Film vs memory card (digital)
Apr 22, 2018 08:20:07 #
A question I have always wondered about as a very amateur photographer is the comparison of film imaging vs memory card imaging. Obviously there are many factors that contribute to the quality of an image. But I'm wondering, generally speaking, if you think film was or still is a better medium for images than digital imaging or has digital imaging caught up or even surpassed film quality.
It's just a curiosity question I have and I thought UHH would be a great place to ask it with all the expertise here.
It's just a curiosity question I have and I thought UHH would be a great place to ask it with all the expertise here.
Apr 22, 2018 08:28:11 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
I have been a serious photographer (Not saying good), from the early 1950's Mid 40's Not serious. I shot slide film (SAS10) and I do like digital over film. After thinking about it I have several reasons. 1) The cameras ar so much better (sophisticated) giving us more control. 2) The instant seeing allowed us the know we got the shot. 3) The cost per picture is nothing compared to $.50 @ and had to wait to get them back.
Thanks for making me think about it.
Thanks for making me think about it.
Apr 22, 2018 08:35:26 #
You can google around and see if you can find a discussion about MP size vs film resolution. Ken Rockwell used to touch on this topic regularly. I remember reading something on his site about 22 to 24MP sensors being "at" and beginning to pass the resolution for most brands of 35mm film. Large film formats and certain high-end brands of 35mm might still out-resolve a 24MP sensor, but digital keeps improving where film is film.
Apr 22, 2018 08:49:12 #
You ask: "has digital imaging caught up or even surpassed film quality."
Answer: Yes, and digital did so years ago.
Of course, some photographers remain steadfast in their adherence to the film era. Thankfully, the field of photography allows for various approaches to its practice.
Your post likely will generate the usual back-and-forth over the issue of which mode of photography to use.
In past discussion of this issue I've noticed that nobody mentions that film presented an engineered look and feel. It could not achieve true color. Digital means of photography can achieve true color.
Digital photography also immediately renders information about an image, thus allowing the photographer to know results without a long wait.
Stating the obvious, digital means of photography replaces all the paraphernalia of the dark room with computer software and printers.
Experienced photographers also note simply that digital photography offers more control than film photography.
Answer: Yes, and digital did so years ago.
Of course, some photographers remain steadfast in their adherence to the film era. Thankfully, the field of photography allows for various approaches to its practice.
Your post likely will generate the usual back-and-forth over the issue of which mode of photography to use.
In past discussion of this issue I've noticed that nobody mentions that film presented an engineered look and feel. It could not achieve true color. Digital means of photography can achieve true color.
Digital photography also immediately renders information about an image, thus allowing the photographer to know results without a long wait.
Stating the obvious, digital means of photography replaces all the paraphernalia of the dark room with computer software and printers.
Experienced photographers also note simply that digital photography offers more control than film photography.
akxss825 wrote:
A question I have always wondered about as a very ... (show quote)
Apr 22, 2018 08:58:08 #
In my humble opinion, I think that film has not only the better quality of image capture, but also longevity. I've used both over 15 years now and can attest to the quality I find in the film I've been using in my portraiture. Shooting black and white film both indoors and out, I'm very satisfied and pleased with the quality I find in my images, compared to the digital ones. If you've ever used film for any length of time, you will be able to see the difference between the image quality of film and digital. If you take a 4x5 black and white negative that has been exposed properly, you can actually see the areas (looking at the negative on a slant) of dense build up of the silver in spaces exposed to more intense light.
As for longevity, film does outlast digital, if cared for properly. You can have your film negs scanned to a disk...that will degrade over time. If you keep your digital images on a memory card...they too will last not much longer. You will find film images, both negatives and the original prints, in museums that are older than 100 years.
As for longevity, film does outlast digital, if cared for properly. You can have your film negs scanned to a disk...that will degrade over time. If you keep your digital images on a memory card...they too will last not much longer. You will find film images, both negatives and the original prints, in museums that are older than 100 years.
Apr 22, 2018 09:00:12 #
Old Timer
Loc: Greenfield, In.
The digital camera has come so far in the last fifteen or so years that I believe they have surpassed the film over all. There is some thing said for film but as stated the cost and having to wait for the processing was not convenient and also costly, especially if you did not get many good pictures back. You did not have the option of practicing and employing different techniques that you do with digital. The cameras offer so many different options and versatility that you did not have with film and also the post processing programs have vastly improved. You can get almost instant results and the cost is minimal as compared to film. I compare film to old cars of fifties and prior. I like to reflect back to the good old days but I do not want to go back.
akxss825 wrote:
A question I have always wondered about as a very ... (show quote)
Apr 22, 2018 09:01:36 #
I do like digital over film for at least two reasons, cost and immediate results and other reasons as well. I wish digital had been available for my whole lifetime. Started using digital in 2006.
Apr 22, 2018 09:05:18 #
akxss825 wrote:
A question I have always wondered about as a very ... (show quote)
It depends on what you define "quality" as.
Apr 22, 2018 09:05:45 #
akxss825 wrote:
A question I have always wondered about as a very ... (show quote)
You ask about memory cards vs film, which is the wrong comparison. The issue is information collected on film vs a sensor. For both there are issues of size and sensitivity. For film cameras there are a variety of film sizes and a larger formats allow for recording more information. Sensors are also available in different sizes as well as differen ratings for how much information they capture. Film has a fixed sensitivity or ISO, digital cameras may allow adjustment of ISO equivalent sensitivity. Digital images are recorded in a binary number or set of zeros and ones which allows recording great precision. Film images are continuous data registering the chemical change in the film emulsion caused by light.
Apr 22, 2018 09:10:43 #
JMCPHD wrote:
You ask about memory cards vs film, which is the w... (show quote)
That is true. Memory card has no effect on quality but only speed and capacity.
Apr 22, 2018 09:11:16 #
PhotoFem wrote:
In my humble opinion, I think that film has not on... (show quote)
Do not agree.
Digital has made almost all aspects of picture-taking easier, faster, more convenient, better quality; definite progress in every way for most of us.
Apr 22, 2018 09:33:17 #
PhotoFem wrote:
In my humble opinion, I think that film has not on... (show quote)
I love to shoot film but I like the quality of digital image much better.
Apr 22, 2018 13:07:20 #
With the advantage of easier, faster, more immediate of the digital mode comes a lack of actually looking and thinking about what one is shooting. Taking thousand of digital images of a subject does not insure actually visualizing your intent. One has to stop and think, make adjustments and shoot. Film tends to slow the photographer down enough to think about why they are shooting and visualize what they want to capture. This is how artists use photography. Just capturing an image is what anyone can do.
Apr 22, 2018 13:09:52 #
However, when the card is over-written a number of time...the quality of image capture drops off considerably.
Apr 22, 2018 13:41:23 #
PhotoFem wrote:
With the advantage of easier, faster, more immedia... (show quote)
I shot a wedding a couple of weeks ago using a DSLR. I shot another wedding 11 years ago using 35mm film camera. I shot 7 rolls of 36 exposures in the 2007 wedding and 287 frames in the 2018 wedding. So I don't really shoot more using digital.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.