35mm film vs. Digital - where is the border?

I agree with comments made about having to compare a DSLR to a digital scanner. The way I prefer to compare digital to film is by comparing digital prints from a DSLR to standard prints directly from slide or neg. In this scenario at least a 1DsII would be required to beat the Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25 that I am using from my freezer. However I am impressed enough with my 6MP DSLR that I will never by any ISO film greater than 100 again. I will likely only use film until I have used up all my frozen rolls.

 

 

I love my DSLR but it has made me an extremely lazy photographer but on the other hand I have taken more successful images than with 35mm film. Not sure of an exposure...take another shot! Not sure of the composition...take another shot! Don't have time to pull out the 4x5, filmholders, and tripod...grab the DSLR! Incredible flexibility.

 

 

When I can dedicate the time to my 4x5 I hope to increase my rate of success by using the DSLR to determine the best exposures and compositions. Good luck.

I just about threw my ETRSi in the trash after getting my 5D.

 

I had high expectations and they were exceeded. The pictures

have astounding detail.

 

Only my 4x5 will be better, but I am done with film.

how do you print directly from slide these days without being scanned and digitized?

I agree with most of the opinions - but I would not go as far as to say: "film is dead" or "film is blown away" etc.

 

The way I see it: good film, perfect (or near perfect) exposure, good scan - and you will get excellent results (which can be matched by DSLR, and not necessarily the $7,000 one).

 

The cost of a film camera is indeed way lower than that of DSLR - but the real cost is in the glass anyway.

 

The only way to compare is only when you scan film and print yourself (unless you use a professional lab).

But, in case you scan - here it goes:

 

Film: cost involved in every roll (purchase, processing, printing). Will add up very quickly. Time - scanning is not exactly a quick process.The ratio of good to bad pics is worse than with digital - simply not every frame or roll scans well, grain is sometimes too large etc. But, with proper exposure, scanning and processing - I see no much diff compared to 8Mp camera (admittedly, 12 or 16 Mp may produce better results).

 

Digital: rather larger up-front costs. And a steep learning curve (to some degree shared by film in case you do your scanning/processing). Updates/upgrades of both software and equipment. But you do not need the scanner, which is both cost and time saver.

 

In my opinion it is easier to obtain comparable or better quality with DSLR than with film - and it costs less in the long run (if you do not go crazy with upgrades, that is). The practical limit for most of us is 5D - and film will be hard pressed to match the output from 12Mp full frame sensor. Not an impossible task with film - but hard and possibly costly, since good labs are not exactly cheap - while with DSLR you can do it all yourself.

I don't know why Ed Greene mentions projected digital files. This is just silly. The current top consumer 1080p projectors, running about $5000, project a whopping 2 MP image. A projected slide or even a projected digital image written to a 35mm slide with a film writer (which can be 4096x2730) will blow away any digital projection technology (one of the reasons that the art historians still insist on having slide projectors despite the wishes of our media/AV guys).

 

When I shot film I used mainly slide film and in my opinion digital exceeds the dynamic range of the slow slide films I used. The films definitely captured more detail though even Velvia has visible "grain" when enlarged to the point where the extra detail becomes a deciding point. If you are an old film hound you can ignore the granularity and see the extra detail by sticking your face in the print. Digital files definitely look cleaner but begin to seem "empty" when "over-enlarged" and viewed closely - grass in particular can begin to look like mush.

 

If you want to produce poster sized prints for your wall then my opinion is that the digital files look better than images from 35mm film since both have insufficient detail but the digital has much less visible noise. Large format film (4"x5" or 8"x10") still rules the large print market and justifiably so (I am a huge Burkett fan).

 

This is comparing low ISO images. At high ISO digital has an edge. I have printed 11"x14" prints ISO 3200 files from my 20D which retain more detail and have less noise than equivalent film images printed to 8"x10".

 

In pure resolutions terms you will not match the resolution of Velvia or Tech Pan with anything short of a 16MP 1Ds Mk II and maybe not even then. There is considerably more to images than monochrome resolution tests however. Perceived sharpness and resolution are not the same either.

In my experience people are very good at matching theories to whatever they happen to want to be true. You want the instant gratification of pixelography? There you go, a full page of opinions telling you how smart you are. You don't want it? There are web sights where digital is a dirty word, go there and feel equally vindicated from the opposite side.

I've yet to see a digital print or projection that matches the quality of a B&W print. Multiply that by a factor of several when it comes to B&W. Of course, none of those prints are mine - but I would rather make 99 crappy images in pursuit of that 100th, perfect one, than muck around in the artificial satisfaction of digital... but that's me. I don't have to make a living with my photos, and I actually like to look at facts rather theories. I don't know how many of the people expressing their opinons here have seen anything other than a digital print - after all, if you see it HERE it IS digital.

Just a reminder to everyone. The original question regarded a comparison between 35mm

film and digital SLR images.

<i>I've yet to see a digital print or projection that matches the quality of a B&W print.</i><p>

 

I recently had eight prints in a group show. Mine were digital start to finish. Quite a few of the others were traditional b/w prints due to the age, for example, prints by <a href="http://www.bradelterman.com/">this guy.</a> However, not one person commented that my prints had different quality from any of the others, including that guy who I just referenced, who said very nice things about my prints.<p>

 

Good digital prints aren't that common, but good traditional prints aren't either. Most people see things that come from drugstores, or the home equivalent. People who care about printing can make an excellent digital print, if they care to learn. People who haven't seen them aren't spending much time in modern galleries.<p>

 

There were some prints by <a href="http://www.jimmarshallvault.com/">this guy</a> in the same show. Although he couldn't make the opening, nobody commented on his prints being different than any of the digital prints. Interesting, maybe people cared more about photography than the people here who spend their time with loupes poring over prints.

To Ed Greene: it is good to see that you are back with your singular view of the world :)

 

Regarding you rose: it has blown highlights, so not all is "rosy".

Regarding the dynamic range which can be captured by digital - have a look here:

 

http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

 

Of course (like anything else) it requires proper tools and proper processing.

<i>than the people here who spend their time with loupes poring over prints.</i><p>

 

you give too much credit methinks. If people were actually looking hard at prints these threads might be filled with slightly more useful stuff, instead of just more regurgitated nonsense spit out by gearheads trying to impress each other. <p>

 

but it's still fun to read. <p>

 

from the fake hungarian brand freak bragging about his gear to the fake "old pro" using atrocious scans of flowers with blown highlights to prove something (didn't bother to read it all). <p>

 

god bless this place and all it's madness. <p>

 

oh and jeff, you're prints looked great to me.

Oh, and Lucas, since you reading your post on <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IJTE">this thread</a>, I am not shaking your hand again. We can do the Japanese bow instead.

Peter Rowe, your responses have a lot of untruths. First off, an $800 Canon XTi will surpass 35mm film in quality most of the time. No need to buy an $8,000 or $3,000 DSLR.

 

Secondly, the amount of post processing required often takes about 3 minutes in PhotoShop, and is very easy...in fact, one can learn the basics in about 1 hour.

 

Sure 35mm negative film has a tad wider DR, but that is it. And for this so called 4 stop challange, digital offers at least 7 stops!

 

Medium and Large format film aside, digital beats 35mm film in most cases, and often by a long shot.

 

Digital provides sharper looking images....too often film looks a bit too soft, even with the best lenses.

 

The comparision is a lot simpler then many here suggest...forget about projection, forget about scans, forge about all that.

 

Simply take the same images with a film & DSLR, and have them printed in their normal ways at 4x6, 11x14, 13x19, 16x20, heck, even 20x30, and in most cases a 10mp and especially a 12.8mp digital images will almost alwasy look better, offering more detail, less noise/grain.

 

Again, large & medium formats aside, 35mm film is dead, fully surpassed by 10mp and 12.8mp digital files.

 

This is not an opinion...this is fact, and therefore not to be debated no more then debating if the earth is flat or round.

 

At the end of the day, what colors 35mm film users opinions is their reluctance to use and or learn digital post processing...which the basics can be mastered in 1 hour or less.

