Raz Theo Loc: Music City

[quote=Edia]I can't understand why film would produce sharper photos than digital. If you tell me that you can get sharper focus in manual than with autofocus, you have a point. That would apply to both digital and film. It has been said that today's lenses are sharper and better than those of 20 years ago. If that is true, then new digital equipment is sharper than previous film cameras. .[/quote)

The way I've always understood it is: An image is created by a chemical reaction on film when light reflects off a subject and into the camera. We then view/screen the image through the lens and onto a mirror. The light then bounces off the mirror into a five-sided piece of glass called a “pentaprism" and into the eyepiece. But nowhere do we detect the troublemakers in this process, pixels, 'cause they ain't there. And pixellation will, one way or the other, always present an issue for those of us who swear that not just vinyl, or Kodak 64, but old telephones, old cheese and old Buicks sound/look/smell/feel better than their modern non-organic, digital counterparts.
Allow me to end with a sincere wish for Peace & Love this Christmas season.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

When it is organic, perhaps that is true. But it is not true for photography, audio, telephones and many similar technologies. It also happens that Claude E. Shannon kicked off the Information Age in 1948 with a technical paper proving mathematically that digital absolutely was better. It couldn't actually be done until the digital technology was developed, but virtually all major research and development has been aimed at replacing analog systems with digital. Consider, as an example, how much of the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) is analog in the US today.

Shannon's 1948 paper was A Mathematical Theory of Communications.

rstipe Loc: S. Florida

It just seems the older film era lenses are made much better. They certainly are heavier because there's more & heavier glass plus the bodies are mostly metal instead of plastic. I'm sure happy with mine!

DaveF142 Loc: Edmond OK

Do you have an opinion on the Canon 1DMark2N? I purchased a used one a few years ago for a backup body. Used it to take High School track pictures. I found I like it better than my Canon 7d. Would you consider using the 1d for portrait work? If so what lens would you use?

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

IMHO, there is far too much emphasis on new equipment. I'm 90 years old and can no longer hold a camera because of rheumatoid arthritis, but I've been posting "new" images on UHH over the past three years which generated very favorable comments. Most of those images came from film negatives exposed 50 and even 70 years ago with fixed-lens 1938 and 1958 Automatic Rolleiflexes and a few other rollfilm cameras...and the jpeg posts were scanned from equally old 6 x 6 cm contact prints. Nobody has commented on their sharpness. What caught their attention was the image content, the emotion or the composition or the lighting. That overpowered the technique, which became secondary. If I posted an image that generated oohs and ahs merely because of its sharpness, I'd figure the photo was a failure. If you have archived film negatives or slides, I suggest taking some time to carefully look through them, with some cropping in mind or post processing. You might be surprised by some unsuspected treasures.

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

[quote=Raz Theo][quote=Edia]I can't understand why film would produce sharper photos than digital. If you tell me that you can get sharper focus in manual than with autofocus, you have a point. That would apply to both digital and film. It has been said that today's lenses are sharper and better than those of 20 years ago. If that is true, then new digital equipment is sharper than previous film cameras. .[/quote)

The way I've always understood it is: An image is created by a chemical reaction on film when light reflects off a subject and into the camera. We then view/screen the image through the lens and onto a mirror. The light then bounces off the mirror into a five-sided piece of glass called a “pentaprism" and into the eyepiece. But nowhere do we detect the troublemakers in this process, pixels, 'cause they ain't there. And pixellation will, one way or the other, always present an issue for those of us who swear that not just vinyl, or Kodak 64, but old telephones, old cheese and old Buicks sound/look/smell/feel better than their modern non-organic, digital counterparts.
Allow me to end with a sincere wish for Peace & Love this Christmas season. [/quote]

Amen.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

A really good photo. And a very rare photo of the remains of a Jackalope. They are extremely hard to find any more out here in Colorado.

chaman

Here it is. Yes you said sharp is very easy with gear today. You have a tendency to forget or to lie?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

After all your gratuitous personal insults that are off topic and inappropriate... a very clear picture has emerged.

CatMarley is fairly modest, but is an extremely accomplished person who speaks assertively as a matter of course. She tries hard to be honest and act with integrity.

Cat wins and chaman loses each time you post.

chaman

BS....she writes absurd things, rephrases things already posted by other members then conveniently lies about them when confronted. That is the clear picture of all of this to me. Modest? LOL! you should read her posts more. I dont care what gender you are either. Some just love to use that quite conveniently and then some just get lost in this "politically correct" pathology that corrodes common sense around here. What I said about her here can easily be corroborated in her posts. If you want to hide your collective heads in the sand be my guest.

Another thing that happens with this person is just what happened here. When she is against the wall there always comes a last minute lifesaver to help her get out of the hole.

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

I was being (or trying to be) ironic. But your information is powerful. I had no idea about the origins of our digital world.
Thanks

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Saying anything about her is off topic and inappropriate. Personal discussion is not what this forum is about. Address photography, not other posters.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Take some of your own medicine will you?

Let’s talk Photography - how about you post a picture that is NOT a snapshot?

chaman

Again...BS. Im attacking her absurd arguments. So....are you in accord with what she said?

You agree that pro grade optics are only marginally sharper?

You agree that with modern equipment is easier to get sharper images?

You agree with her arguments? Is that it? Or trying to push this politically correct BS is getting back at your common sense? If she were a he.....would you post this?

Review this user's post history. Its there. I see no modesty, I see a lot of wrong info given away. I see recurring to her gender a frequent way to escape confrontation, etc, etc.....This what the forum really wants???

I have provided examples of things said by this member that she later said didnt said. Want more?

Start by answering my simple questions.....

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

As others have said, sharpness is seldom the most important quality of an image, especially when only part of it is within the DOF.

What we call sharpness is actually acutance, the appearance of sharp edges. Acutance can be enhance artificially in both film and digital to make an image appear sharp. Acutance is not an automatic byproduct of megapixels and you don't get it automatically with film either.

Film can commonly provide between 125 and 400 lp/mm (beyond the range of digital sensors) but most lenses can't keep up.

Anyone obsessed with megapixels as evidence of digital's superiority over film lacks any substantial film experience or is simply misinformed.

If you are really interested in many megapixels and lots of acutance, all you need to do is shoot medium or large format film. Scanned at between 2400 and 4000 dpi, you will be getting images that contain from 50 to 200 MP that can make much larger prints than you will ever get from a D850.

And considering the price of used film equipment, you can afford a lot of film for what you would be spending on digital small format.

And forget all of the technical whiz-bangs. Your most important tool for making a sharp image is a solid tripod and a cable or remote release. If you are not using a tripod your most important quality is subject matter, not sharpness.