Digital VS. Film?

Hello, I am posting this question because I have been going back and forth

trying to decide whether to get a Canon Digital body such as the Canon 30D or

just stick with my Canon EOS Elan IIe with my Fuji Provia 100F slide film and

get a good slide scanner such as the Nikon V. Basically my goal is to be able

to print and post my own photos up on the web and don't know whether I would

get better digital prints from a digital body or scanned slide film. I have

heard many different things. Please give me some insight.

Well, I just printed an 18x24 image from Crawford Notch State Park on an Epson 7800

with the new Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl Paper. The original capture was with an EOS 1V

and Velvia 50. Scan was on a Nikon 5000 in 16-bit mode with 16x oversampling at 4,000

ppi and subsequent work-up in photoshop. Framed and mounted behind non-glare glass

over the dresser it looks bloody spectacular. Most photographers that have seen the

image think it is a medium format capture (since I used to shoot mamiya 6x7). Whether

digital or film, it matters not. Good technique during the capture process (mirror lock-up,

solid tripod, optimal aperture etc) and good post-acquisition processing make all the

difference. I have also printed images on canvas up to 20x30, again with spectacular

results from 35mm film. The nice thing about film is that if you enjoy projection, the edge

goes to chromes.

Film may still have an edge quality wise IF it is well exposed, slow speed (i.e. Velvia 50), and clean.

 

The biggest factor for me in going digital was the time saved by not having to spend ages scanning and then retouching each scan for dust. This gets very boring pretty quickly.

 

If you are only shooting a low volume of work then a scanner might be the answer. Digital is the way forward for larger volumes of work and convienience as well as high ISO quality.

What kind of picture did you take ?<br>

If you use ElanIIe for landscape, you should think about the 5d not the 30d.<br>

If you use the eye focus on your ElanIIe, may be you should wait when the same technology will go digital :-( <br>

I now look on film scanning solely as a way to archive my decades of film. With the labour and hassle, I'd say get a digital single lens reflex for anything new you're doing.

I've got the same problem as you, James. EOS 1V and a Nikon V ED scanner are significantly cheaper for me than even going to a 5D; it annoys me that the 1DS Mk2 is five times as expensive as the 1V, if I want to keep the same layout and build quality on a camera.

At this point it generally makes a lot more sense to go digital unless you have a personal

strong

preference for film - and you aren't open to the alternate point of view. (I suspect,

however, that you are open to it since you are considering the 30D.)

 

While not everyone is on board, the majority of photographers today are coming to believe

that digital SLRs provide at least equal quality and more likely better quality than 35mm

film. The tide has shifted and far more dSLRs are sold than film SLRs.

 

There are other advantages as well:

 

Going from a digital camera to (as you mentioned) the web is a much more

straightforward

process - no need for film development, scanners, etc.

 

With digital you don't pay for film (once you own memory cards) or processing (once you

own

Photoshop). Unlike film, whether you shoot 10 frames or 100 frames of a subject with

digital, the

costs are essentially the same.

 

The time from camera to finished product is very quick with digital.

 

I know that some still prefer film, and I wouldn't want to get into an

argument with them about this - preferences may vary and I'm fine with that. However, I

think it is safe to say that while many, many former film photographs have switched quite

happily to digital cameras, there are very few who have gone the other direction. (With the

exception of those who may have come to small format digital first and then tried LF on

film.)

 

Dan

Either can go up 12x18, so either would work for you. I haven't looked at prices but suspect that the cost would be close when you facotr in the scanner. I started photographg 5 1/2 years ago with an Rlan II a little lest tahn 2 years ago I got my 20D. I was using a Canon FS4000 scanner and digital is a lot faster an easer.

 

Digital input reacts with Photo Shop better than scanned in slides, as the data is cleaner.

if all i had to buy was a camera to go digital, i would probably do it tommorrow. but i would need (want) 2 cameras, new monitor, big memerory cards, batterry grip, kirk plates for tripod, ect.... buy the way, the 20D has dropped to $974.00 (usa) at adorama. getting closer...

I like film, but use digital P&S cameras for anything that I don't think I'll want big enlargements of.

 

Scanning is workable, but takes time or costs money. Shooting digital to start makes good sense, esp. for use on the Net.

 

I still like to shoot MF film, but only for stuff I know I'll want a neg. years from now (I work with computers, and don't completely trust any storage devices) - children's photos, special vaca photos, etc.

 

Film or digital will do a great job. If I were you, I'd choose what's convenient. For most peole now, in most situations, that's digital - no matter how much I may like film.

