirements worldwide on the manufacturer and distribution of the Prius we might still be waiting for the first one to roll out. The EPA process pretty much blocked the approval of any new nuclear power plants for decades. But if we can solve the issue of storage of containment and spent fuel, nuclear is still has the lowest environmental impact of any power source including solar, wind, hydro and tide.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

So far, only a small number of Prius models contain Lithium. The vast majority contain nickel-metal hydride cells. Personally, I worry more about the Neodymium content in hybrid electric motors...

Many people taking pot shots at hybrid manufacturers are really grinding political axes in support of the oil companies. Some of them masquerade as environmentalists.

That's a pretty big IF regarding containment of spent nuclear fuel waste. More research needs to be conducted into feasible means of neutralizing it, recycling it, or otherwise rendering it non-radioactive. But after Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and similar events, skepticism will remain about our abilities to contain reactors safely.

Some young engineers will probably solve these problems. Either that, or they'll find ways to make fusion workable and safe.

Breakthroughs in new solar power generation may be on the horizon, as new high heat resistant ceramics make concentrated solar a promising concept. That's where many mirrors reflect sunlight onto a small surface area that boils the water circulating inside it, converting it into steam to turn conventional turbines.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

And I worry about the nickle.

Take a look at the devastation from nickle mining about 60 miles east of where I grew up. That environmental damage will not be repaired for centuries.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Scotty and Bill, I agree with what you say. Nonetheless, until I see prints side-by-side, I remain unconvinced that the film/scan approach is justifiable. I respect the experience both of you have with film and digital and find your messages very informative. Thanks for all the details.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Call me crazy, call me nostalgic, call me frugal, but personally, I do not need any logical reasons for shooting film - except that it exists - and I CAN do it !

Peter Lik and Sabastio Salgato have done OK with it......

Also, just because I will scan the film does not necessarily mean that prints can/will not be made in a chemical darkroom.

..

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Film is a different challenge. There is no question in my mind whether either approach is better.

But I can't get past the notion that film is more satisfying - a lot more fun.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Beautiful, Very nicely done!

Tim Stapp Loc: Mid Mitten

Just to let you all know where I am at in the digital vs. film debate. I do both because I can. When I was a child before entering elementary school where they offered the production line school pictures, there was a traveling photographer that would come through our small town every few months. As I recall (this was 55+ years ago) he set up in the lobby of our small midwest town's hotel across from the railroad station and shot with an 8x10 camera. The negative was processed, dried and contact printed on site. He would spend a week there.

My interest in his camera and portable darkroom kind of tickled him. Because of my interest, his next time through town, he gave me a camera, a roll of film and a mailer. I spent the next lifetime (at that age, probably a day) shooting what ever caught my eye. We sent the film in and later got the prints and negatives back. I was informed by my father at that time that I could shoot all of the pictures that I want, I just couldn't have any film because it was to costly to have developed and printed. I still have that camera (with a roll of film in it from the early 60's).

I didn't pick up a camera again until 2002 when my wife and I bought our first digital camera.

So, for me having a very nice digital camera and doing some commercial, portrait and wedding work is nice with my digital camera. The time behind my Mamiya RB67 and my Burke & James 4x5 or my Speed Graphic exposing negatives (on whatever catches my eye), processing and printing them in my dark room is that 5 year old boy living his dream. I can only wonder what would have happened had I been allowed to explore at than then young, uninhibited age.

Oh, I have to add that my three enlargers (one each set up for 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5), all of my print deveoping trays to 11x14, my Jobo processor with film and paper drums to 20x24" I have less than $500 invested in. My 35mm Nikon N80 was $5, my Mamiya with lens and film back was $200 and my 4x5 cameras (with film holders) were $325 for the B&J and $125 for the Speed Graphic. Not much money for this soon to be 62 year old going on 6

jcate

Love your story, I may have to get the jobo going again!!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

About 10 years ago, when I finally decided to make a complete transition, in my commercial photography business, to digital, I began to close down my analog darkroom and color lab. At one point we decide to redecorate the showroom with large images of pervious commercial work and to create a new website and portfolio. So... there si was without a fully functional lab. I start to scan dozens of black and white negatives as well as color transparencies in 4x5 and 8x10 original formats.

At the time we had a HP Scan-Jet scanner, probably not as up to date technologically as more current units. Surprisingly enough, the results were excellent. Since we were planning very large final prints, we created the files accordingly and the scanning times were slow. The 8x10 transparencies had to be scanned in sections and laced together- kida tedious but nonetheless the final results exceeded my expectations. The 4x5 negatives were a piece of cake.

As for black and white negative processing in 4x5 format, a small tak should suffice nicely for low volume. For high volume, larger tanks with stainless steel hangers are advisable.

I am kind of a fusspot in my film processing. I find by observing very precise developing procedures, the quality increase is significent. I mix all my chemical with distilled or demineralized water. I maintain the temperatures at exactly 68 degrees F. in ALL the baths. I make certain that the stop bath is not too strong- mixed exactly according to proper dilutions. I use rapid fixer. Next is Hypo Clearing Agent for exactly the recommended time- NO OVER-IMMERSION! The was water is usually filtered and is kept to a minimum- exactly as required according to the instructions for the clearing agent. KEEPING THE WET TIME DOWN and maintaining exact temperatures negates minor reticulation and emulsion shock that kills qiality and exacerbates grain. Then 30 seconds in the wetting agent and NO FORCED HEAT DRYING! Throughout the process agitate gently for 5 seconds every 30 seconds or 10 seconds every minute. Do not do "martini-shaker" rough agitation! If you follow this method you 4x5 images will look that the came out of an 8x10 view camera! your medium format negatives will seem like 4x5 and so will your 35mm negs on fine gran slower films.

I am advised that Kodak HC110, T-Max and D-76 Developers are still available as well as Acufine- those were my personal favorites.