thg3 Loc: La Quinta, California

Do film cameras typically have a larger dynamic range then digital cameras?

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

It depends on the film used and digital camera/sensor used.

At this point time with quality print film vs. high end digital the nod goes to film but that will change in the near future as sensors get better and in camera HDR becomes common and the algorithms better.

Checked Wikipedia:

In a scientific study by Eastman Kodak, they found that digital sensors lack the extended dynamic range of film. In particular, they tend to 'blow out' highlights, losing detail in very bright parts of the image. If highlight detail is lost, it is nearly impossible to recapture in post-production.Therefore, film can be underexposed and overexposed, retaining detail and information in the camera negative.

Some amateur authors have performed tests with inconclusive results. R. N. Clark, comparing a professional digital camera with scans of 35 mm film made using a consumer level scanner, concluded that "Digital cameras, like the Canon 1D Mark II, show a huge dynamic range compared to scans of either print or slide film, at least for the films compared."

Carson Wilson informally compared Kodak Gold 200 film with a Nikon D60 digital camera and concluded that "In this test a high-end consumer digicam fell short of normal consumer color print film in the area of dynamic range

So the bottom line IMAO is "It depends and in the (near) future digital will surpass film with respect to dynamic range"

thg3 Loc: La Quinta, California

Thanks for the reply Robert. I was into film back in the early 70's and then really didn't have time to get involved with cameras until I got a canon dlsr in 2010 which seemed like quite a shock from what I remembered. I got back into photography because I had joined my wife in Real Estate and noticed that some of the pictures on the MLS looked like they were stained with smoke smudges which turned out to be very poor early attempts at HDR. Since I have gotten back involved I have seen some amazing (smudge-less) HDR photos. One thing I have noticed and what brought this question is that even some of the smudge-less HDR photos seem to be a little unnatural looking and I'm thinking that it is caused by an unusually extended unnatural dynamic range - some of the clearly sharp, contrasty parts of a picture are just a little too sharp and contrasty for real life. Maybe parts off in the distance shouldn't be as sharp with all the contrast as the forground but the algorythm can't know where the focal point of the photo really is - at least not yet.

Peter Boyd Loc: Blyth nr. Newcastle U.K.

Generally speaking, digital sensors have a dynamic range equivalent to transparency film, but inferior to negative film. This does not take into account HDR or continued improvement in digital sensors.