Film vs Digital (Page 2): For me it's a no-brainer. I started shooting prins (slr) in 1973 and kept at it until I bought my first dslr a number of years ago. I only brought out the...

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

For me it's a no-brainer. I started shooting prins (slr) in 1973 and kept at it until I bought my first dslr a number of years ago. I only brought out the camera for vacations and special occasions. From the first day with my DSLR I took photos, loads and loads of photos. I probably took more photos in my first 6 months than the previous twenty years.

I will "waste" shots to see if they turn out the way I thought they would. Which means I'm willing to experiment. I've learned to us off camera flash--something I would never do with film.

The original question: is film or digital better? I've enlarged film photos to poster size; I've enlarged digital to poster size; was there a difference? None that I am aware of. Can I tell the difference? No.

farnsworth52 Loc: W. Pa.

This topic has been beaten to death. I shoot both. The one thing I almost never see is the satisfaction factor. Taking a great photo with film and printing it to match what you envisioned when you took the shot;digital doesn't even come close. It's almost like having a new addition to the family. Digital will never do that for me. It just feels more like a creation when film is involved. It must have something to do with the waiting period. Digital is like watching the neighbors kids,film is like making your own kids.

farnsworth52 Loc: W. Pa.

This topic has been beaten to death. I shoot both. The one thing I almost never see is the satisfaction factor. Taking a great photo with film and printing it to match what you envisioned when you took the shot;digital doesn't even come close. It's almost like having a new addition to the family. Digital will never do that for me. It just feels more like a creation when film is involved. It must have something to do with the waiting period. Digital is like watching the neighbors kids,film is like making your own kids.

twiga Loc: near Boston, MA

farnsworth52 wrote:

This topic has been beaten to death. I shoot both.... (show quote)

Oh...beautifully put...well said

:thumbup:

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

roy4711 wrote:

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:

as prints are measured in dots per inch, film wins, in all digital formats, at all times. film produces superior image quality and it is also archival - this means, properly taken care of it will last beyond 100 years.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

wj cody wrote:

as prints are measured in dots per inch, film wins, in all digital formats, at all times. film produces superior image quality and it is also archival - this means, properly taken care of it will last beyond 100 years.

I have a couple of problems with that. Never say always. Digital is also "archival". Prints can also last 100 years and then be rescanned with no loss of quality. New digital media can also last 100 years. When I scan negatives or slides there is no "magic number" for dots per inch. Depending on the ISO and grain size for a particular negative, I'll try for somewhere between pixelizing (too few dpi) and seeing the film grain (too many dpi). But I can also shoot digital at resolutions that match or exceed the dot count of film, especially high ISO film.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

farnsworth52 wrote:

Digital is like watching the neighbors kids,film is like making your own kids.

And we all know that making your own kids is a lot more fun. :thumbup:

Dick Z. Loc: Downers Grove IL

OddJobber wrote:

I have a couple of problems with that. Never say ... (show quote)

Also There are Archival disk you can purchase that last 150 years. Don't know anyone living that long though! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

NeilL Loc: British-born Canadian

roy4711 wrote:

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:

This reminds me of when digital audio (cd's) first came out. So many audiophiles swore that cd's didn't sound as good as vinyl. So, cd's were shunned because they were regarded as inferior. The fight goes on today - hence, the resurgence in analogue audio. I wonder: is the audio-processing equipment (d/a converters, amps, speakers, etc.) unable to respond quickly enough to the sudden changes in dynamics of the signal (digital is fast!) , thus causing the inferior sound?
Now, will digital photography signals react the same way, causing perceived inferior results?

TheDman Loc: USA

wj cody wrote:

as prints are measured in dots per inch, film wins, in all digital formats, at all times. film produces superior image quality and it is also archival - this means, properly taken care of it will last beyond 100 years.

That's nonsense. Today's DSLRs kill 35mm film, both in resolution and dynamic range, and i was a film holdout for a long time.

Dick Z. Loc: Downers Grove IL

TheDman wrote:

That's nonsense. Today's DSLRs kill 35mm film, both in resolution and dynamic range, and i was a film holdout for a long time.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

roy4711 wrote:

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:

I doubt that most people would be able to tell the difference.

I know I would probably not be able to when comparing 35mm film to a high resolution digital image assuming that the digital was processed to match.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

OddJobber wrote:

I have a couple of problems with that. Never say ... (show quote)

yup, but and here's the kicker, 10 years from now you will not be able to access your digital media, as there will be no hardware with which to do this.

TheDman Loc: USA

wj cody wrote:

yup, but and here's the kicker, 10 years from now you will not be able to access your digital media, as there will be no hardware with which to do this.

What in the world makes you think this?

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

the electronics industry is the electronics industry. the past is the best predictor of the future. the ever present desire of this industry to obsolete digital imaging devices will continue at an even greater pace than currently. after all, this is how they stay in business.