Comparison (Page 2): I'm curious, what was the initial reason you were asked to make the comparison?

GaryI Loc: NY & Fla

rmalarz wrote:

A while back, I was asked to do a comparison of fi... (show quote)

I'm curious, what was the initial reason you were asked to make the comparison?

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Agree but shouldn't the real comparison be of two photo prints and not the electronic image on screen versus an electronic image of a scan of a negative on screen. The way these are compared gives any weakness of digital to the film output without vice versa. Because we cannot all see the actual photo prints and to share this on line you would need to print photos in the same way from the negative and digital file and then equally scan the images to compare scans of the best image from each. This would then at least treat the outputs equally. Good job and I appreciate the discussion.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

GaryI wrote:

I'm curious, what was the initial reason you were asked to make the comparison?

It was done in response to a request made in another of my posts.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-159020-1.html

--Bob

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

John Howard wrote:

Agree but shouldn't the real comparison be of two ... (show quote)

This type of comparison would also be invalid. The digital image would be better because is has been printed solely through its native process. To get the full use of the negative it would need to be printed in the darkroom rather than scanned and printed digitally. Scanned negatives lose a lot of information. The darkroom also gives better control when working with a negative than Photoshop does for a scanned negative. Analog in, analog out. Digital in, digital out. That would be the best comparison.

Toby

Fair? Was this a fair comparison? Digital cameras are updated about every year. How old was the film camera? Think there may have been some quality changes that the film camera missed?

Perhaps a better comparison would be to buy a good high quality film and digital camera, take the same picture with each and then do as much PP as needed on both. Then compare. I doubt if film will win. Also PP is so much easier than film.

Bottom line, who cares. I am not going back!!!!!

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

The camera only matters with digital. With film the lens is what matters not the camera. He is shooting with Nikons, so he can use the same lens for both shots.

It really doesn't matter though what is important is your vision and composition. I am also a painter. This is like debating oils vs acrylics to me. Either will produce the results the artist wants if it suits their vision and they know how to use it.

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Agreed. Hard to share online.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

John Howard wrote:

Agree but shouldn't the real comparison be of two ... (show quote)

That would seem to be a better comparison.

Toby

Darkroom317 wrote:

The camera only matters with digital. With film the lens is what matters not the camera. He is shooting with Nikons, so he can use the same lens for both shots.

It really doesn't matter though what is important is your vision and composition. I am also a painter. This is like debating oils vs acrylics to me. Either will produce the results the artist wants if it suits their vision and they know how to use it.

Good point about the film camera. What about the darkroom? Has much changed from say 20 years ago?

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Nobody has mentioned that this entire discussion and any conclusions are predicated on the fact that we are all seeing ONLY digital renderings of the images in question - the film or print was scanned to become a digital file and we are viewing on monitors of widely varying resolution and quality.

Perhaps a more valid comparison would be to see a large print made with both originals, though for completeness printing the film with an enlarger (rather than scanning and printing digitally) would be "more fair".

Of course, if the goal is to merely display on monitors and other electronic screens, then any tonality that film might (and I stress might) offer may well be lost anyway.

My point is that there are so many variables in the entire chain of events between the capturing of an image and the manner in which the viewer sees that image as to make these kinds of comparisons fairly moot.

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

f8lee wrote:

Nobody has mentioned that this entire discussion a... (show quote)

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Darkroom317 wrote:

The camera only matters with digital. With film the lens is what matters not the camera. He is shooting with Nikons, so he can use the same lens for both shots.

It really doesn't matter though what is important is your vision and composition. I am also a painter. This is like debating oils vs acrylics to me. Either will produce the results the artist wants if it suits their vision and they know how to use it.

What matters inside the camera is the sensor and what is the sensor if not the replacement of the film?

Were there not different quality of films as there are different structures in the sensors depending on the manufacturer and sensor version? Looking at a digital camera is not the digital camera limited in flexibility? I recall using AgfaPAN 25 for landscape and sometime Ilford 1000 for portraiture. The difference was the tonal precision and the grain. That is something I miss. We always have the same precision in a digital camera and the grain is compared to the 'noise' but always the same size...

A true comparison should take the 'grain' into account as it influences the end result more than anything else. AgfaPan was capable of incredible tonal differences when Ilford 1000 was not capable of much.

The idea offered here is intriguing, interesting but it is also missing the differences I mention.

Grumpy D Stevens

A great example of why I like film. The film example here looks to be a bit sharper and has more clarity and contrast. Just better exposure to enjoy.
I am not a computer geek and do not really enjoy spending hours staring at a computer screen doing "stuff" to make a picture better. I like taking good to great pictures and have the lab print them. Just me and what I like. NOT trying to start a fight with all of you geeks out there.

wthomson Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Having done post processing with both film and digital, digital wins hands-down with its options and flexibility. I suspect that a skilled PP'er (not me) could mimic virtually any film image; the reverse would not be true. The only possible advantage of film at present is in the amount of information, but that advantage will, I suspect, soon disappear.

What am I to do with all of my film cameras and processing equipment, not to mention my darkroom? Bet my wife has some ideas.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

wthomson wrote:

Having done post processing with both film and digital, digital wins hands-down with its options and flexibility. I suspect that a skilled PP'er (not me) could mimic virtually any film image; the reverse would not be true. The only possible advantage of film at present is in the amount of information, but that advantage will, I suspect, soon disappear.

What am I to do with all of my film cameras and processing equipment, not to mention my darkroom? Bet my wife has some ideas.

I'll let you in on a small secret, well maybe not so small. I'm still using mine.
--Bob