roy4711 Loc: Spring Valley IL.

Can you tell the difference with a photo shot with film as opposed to one shot digital? I know some photographers still use film at times. Could we say film produces a better photo as far as image quality? :idea:

twiga Loc: near Boston, MA

Well.....I think so....I will be interested in prevailing opinions.....

TheDman Loc: USA

I can almost always tell, and I don't think we can say that.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

We could say that but it doesn't make it true.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Yes, you can tell the difference and it depends on how you define "better." You will get [defensive] arguments from both sides, but as a user of both I think I can offer an objective response. Each has its strong points.

If you limit your consideration to popular DSLR vs. film SLR, digital has the edge for convenience and resolution but film offers more exposure latitude and pictorial response. Film grain can be very attractive whereas digital noise is more likely to be simply annoying.

You can get the best of both worlds by shooting on film and then scanning and post processing.

Even though you have to pay for film and processing, digital quickly becomes more expensive overall if you try to keep up with the latest technology.

But when it comes to medium format, film systems are definitely more affordable, particularly used equipment that will not be obsolete after many decades. Digital medium format is off the chart for most of us.

The disparity is even greater for large format systems.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

It would be very interesting to see a direct comparison. Back in the day when I shot 2 1/4 square chromes you could project them onto a screen at 5' x 5' with no visible grain. I'm not sure if a modern medium format digital camera could match that but who knows.

WayneL Loc: Baltimore Md

I think my Nikon D800 produces a better photo than my Nikon F5. That could be because most chain store labs are not as good as a pro lab, but they are double the price. If I scan a negative or slide it does not looks as good as a digital file, but still acceptable to me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

On telling the difference, I'd say it depends. Your questions prompted me to look at some photos from Arizona back in December. I used the same Canon lenses interchangeable between a film camera and digital. Many of the pictures from Ektar 35mm film / ISO 100 cannot be distinguished from photos taken at the same time with a 7D. Some of the 'it depends' probably comes from post processing of the digitized images from film. The film type, the metering, the lenses and the camera likely also impact the level of differences or sameness of the results ...

No comment on better ...

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This is a discussion that I tend to see often in these forums.
The controversy could go on forever.
Digital, on regard to camera is cheaper but more expensive when it comes to using computers and software.
For convenience digital is very hard to beat. Having different ISO setting during the same shootout is certainly convenient. Noise is ugly and not desirable but cameras are getting better. At base ISO the enlargements from digital are clean and superior to film reason why professional wedding photographers quit using film medium format a long time ago.
Modern sensors have an extended dynamic range, perhaps still somewhat shorter than negative film but surely way longer than slide film. Tonalities in my opinion are better with film.
In my experience digitized negatives gain grain and contrast depending on the scanning. I like film but it is becoming more and more expensive since there are now fewer labs to process film than before. It is hard now to find film except at selected places.
The discussion could go forever. It is a great idea to use both and make comparisons. I find a real plus that now with digital I can manipulate my files and when I take them to be printed I get back exactly what I envisioned. When using film I had to rely on the judgment of a technician who could print my way or his way and frequent trips to the lab to make corrections were not unusual.
Digital is great and film also is. Their use depends on the individual photographer and his needs.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

:thumbup:

Tom47 Loc: Gettysburg, PA

There are times I prefer film to digital and time that I prefer digital. Sunsets and sunrises that I prefer film. Film once it is processed I have it put on discs. Both mediums have their place in the photographic world.

DickC Loc: NE Washington state

I agree with you on this, I use both, but with film I mostly shoot 6X7 Pentax on sunsets and landscapes.
:thumbup: :thumbup:

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

Most of the time I can- speaking of 35mm film. One thing I notice with 35mm film is that grain is apparent. This is not really a bad thing. I prefer film grain to digital noise any day. Most of the newer DSLR cameras have far less noise at comparable ISOs compared to film (speaking of 35mm film).

Dick Z. Loc: Downers Grove IL

I can't tell the difference at all. I have lots of photos I took over the years with a 35mm to 4x5 and have good and bad ones, same with digital. I have 3 mgapixel shots printed
8 1/2 x 11 that are tack sharp. I really can't tell the difference, and NO, I don't think film is any better than digital.

DickC Loc: NE Washington state

I agree on the grain/noise! :thumbup: