Film VS Digital (Page 6): There will always be the niches. Some will just do film because they can say they do film. Some prints will be sold, quality aside but because it came from...

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Darkroom317 wrote:

Tell that to these guys: http://www.filmferrania.it/

There will always be the niches. Some will just do film because they can say they do film. Some prints will be sold, quality aside but because it came from film and the darkroom process. There are creative opportunities in film and only film. But for the mainstream - it is clearly digital.

Kuzano

Mark7829 wrote:

There will always be the niches. Some will just do film because they can say they do film. Some prints will be sold, quality aside but because it came from film and the darkroom process. There are creative opportunities in film and only film. But for the mainstream - it is clearly digital.

I don't care that I "can say" I do film. I do film because I like to do film. And it's true that film will never have "glory days" again and always be a niche. I do digital when I need quick turn around, hence I do minimal post processing. So am I a "film" person... primarily.

As an instructor in academia though, what I do find interesting is the people who started with digital, are intrigued by film, and trying/liking it. I said before it's unique and a has a "fun factor".

It's a unique world and I would never pitch anyone away from film. You don't know what they are looking for.

One thing I do know is that I have been making side income on film gear, and the income has been steady and good. Right now large format camera's are selling for two - three times what they were 3-5 years ago.

It may not appeal to many here to buy a camera that shoots a 4x5 or 5x7 piece of film one at a time for upwards of $1000 for just the camera alone, but I'll take that money any day of the week.

Then there's ULF. Ultra Large Format... loading a 20x24 inch piece of film (not print paper-actual negative film) into a holder and lugging that baby somewhere to take a picture than can be contact printed at 20x24, or enlarged 2x to get a 40"x48" print.

Niche yes... fun factor for some... X100.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

DickE wrote:

One reason for my question is that I have a MF film camera, 6X45 MM that I almost never use anymore since switching to a DSLR. Would it be better to get a digital back for the MF camera or to shoot film and scan it as my friend does?

Digital backs for MF are expensive, but they do have an advantage in dynamic range. Most will provide a 10 to 12 stop range and some of the newer ones will go 12 to 14 stops. Compare this to even the best FF at 8.5 to 9 stops. Smaller format shooters get around this by shooting bracketed shots and merging them PP. MF shooter do it with one shot which I personally think is the best way. Do I have a digital back for my Hasselblad? No - to costly for the amount of time I have for shooting at this time. But I do shoot film and scan. It will produce big files depending on the scan settings.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

DickE wrote:

I have a friend who is a professional photographer. He shoots all his images with medium format film then scans the film images into his computer for editing in Photoshop. He says he gets better results than shooting in digital. Does anyone have information on the relative advantages of using this technique?

Although a lot of my work posted here has been done with a D700, a good bit has been done using a variety of film cameras. Digital is sort of quicker. In the long run, I think film still has the advantage, excluding ISO.
--Bob

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

DickE wrote:

I have a friend who is a professional photographer. He shoots all his images with medium format film then scans the film images into his computer for editing in Photoshop. He says he gets better results than shooting in digital. Does anyone have information on the relative advantages of using this technique?

Yes, you can get better results for some subject matter with film. There is a time and place for digital but big film is hard to beat.

The attached image was taken in 1984 on Kodak VPS 160 with a Mamiya RB67, I think I used th 90 mm f/3.8 "normal" lens. I scanned it with a Coolscan 9000. The original scan is a 10880x8808 pixel JPG , almost 96 MP and over 100 megabytes.

I subsequently traded the RB67 for a Hasselblad because the Mamiya was to heavy for travel.

Incidentally, color and B&W film is even better today than it was thirty years ago.

Viscaya, Miami, FL

(Download)

rlscholl Loc: California

There are still some of film scanners available that will scan medium format film images.

rlscholl Loc: California

Most of the best enlargers for medium format only enlarged negatives up to 6X7 centimeters.

My Omega D2 enlarger came with a 4x5 in. film carrier.

Grandpa Pete Loc: Western Finger Lakes (NY)

DickE wrote:

I have a friend who is a professional photographer. He shoots all his images with medium format film then scans the film images into his computer for editing in Photoshop. He says he gets better results than shooting in digital. Does anyone have information on the relative advantages of using this technique?

I had a Mamiya 645 outfit with the usual trio of lenses. It hadn't been off the shelf in the five or so years I was shooting a Nikon D90. It's now at Adorama in partial payment for a refurbished D7100. When I realized how long it hadn't been used, the decision made sense.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

rfmaude41 wrote:

True, but it's pretty close to 8X10, however, how much is the (minimum) crop for a digital camera with a 2X3 ratio, about 25 - 30% maybe??

0%... You don't have to crop!

Print 8x12 or 12x18. Both are standard, if less common, frame sizes.

People get so hung up on the four popular size frames and forget that 1:1, 4:3, 16:9 and 3:2 aspect ratios ALL have standard sizes that don't require cropping. And, of course, you can always mat smaller prints into larger frames, either in software, or with actual mat boards.

DickE Loc: Southern California

Thanks SS:
What about the MF digital cameras like the Pentax 645Z? Do you think there is an advantage over 35MM format?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

DickE wrote:

Thanks SS:
What about the MF digital cameras like the Pentax 645Z? Do you think there is an advantage over 35MM format?

In my own unscientific tests, 6 x 4.5 Velvia transparencies were no better than 16mp FX digital. 6 x 7 and 6 x 9 really get your attention.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

RWR wrote:

In my own unscientific tests, 6 x 4.5 Velvia transparencies were no better than 16mp FX digital. 6 x 7 and 6 x 9 really get your attention.

:thumbup:

Yep.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

DickE wrote:

I have a friend who is a professional photographer. He shoots all his images with medium format film then scans the film images into his computer for editing in Photoshop. He says he gets better results than shooting in digital. Does anyone have information on the relative advantages of using this technique?

I think this is in the same category as musicians who insist that tube amps are better than transistors. It's a taste thing. Some people like their cauliflower steamed and others prefer sauteed.

The best option for me would be a medium format camera with a digital back. Scanning adds another weak point. Digital does not deteriorate with copying, analogue does even under the best of circumstances.

But that's why they make Chocolate, Strawberry and Vanilla ice cream.

DickE Loc: Southern California

Just a little example of the evolution of digital photography as a reminder of how far it has come:
About seven years ago I attended a Nikon workshop in San Diego. Two professional photographers, employed by Nikon, conducted the workshop. One of them was the photographer who oversaw all photography for the winter olympics that had recently been held in Canada, (I don't recall what year that was.)

He told us that he had shot film all his life and that when the very first digital camera came out he immediately recognized the future and bought one. I believe it was a Sony. He brought it to show to us. It was about the size of a shoe box, shot 35MM format and had a sensor with less than 500 K Pixels. The camera cost him over $25,000.

Any body want one?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Reinaldokool wrote:

I think this is in the same category as musicians who insist that tube amps are better than transistors. It's a taste thing. Some people like their cauliflower steamed and others prefer sauteed.

The best option for me would be a medium format camera with a digital back. Scanning adds another weak point. Digital does not deteriorate with copying, analogue does even under the best of circumstances.

But that's why they make Chocolate, Strawberry and Vanilla ice cream.

Tube instrument amps and studio pre-amps just DISTORT better! Transistors hit full saturation abruptly, and distort angrily. Tubes saturate gradually, and harmonically or musically, so you can overdrive them in a controlled manner, to use the warmth of a little added distortion.

The most expensive mic and instrument pre-amps tend to be tube pre-amps like the Universal Audio 610 and its variants, and they get used by most of the world's best vocalists, guitarists, and bassists.

On the other hand, transistors make more transparent power amps for use when you just want to make a properly mixed sound a lot louder. They also make great compressor-limiters.

All that said, the best of the old tube gear has been precisely duplicated in software plug-ins that work in audio recording and mixing software, using external hardware interfaces to the computer.