Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Digital vs Film
Page <<first <prev 4 of 17 next> last>>
Aug 14, 2018 08:54:53   #
Crombie
 
Each group claims 'better' and this debate will continue. In my opinion there's 2 principal factors, okay, make it 21/2. One is the incredible digital technology offering superb clean images, and it's easily accomplished. Analogue is far more difficult and less flexible and some find this challenge more rewarding, and don't like saying this, but 'film' is not hip.


Film has a different rendering and is more associated as an art form, thanks to the likes of Adams, Weston, Karsh, Avedon, Bresson.


A photography recently submitted a selection of work for jury selection, the judges were all artist painters, not a single photographer on this jury. The images presented were predominately digital with only a few b&w analogue in the mix. Ten of the selected nine were analogue.

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 09:00:56   #
slrimagery Loc: Virginia
 
I believe you'll find if you really drill down into this subject that you'll come up with digital on top.
I don't have all day to ponder this. But, some of the reasons are obvious.
Digital is more flexible and cleaner since there are no processing chemicals to deal with.
The first shot of the day could be at 100 ISO and the second at 6400 if it pleases you, without changing film.
The post-processing capabilities of all the software applications out there are staggering.
I believe you can do more creative work in digital than film and do it faster with a much wider and faster dissemination.
That said, you'll have to learn the electronic side of all this.
Photoshop is a tough nut to crack and I know few people who are true experts with it.
So training and education becomes an ongoing self-improvement process - not a bad thing.
If you're heading down a professional path get involved with local photography groups that produce to your level or your goals.
Get involved with your state PPA affiliate where you'll find lots of folks eager to help you move forward.
I hope this helps and no, I'm not looking for a fight.
I came from the film world too and began this journey in 1972.

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 09:03:56   #
DaveC1 Loc: South East US
 
selmslie wrote:
If you scan film to a TIFF you can have the best of both worlds - the highlight protection of film, contrast control with B&W plus the ease of editing and printing a computer-based image. That becomes more important as you move up to medium and large format.



Reply
 
 
Aug 14, 2018 09:07:38   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
For my part, I prefer to get the exposure correct in the camera. The levels presentation in the camera monitor guides my effort.

Later during development, I make other adjustments, like to the foreground to bring it up.

I note that in Adobe Camera Raw, one may restore some blown highlights if not too far gone. ACR can interpolate pixels there to restore highlight information.

Long live film photography, but the future belongs to digital photography.
selmslie wrote:
If you scan film to a TIFF you can have the best of both worlds - the highlight protection of film, contrast control with B&W plus the ease of editing and printing a computer-based image. That becomes more important as you move up to medium and large format.

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 09:07:54   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Good to hear the voice of experience here.
billnikon wrote:
I too shot the F4 and a Hasselblad. I still remember fighting digital with all my sole. After selling all of my Hasselblad equipment was sold to Europe (thank you Europe) I turned to digital.
The biggest advantage to digital in my opinion is post processing. No longer am I standing over developer, stop, and fix bath's doing hundreds of 8X10's for rodeo's and class reunion's. I do wildlife photography and I can safely say I get better, sharper results with digital. Hand's down. BUT, like I said, I can get those results through post processing, which is a BIG advantage for digital.
That, and now I don't have to wait to develop and print to see if I got the shot right, I can see it right after I take it and make any adjustments I want. Now, I am very happy with digital and will never go back to the development side.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
I too shot the F4 and a Hasselblad. I still rememb... (show quote)

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 09:12:03   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Again, good to hear the voice of experience. We photographers now live through an age of transition from film to digital photography.
The latter approach will live on but as a niche field for those individuals inclined that way.
slrimagery wrote:
I believe you'll find if you really drill down into this subject that you'll come up with digital on top.
I don't have all day to ponder this. But, some of the reasons are obvious.
Digital is more flexible and cleaner since there are no processing chemicals to deal with.
The first shot of the day could be at 100 ISO and the second at 6400 if it pleases you, without changing film.
The post-processing capabilities of all the software applications out there are staggering.
I believe you can do more creative work in digital than film and do it faster with a much wider and faster dissemination.
That said, you'll have to learn the electronic side of all this.
Photoshop is a tough nut to crack and I know few people who are true experts with it.
So training and education becomes an ongoing self-improvement process - not a bad thing.
If you're heading down a professional path get involved with local photography groups that produce to your level or your goals.
Get involved with your state PPA affiliate where you'll find lots of folks eager to help you move forward.
I hope this helps and no, I'm not looking for a fight.
I came from the film world too and began this journey in 1972.
I believe you'll find if you really drill down int... (show quote)

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 09:16:23   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Apaflo wrote:
Again you literally show where my initial critical comment was precisely correct (i.e., between 30-50 lp/mm is obviously greater than the claimed 30 lp/mm, just as I said)... and then you ignore that and claim I was wrong despite being precisly correct.

You add the usual absurd gratuitous personal insult that has to be in every article. BTW, no algebra is needed, just arithmetic!