I don`t see any border. film and digital are 2 entirely different formats. I started using digital in 1999 to replace polaroid in the studio, when the D30 was introduced I bought one and used it sparingly at 1st, clients did not notice any change so went fully digital and not looked back. A friend makes his living with Landscapes and does very well, he used 1Ds but never mastered the darkroom side, so went back to his 6 x17 & custom 6 x 24, why ? he gets others to drum scan and print for him. I DO NOT miss mixing RA4 and sniffin fumes from the Siite, dodging and burning is a breeze in PS, no longer waste time and paper in the dark. DR is greater with a little work.

 

I`d be 1st to say 1 on 1 4x5 is better, but I`ve seem 15feet wide pics done with digital with far more detail than a 10 x 8 LF, the images were made from many digital images stitched with software. there are many examples on the net, but in takes time, least not in the dark.

 

M friend still says the 1Ds is better than 35mm, I think the 20D is to, the 5D even better. all I can say is we have not had a complaint from a client in over 5 yrs of digital, some even think they are still getting film. But we see a difference.

 

I recently shot a job of an historical old pub, I set up a 20D with a 28f2.8 alongside a hasselblad and 50mm, I showed the client, he ordered the 20x30 from the 20D upressed with S spline? now have MF for sale for a 16m body.

 

Only way to be sure for yourself is hire one for a while

 

my 2c goodluck

<i>This is not an opinion...this is fact, and therefore not to be debated no more then debating if the earth is flat or round.</i><p>

 

therein lies your greatest shortcoming "pavel".<p>

 

you honestly confuse your opinions with fact. <p>

 

You draw such a pathetic, simplistic and rankist view of reality that your limit your own ability to grow or learn. <p>

 

film is not "better" than digital (or visa versa) any more than pickles are better than carrots. <p>

 

"this vs that" is a dead end my fake hungarian friend. It has nothing to do with the creative process. <p>

 

You can shout (as you've done in the past) " IT'S A GEAR THREAD" till you turn blue if you like, but it changes nothing. even within the context of a discussion about equipment your slavish devotion to a single brand and single format serve only to expose your lack of experience and exposure to the greater field of image creation. <p>

 

and the irony of you starting a post taking someone else to task for "untruths" is not lost. <p>

 

cheers

Ah, interesting feedback indeed!

 

I based what I said on the OP's extreme requirements for sharp and high quality images. I have been taking film shots for a long time and now I write software for digital. You can check out virtualPhotographer at www.optikvervelabs.com -- it's free. I'm not saying it's any good just that I have some involvement in both camps. I've been taking film for over 30 years, and in digital for about ten.

 

Now I hear what you are saying but in reality the Canon XTi is just not at the level I am talking about here. Few professionals would use it as a primary camera. It is a "prosumer" camera.

 

I answer technical questions about photo-editing software all day long and I can tell you when it comes to layers, masks, blend modes and so on, most film photographers new to digital are completely lost. If you are not computer literate this is a big problem.

 

If you wish to get truly professional shots you really do need to be an absolute Photoshop expert, That is a fact. In you are not then it is easy to see it in the photographs. Yes, you can tweak a bit and it looks alright but it's not there -- the professionals are on an entirely different level here.

 

On DR, digital is linear and that's a huge problem, it's why so many digital photos have blown out highlights. You really need to know what you are doing to prevent this in difficult situations. This is something film photographers need to content with too, but it is extremely difficult in digital. A reasonable expectation would be that a $7,000+ digital camera would outperform a film camera of a few hundred dollars, but that is not necessarily the case here. Some day we hope to have non-linear digital that don't get blown out so easily.

 

Now the question I was trying to answer is if the OP should switch from film to digital. The obvious answer is "yes, it's fantastic" but I have seen it so many times that they can't get comfortable with it. Years ago, a professional photographer came to see me for some shots, he had a new Canon D60. I said "wow, you've get a new Canon Digital, what is it?". He said it was a "16 megahertz". Now that might sound foolish to someone familiar with digital but he was actually an excellent photographer, but frustrated at how to get back to the quality he could get from film. And as I say, if they are up to it and their expectations are correct then go for it, digital is really great, there's no doubt. But if not then it is a lot more difficult than they may expect.

 

Let me guess, you are young, you are technical, you like sitting in front of the computer, and you have a Canon XTi or planning to get one, yes?

