rps Loc: Muskoka Ontario Canada

There are other issues as well. You no longer worry about airport x-rays. You shoot much more because you have a thousand exposures available in the camera rather than 36 (or 12.) You don't worry about storing film in excessively warm conditions. Nor do you have to carry a supply of film, worry about film availability in some parts of the world or safeguard your exposed rolls (just upload them after you shoot). Perhaps the biggest advantage, other than keeping your sensor clean, is not worrying about dust. All this more than compensates for the slightly less perfect image. I used to do some colour printing. It was slow, boring, expensive and exacting. Now with a few clicks of my mouse I accomplish in five minutes what used to take forty. You also are more willing to experiment and test because you can try something without wasting expensive paper and do it in seconds. Nor are there chemicals to mix, trays and drums to clean or prints to dry. The prints I produce on my printer are every bit as good as the ones that used to come out of my darkroom. Whether they last as long remains to be seen.

anotherview Loc: California

Your words help explain the difference you perceive: "using highest quality JPEG. OK, not RAW files or pp, but still. Is this a common finding?"

The DSLR camera set to the JPEG file format processes a captured image in the camera according to presets that may or may not suit the existing conditions for the best result. On the other hand, film has been engineered as a capture medium that if exposed according to its requirements will produce a rich photograph. So right away, an unfair comparison occurs between film and digital images.

Some experienced photographers know how to shoot in the JPEG file mode for good results. Yet, shooting in the RAW file format means the camera records virtually all the information the sensor captures for a given scene. Later, in the software, the photographer can bring out the potential of the photograph using a variety of techniques.

You may know, by the way, that film does not capture true colors but an engineered color per the given medium for that film look. A digital image captured in the RAW file format can match true colors.

In general, both film and digital images can come out visually pleasing. I for one like some of the film looks, and use specialty software that reproduces them. But then I also process a RAW digital image for that digital clarity, richness, and sharpness which it allows by virtue of the digital medium subject to algorithms.

For example, the Lab color mode provides unsurpassed control over development of contrast and color. Read the book Photoshop Lab Color by Dan Margulius for more on this subject.

In general, comparing film and digital photography amounts to comparing apples and oranges owing to the different approaches and capture mediums involved, one analog and the other digital. Of course, digital stands on the shoulders of film whole carrying the film legacy forward.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Thanks for the tip. Here's Dan explaining the process in a Youtube video titled "Photoshop World: Lab Color with Dan Margulis - PixelPerfect "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhfRynutmQM

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

nope, just that film quality far exceeds digital imaging devices. and it's a shame that millions of folks fell for the "new technology" not bothering to investigate if it was "inferior technology". folks got suckered into aps imaging devices in a big way, and readily accepted the manufacturers pronounces - but then, the profit margin on digital imaging devices is huge, many times greater than film cameras.
so, load a roll of transparency film in your slr and, once again, experience great satisfaction.
good luck!

TheDman Loc: USA

Meanwhile, it was another great sales day for me Sunday at my art show, selling all those crappy digital images that would look so much better had they been shot with film. But I don't care about something that would affect my bottom line, nor do any of the other photographers at the show.

My next show is in horse country. Back in the film days I was mainly a horse photographer. I'm dreading making prints of all those old negs and slides, because I know the prints will suck compared to my digital shots.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

you wish

TheDman Loc: USA

On the contrary, I wish they wouldn't suck compared to the digital files, but they will.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

then they're poor images.

TheDman Loc: USA

They're shot by the same guy who took the digital shots, and all the digital ones print better.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

oh, of course.