Yes, you need algebra 1/Rt^2 = 1/Rs^2 + 1/Rl^2 (the original post had a typo) to understand how system resolution works. Rt is limited by the lesser of the lens or the sensor resolution. So, if your lens is not limiting your system resolution then it's your sensor.

In other words, a 50 lp/mm lens resolution limits your system resolution to 50 lp/mm, even with an infinite sensor resolution.

Maybe you were unable to understand what I said in Photographic System Resolution. It contains an example using a 50 lp/mm lens. A 24 MP FX sensor gives you 32.09 lp/mm, for a 45.7 MP sensor it's 37.69 lp/mm and for a 24 MP Monochrom you get 37.16 lp/mm.

Of course, I had to make some assumptions to calculate those results. Feel free to download my Excel spreadsheet and plug in your own assumptions.

Reply
 
 
Aug 14, 2018 09:23:34   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
anotherview wrote:
... I note that in Adobe Camera Raw, one may restore some blown highlights if not too far gone. ACR can interpolate pixels there to restore highlight information. ....

I can't speak for Canon sensors since my experience is all with Nikon and Sony cameras.

However, from the DR curves I have seen for Canon sensors, it looks like at low ISO settings the response curve may not be straight. This actually softens the impact of overexposure.

Nevertheless, the curve straightens out above about ISO 400 or 800 and the issue with blown highlights above Zone VIII applies to Canon as well as other sensors.

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 09:53:32   #
Naptown Gaijin
 
burkphoto wrote:
I helped guide a pro portrait lab through the transition from film to digital. Having made that journey, I am convinced by the entirety of it that I need never use film again.

The best recent full frame digital cameras are better than most 120 film when that film is exposed to 6x4.5 cm images. Only a handful of specialty films can resolve more, until you get up to 9x6cm, 4"x5", and larger films.

It used to be that most of us dreaded making any prints larger than about 11x14 from medium and high speed (ISO 125 and 400) 35mm films. These days, even lowly Micro 4/3 cameras generate very nice images at ISO 800 that are acceptable at 16x20. APS-C bumps that up by 2/3 to 1 stop, and full frame by another stop for roughly equivalent image quality.

There are so many advantages to digital imaging that we never had with film, I can't list them all.

For all but THE most critical uses, digital cameras are — or can be — better than film.

If you're a film photographer, that's fine. Many still enjoy the processing and printing, and the care and thought that goes into full manual exposure. I used film for 40 years. I made B&W and color prints, slides and transparencies, and processed it all. But we live in a different world now, one which travels at the speed of light. My Lumix camera WiFi can send images to my iPhone, for immediate tweaking and upload to the Internet. The same camera I use for stills can capture stunning 4K video with great audio from external audio sources. And it's smaller than my Nikon F3.

Does digital imaging take a lot of getting used to, with a long, steep learning curve? Oh, HELL yes! But it's sort of like scratching through a brick wall with your fingernails, or learning a computer. Once you break through that wall, once you know what you're doing, you're in this giant toy store with all the coolest things you could ever want to play with!

Just a reality check... Here's a list of the things you'll need to do digital photography right:

dSLR or MILC/DSLC/EVIL camera and lens(es)
Fast computer (Mac or Windows) (dual or quad core, fast video, 8 to 16 GB RAM, 500GB hard drive, more resources would be better)
Really good monitor (not a laptop monitor!) (at least 1920x1080 pixel resolution)
Real, hardware-and-software monitor calibration kit (from DataColor or X-Rite)
Software such as Adobe Photographer Bundle (Lightroom Classic CC, Photoshop CC, Bridge, ACR...) or Affinity Photo or Capture One Pro, or Photoshop Elements or...)
Relationship with a good pro lab OR a photo quality inkjet printer, OEM ink, and inkjet photo papers with ICC profiles
TRAINING AND EDUCATION AND TENACITY AND PATIENCE
EXPERIENCE

Fortunately, practically everything you knew/know about film photography has a matching counterpart in digital photography. The physics of light have not changed!
I helped guide a pro portrait lab through the tran... (show quote)


Bill,
Fantastic answer, very comprehensive, and none of the "my way or the highway bias". I have been shooting for 58 years, amateur and semi-pro, and I learned something. Very glad you are a hog.
Mark P.

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 10:00:24   #
jakraig
 
Sharpshooter,

You stated that digital can't come close to 4x5 film. I disagree. It can and does come very close but it does depend on the camera and or film. I don't shoot Canon so I can't speak for them but the Nikon starting with the D800 does "come close to medium format or perhaps some medium format cameras and some films. Starting with the D810 with something over 14 stops of dynamic range the digital will equal and surpass some medium format film and camera combinations. When we get to the Nikon D850 we are very close to 15 stops of dynamic range I think we are definitely in the same ballpark as medium format but it depends on the film used and the camera and lens used. For studio work and slow film I don't think we are beating the medium format yet but it is VERY close. Outside the studio when faster film has to be used I personally think the D850 surpasses many medium format film/camera combinations.

I used to shoot film, paid my way through college on shooting film. If I had a choice of post in the darkroom or on Photoshop I will always pick Photoshop. That isn't to say I couldn't scan and get film into PS but you lose something in scanning, it isn't the same, not even close to working with a raw file.