 

Best regards --Peter

<i>Let me guess, you are young, you are technical, you like sitting in front of the computer, and you have a Canon XTi or planning to get one, yes?</i><p>

 

the truth is far more amusing....<p>

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00I1d4<p>

 

he's actually a mid 40s IT worker who claims to be a "working pro" and posts under a half dozen accounts (often using one to agree with the other :)<p>

 

be nice to him or he'll call you names.

Gosh Lucas, you say it like it's a bad thing....Lucas is almost right Peter, but I am just me, and poor Bulgarian boy from Sofia (I'm 46 yrs old), cast out of a tire factory as the Soviet Union collapsed...but to the point...

 

Peter, I never suggest that a pro would use an XTi for pro work...the body is a laugh...but that being true, the image quality is actually very good. Have you tried one? Do you really think that the image quality from a 1D Mark IIn is much better then an image coming from the lowly XTi? I think not in most cases.

 

As for my own Kit Peter, well you're a bit off with your guess. I actually own two Canon 5D's, and as for lenses, I have the 14L (just sold it), 15 fishy, 24L, 35L, 50 F1.4, 85 F1.8, 85L, 100 macro, 135L, 200L, and the following zooms: 16-35L, 24-70L, 24-105L (selling), 70-200L IS, 100-400L.

 

And Lucas, if you don't believe me buddy, just ask me to send you a picture of my kit, and tell me in what order you want the lenses to appear...hey, maybe Lucas, I can make the shape of an L with them....using the 100-400L as the bottem horizontal segment.

 

Now about that rashy hand Lucas....are you left or right handed? Just joking Lucas, hope you have a sense of humor. lol

Lucas wrote "This is not an opinion...this is fact, and therefore not to be debated no more then debating if the earth is flat or round.

therein lies your greatest shortcoming "pavel".

 

you honestly confuse your opinions with fact.

 

You draw such a pathetic, simplistic and rankist view of reality that your limit your own ability to grow or learn.

 

film is not "better" than digital (or visa versa) any more than pickles are better than carrots.

 

"this vs that" is a dead end my fake hungarian friend. It has nothing to do with the creative process.

 

You can shout (as you've done in the past) " IT'S A GEAR THREAD" till you turn blue if you like, but it changes nothing. even within the context of a discussion about equipment your slavish devotion to a single brand and single format serve only to expose your lack of experience and exposure to the greater field of image creation.

 

and the irony of you starting a post taking someone else to task for "untruths" is not lost.

 

cheers"

 

Now, now Lucas, when you chastise me in that manner, wow, it gets me very excited...I fanticise that you're breaking into my office, and battering me...oh the pain...it hurts soo good....sigh....more sighs...now, were are my cigarettes?!? And by the way Lucas, I feel very insulted that you would suggest that I am Hungarian! Now that is where I draw the line! I peoples are from mostly Bulgaria, but before that, from Romania! I MUST take exception, Lucas!

omg

Pavel says "film is not "better" than digital (or visa versa) any more than pickles are better than carrots"

 

I'm afraid you're very wrong my Hungbulmanian friend. The low light performance of digital is much better than film, and we ALL know that eating carrots gives you better low light vision than pickles. You of ALL people should know that :-)

As the one who started this I should give you some more information.

 

The print size needeed is at least 20x30 inch. I sell many of my images in much bigger sizes. The "low-ASA B&W-film" that I mentioned is either Tmax 100, developed in XTol (very sharp, practically no grain in that print size) or SPUR Orthopan UR (ultrasharp, no grain at all).

 

Today, I do scan my negatives with an Imacon 646. I use FotoStation to organize them as there is nothing more professional and Photoshop CS2 as there is unfortunately no alternatives.

 

In the meanwhile I just downloaded some example images from the Canon website, made with a 5D... well, I opened them in PS side by side with film-scanned images and was not too impressed. The 5D images are definitely not sharper or more detailed than what I have on film. They are 'smoother' because there is no grain, but when I enlarge more I see 'jaggies' and pixels whereas at the same size with my film images there is some cloudy sort of grain but that looks much better. My example images were made in real life, the Canon example images are probably made under optimized conditions. Especially, the images were obviously not taken under high contrast but quite flat lighting.

