DanCulleton

Shot film most of my life.
Now won’t think of going back

PhotoFem

Agreed.

PhotoFem

Totally agree.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

PhotoFem,
If you use the Quote Reply link it makes it easier for us to know to whom you are addressing your reply.
--Bob

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

We might agree with several answers on this, partly because of our own experience with film and digital. To me there have always seemed to be differences in how the pictures look, but others do not think so. Here I would just comment on differences in the process.

If you used large format film as I have done (as an avid amateur), the process of making a picture was quite different with digital. And it really is not so much a matter of "more control," but different controls. With digital, we cannot get much out of the zone system of photography, and I do miss that. I know very successful professionals who never shoot in sunlight (and never use flash on the camera, even as a supplementary light), because they do not have controls for that when using digital.

I shot black and white film. With color, I think digital is better--and for color I even used 35mm (Kodachrome). Kodachrome was somewhat like digital in that there was limited range of exposure levels--certainly not 10 clear zones, but more like 4 or 5, so even lighting was best unless the extremes were truly unimportant in the picture. Digital is better than that, but compared to black and white film, it is poor--unless you go to HDR process, which (to most of us) looks unnatural.

And HDR is not at all like the zone system for giving control. The first time I ever saw an Ansel Adams print (made by his own hand), I did not notice the artist's name on the card below, and I just gazed at it in the museum, mystified for about 10 minutes before I looked at the name. It was "Moonrise over Hernandez." I have seen truly beautiful digital color pictures, but the digital black and white I have seen is not like Adam's Moonrise--HDR would have made a pitiful comparison. True, digital is faster and easier than film--but it shows. Digital may indeed meet nearly all the professional goals of professionals, but artists (and amateurs like me) have different goals. We don't care if something costs more or if it takes a lot of time--issues for any business enterprise.

In addition to the differences in comparing the processes and controls, there is the issue of different media or venues. Digital pictures are commonly seen on a screen rather than paper. Even portfolios are now commonly shown on a screen. Pictures can look great on a screen, but it does not show the full scale of exposures we see on paper with the zone system. With color, Kodachrome was fabulous because it looked great on a screen--not because it showed the full range of tonalities of a black and white photo on paper. The screen never does justice to all 10 zones of exposure in two ways--we cannot shoot for it and we cannot develop or print for it. True, digital can capture all 10 zones of light and dark--but we cannot control the degree of detail shown in each zone in the way we see it in Moonrise. Exhibition pictures from film have truly black blacks, truly white whites, and all the other tonalities have a controllable level of detail. When the zone system was dropped for digital photography, so were the standards for exhibition prints. The new standards are different.

At the same time, digital cameras did away with movable fronts and backs for cameras (except for focus movement). My avatar here, (above--the red rex begonia on my porch) was shot with an 8x10 Linhof camera weighing over 50 pounds, but I used a back that allows attaching a Canon digital camera. Thus, I could use the swings, tilts, rise and fall, of both the front and back of the camera, even with digital. (The same back adapter works on a Speed Graphic 4x5 camera.) Giving up all these controls has made a big difference in style for digital photography--I see a lot of "selective focus" today (very shallow depth of field) simply because it is not always possible to get everything in focus. (This was my complaint about 35mm photography with film.)

The issues for this question go far beyond the question of resolution or dots. In general, I like digital for color, but for black and white I still much prefer film--if the goal is a presentable black and white picture.

PhotoFem

Points well made.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Charles, I agree with a lot of what you wrote here. However, I disagree with the digital and zone statement. I use the Zone System with both film and digital. It works very well.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-522569-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-521901-1.html
--Bob

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

With all due respect, you've had your humble head in the sand for the past 15 years.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

See my previous response.

therwol Loc: USA

This looks like a reply to someone. If you don't use "Quote Reply", we can't know whose statement you are responding to.

axiesdad Loc: Monticello, Indiana

Unquestionably, the ability of digital to capture images does (or soon will) surpass that of film. The ability to shoot as many shots as you want for zero added cost is probably the best and worst thing about digital. Some of my best captures of animals and birds have utilized "spray and pray" to capture that instant when the pose was just right, but I also find it too easy to just take a bunch of shots while tweaking settings instead of calculating the best exposure triangle for a particular shot. "Bracketing on steroids" encourages, for me at least, a certain laziness that the cost of film actively discouraged.

Idaho

Film has been left in the dust although is dying a slow death due to a few die hards. There is no reason to use it other for the feeling of nostalgia some may get from it. I can't think of any legitimate reason to use it other then... you just want to use it.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Film still has higher resolution because it has tiny grains of silver salts in it vs digital noise especially at high ISO numbers but the newest Nikon D850 might be the solution to equal it out. Unless in B&W they fix the grey scale to larger than 250 film will always be better definition for B&W.

PhotosBySteve

I remember having this discussion in the early 90's with a college film student. He asked me if I thought Digital would ever be able to produce the same quality as film for large prints. My main expertise at the time was as a Electrical Engineer with 30 years experience in amateur photography. I stated that, if the price of Digital cameras ever becomes affordable (at that time about $5k plus for a digital camera), then it would allow further advancements it CMOS technology and rendering. So I would expect digital to match or exceed the quality of film within 10-20 years. We argued the point for more than a half-hour and had many discussions about it over the years. He changed his tune in the early 2000's and has never gone back to film since.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

You people have not been paying attention the past 15 years. I made this test in 2003 when digital cameras were a lot more inferior to what they are now and digital beat film even back then in my opinion! Test with Nikon D100 film camera and Fuji S-3 digital. Notice the film grain in the abdomen region which is a lot harder to take out than noise. Indoors with ISO 400 film.