That isn't to say darkroom couldn't be fun, I had a girlfriend who loved working with me in the dark room.

I have a son who disagrees with me, he still likes and shoots in film. When it is this close opinion starts becoming a relevant part of the argument. 45 megapixels and 15 stops of DR are pretty hard to beat even with 4x5.

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 10:03:38   #
Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC
 
rpavich wrote:
I think when people ask about the "comparable results" of digi-vs-film they are missing the point.

Both are fine in their own way.

The question for me was: what PROCESS do you enjoy?


In my opinion (so now that I said opinion, please don't pile on me and tell me how wrong I am...this is subjective, not OBjective) the process that's most enjoyable is film. It informs my choice of which film to use, which developer to choose, how to shoot, what to shoot, and all. It's more of a ZEN experience in my opinion. I dislike just clicking away and then importing tons of digi-images into LR and then messing on a computer, and then exporting them to a hard drive.

That just doesn't interest me.


What does interest me is choosing a particular film in an awesome tank-built simple camera from the distant past, choosing how to shoot it...then going out with purpose, shooting only things that I'd be willing to print later...and then being surprised when I see what I had shot after developing the film (I get to enjoy the images twice so far!) and then making the contact sheet, sitting down with a cup of coffee and a loupe and choosing the keepers....then hitting the darkroom again and making prints.

I like that workflow MUCH better and so I shoot film exclusively. I'm not interesting in seeing LCD's or culling through 1000 pictures to get a couple that won't ever be printed. That's not my thing.

Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion about my PREFERENCES so no need to argue that your way is better or that digital can do the same or whatever....to each their own joy.
I think when people ask about the "comparable... (show quote)

I agree with burkphoto, very well put. I may have to wait to retire, but I look forward to shooting and printing 120 film again before I give away my darkroom gear only because I enjoyed the process, call it nostalgia, and my grandkids will get a kick ot of it. At the same time I will also be glad for digital and that it has come so far and likely never shoot any more film.

With respect to the comparisons between medium format film and digital, why are most discussions limited to small format digital? Recall 24x36mm is a small format, even though we call it full. I am surprised there are not more comparisons between MF film vs MF digital, even if the digital format is still a bit smaller. It seems that would make a fairer comparison.

Reply
 
 
Aug 14, 2018 10:15:39   #
agillot
 
start with a nikon D3400 kit , and go up from there if necessary [ $ 500 ].learn to use it .

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 10:17:01   #
eeisman
 
I use to use film, and started my own developing at age 8. It took me HOURS to get a color print that I felt was satisfactory. Digital is wonderful. You have tremendous control using Lightroom etc.

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 10:21:42   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
Sshlitz wrote:
I am (was) a film photographer. I've used Nikon F4, Russian copy of Hasselblad and many others in the past.
The only digital cameras I've used so far are Canon point and shoot, Nikon pixel and my iphone camera. I am looking to purchase a digital SLR sometime in the near future.
My question is, are digital cameras of today capable of taking pictures comparable to the best film cameras of not so distant past?
The reason for my question was a recent conversation with a "professional" photographer hired to photograph a wedding.
He was using a Pentax digital camera and stated the film cameras were (are) taking better pictures and the only advantage digital technology has is the convenience (no need for film, processing, etc).
The reason I stopped taking professional pictures was the digital revolution. I sold all my film cameras (for next to nothing) and was afraid to jump in the new trend. I was afraid of the new technology and I could not decide on the camera to purchase. I prefer Nikon, but the prices for the top Nikon cameras are outrageous.
I would like to hear from other professionals regarding their opinions on this subject.
Thank you all in advance for posting your honest opinions.
I am (was) a film photographer. I've used Nikon F4... (show quote)


Answer is yes and no. Depends on what you are comparing. You'll get many long and complex answers here on the UHH to a question like that. If you are comparing a say 24MP APS-C camera to a 4x5" film camera, now way. I know people who shoot 8x10" film still. In my opinion a 45MP to 50MP Full Frame (24x36mm) sensor camera might well give a medium format 6x6cm or 6x7cm film camera a horse race. A 80MP Hasselblad "medium format" digital camera would certainly beat a film Hasselblad today. But nothing other than other similar film sizes touches 4x5", 5x7", or 8x10" film! Yes, there are 11x14" and 16x20" view or copy cameras! I'm currently a hobbyist but I own two 4x5" cameras and have used at work a 8x10" B&J View Camera, and own and use several 35mm film cameras and several DSLRs.

Reply
Aug 14, 2018 10:39:37   #
srt101fan
 
jerryc41 wrote:
"Better" is a relative term, highly dependent on the equipment and skill of the photographer and also on the opinion of the viewer. If it gets to the point where you have to use scientific instruments to measure the differences, then the differences don't matter.

I love my D750, and the price has dropped considerably since it was introduced.

Comparison sites (digital only)

(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://www.cameradecision.com/
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu
"Better" is a relative term, highly depe... (show quote)


"If it gets to the point where you have to use scientific instruments to measure the differences, then the differences don't matter." How true and how easy to forget!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 17 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.