 

Well, is the 1 DS Mark II much better? If not, I think that the example images shown at some trade shows are probably not made with the cameras they pretend to be made with. :-)

 

Or am I doing something wrong?

<P>It can be difficult soliciting opinions on such a subject, as everyone's visual pereception is different, and we're all satisfied with differing levels of quality. Peter Rowe has summed it up well.<BR>If you are making huge enlargements using SPUR Orthopan UR, then I doubt you will be happy with any 35mm DSLR. The 5D can compete with Velvia, but not the best B/W films. There will not be a big improvement between 5D and 1DSII.</P>

<P>The 5D resolves about 60 lp/mm, the 1DSII about 70 lp/mm, if I remember correctly SPUR Orthopan resolves at around 400 lp/mm. Of course film introduces other processing factors which reduce this figure at the final print, but still those films will capture detail 35mm digital will not<BR>For smaller enlargements, maybe even 20"x30", the 5D would probably match colour film because of the lack of grain, but black and white has so much more dynamic range.</P>

<P>Big enlargements, as Alistair Windsor mentioned, can look empty with digital. I believe this is partly due to the resolution limit of 60-70 lp/mm. It just doesn't caputure the tiny details in landscapes that high resolution B/W film does, and interpolation cannot "imagine" branches etc. that were in the original scene.<BR>But more than this, I think the random grain structure of film gives a more natural look to many subjects. The uniformity of digital pixels can make images look clinical and flat, whereas large film prints often have more "depth". It's a purely subjective aesthetic opinion, and many may not see it, but I do.</P>

<P>Personally I use both film and digital. I actually use my 5D (with adapted Zeiss lenses) more than my Contax film cameras, because for many subjects it does produce better images, and it has many practical advantages. But I always have a film body with me for times when I want the different look of film.<BR>As you already have the computer and software required, a 5D would be a useful addition to your camera kit, and you may find it takes over from the Velvia, but I think the fine grain B/W films will stay with you for a while yet.<BR>After all, I'm sure when acrylics were introduced, artists didn't completely stop using oils.</P>

As much as it pains me to say it but I find 35mm slide film now completely redundant compared to my 1Ds II and 5D. There is simply no upside to it. I scan it using a Coolscan 9000 which is no slouch (yes a drum scan is better - but it still won't be better than the DSLRs). Where 35mm still remains unbeaten is the joy of using b&w negative film which produces results that you would be have to go to great lengths to emulate with a DSLR. Not of course in resolution but in terms of dynamic range and look etc

 

Medium format is another question altogether - my 6X6 slides scanned on the 9000 clearly outshine the 1Ds II in all regards.

Dark Matter (BTW what a wonderfull nick!).

I was a film user and made extensive B&W work on my own. Then i bought a G4 just to have a camera to allways go along with me - discovered RAW and was impressed - i saw the potential (the camera was 4MP).

Then i bought a 10D that in my eyes matches 35mm film (slide) till 8x12" at 100ISO and excels film from 400 ISO and above in all print sizes.

2 months ago i got a 5D - and i think this is the borderline camera - this 13MP piec of kit equals 35mm film in allrespects - except maybe B&W.

Ishoot 100TMAX and TP in 35mm format and i must say that it has not more resolution than digital files from the 5D (i did not use a top notch enlarger however).

I allways thought that the limit enlargment from 35mm film is 12x18" but with the 5D i go smoothly till 28x40".

The B&W esthetic is very peculiar and an individual matter of taste in some pictures the film grain is gorgeous and can be a creative plus in some not - the digital gives You infinite creative paper surfaces if You go the ink route - try prints on canvas this is something amazing.

All and all i think that the 5D is allways better than scans from film, but maybe in B&W the direct darkroom print can have an edge - but we`re talking high end here,...

But at the end of the day is the IMAGE that counts be it digital, film or some other stuff,....

I heard on the news last night that Life magazine is publishing a collection of their best photographs from the past 50 years, images that we all have imbedding in our brains, that have become part of out lives - sailor kissing nurse in times square at the end of WWII - flag raising on Iwo Jima etc, all taken with film cameras.

 

So you see, it really doesn't matter whether you shoot digital or film, it's the content that matters.