So far I am still using film, and am really enjoying my darkroom. I have the Nikon VED and use Fuji slide film which scans quite nicely (color neg film is tricky to scan). I'm not going to re-start the endless debate over darkroom being as much a form of manipulation as using photoshop, but my philosophy prefers the 'honesty' of film, as I really don't like over-PS'd images. My set-up is much cheaper than the digital equivalent, as already stated by others (although it's the lens that makes the photo, not the camera).

 

This being said, I also enjoy dabbling in photoshop and see the instant results with digital a boone- I plan on getting a dSLR eventually to *add* to my kit, not to replace it. Each has their purpose, you just have to decide what your end goal is. If it's just to take shots to be able to get them onto the web, and have no personal preference, obviously go digital. The lower end bodies are getting pretty cheap- closing in on the price of the scanner. Keep in mind that for archival purposes you can't beat film. Like one poster here, I had considered scanning all my film for 'protection', but after researching how long the media is reliable (avg 5 years), I stopped wasting my time. People who are serious about digital archiving seem to have multiple HUGE hard-drives.

Without question the 30D will give better results than a consumer desktop scanner. No question and no contest. That's not even factoring in the fact that scanner is an unbelievable pain the in ass.

 

Les needs a lesson in basic logic if he thinks his conclusion follows from what he read.

<p>I don't miss scanning, followed by trying to clean up dust and scratches, at all. I also don't miss having to pay for film and processing. To me, if the end result you want is a digital file, you should be shooting with a digital camera unless you have a darn good reason to do otherwise.</p>

I've used Provia films in my A-1's and EOS 3 for about as long as they've made the stuff and love the results (usually rated at 80 & 320). Now I've purchased a Nikon 9000 to scan years of backlog. As someone mentioned earlier, I don't think I'll miss spotting all of those slides again (plus all the Tri-X amd T-Max) or waiting for ICE (NOT FAST). I'm thinking that maybe when I'm done, I'll trade in the scanner for a nice 5D body, that way it's like recycling most of the money. As far as quality goes, I think it would be tough to beat the results I've seen from these scans, for me it's really more a question of time and convenience, plus you're paying for processing and film whether or not the exposure is good. Paul

I have a Coolscan V, and I got much better results with my 6 megapixel D70 than with the 24 megapixel scans. The scan has a lot more pixels, but I found it very difficult to get sharp scans compared to what's visible on the film with a high power loupe. Each scan needs extensive PS work (levels, curves, color) but doesn't sharpen well. The D70 files jump off the page and screen with sharpness, look noticeably better in print, and are a heck of a lot faster and easier to handle. My current 5D is even better; I'd guess the 30D is right in between.

 

Based on my experience I can't think of a single thing that film scanned with a Coolscan V does better. For the money I'd go for the DSLR. If you're willing to spend a lot more on the scanner for a brighter light source and deeper field of focus (film curl ruins consumer scan sharpness and detail), the comparison changes some. And with a proper $100+ drum scan, the scanned film will yield greater detail with very fine-grained slides.

I've scanned a lot of film, Provia being my favorite, and have gotten excellent results using

a Minolta Scan Elite II. Not all film scans well however. Since buying my Canon DSLR a year

and a half ago, I don't think I've scanned more than a few frames.

 

The quality I'm getting direct from camera equals or exceeds my best scans and there is

no comparison regarding work flow. My advise is to move on and forget scanning film. It's

a waste of time.

 

Interestingly, the main motivation for me to move away from film was to maintain control

of my images. I was having my slide film processed (un-mounted) and then I would scan.

The number of incidents (scratching, creasing, unwanted mounting, unwanted cutting, and

so on) started to out number the non-incidents. It didn't seem to matter where I sent my

film or how much it cost, they all F'd it up now and then.

 

I'll probably never again shoot film.

There are only three reasons to go with a (quality) 35mm film scanner:

 

1. You want to digitally archive an existing body of film images.

 

2. You want to preserve an existing investment in wide angle lenses, and don't want to spring for a full frame camera like the 5D yet.

 

3. You want the slight resolution and latitude advantages that the best negative films have to offer over consumer DSLR, and you don't want bother with larger film formats.

 

If the above aren't significant factors for you, then any current generation DSLR will be better than buying further into film: in better image quality, superior workflow, lower recurring (and probably even initial) purchase cost.

 

The thing to keep in mind with digital though, is that the imaging package is fixed once you've bought a specific body. It would be as if you're stuck forever with only the emulsions types available at the time of your film camera purchase. This makes DSLR bodies disposable that never was with film gear.

 

The 30D is a poor value if image quality is the prime consideration. You're better off with the XT or the new XTi.

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of ways digital is better than film. But the bottom line for me, at least is this:

 

I've been doing photography in as a serious amateur for 45 years. Since I bought my humble little 10D 3 years ago, I've had much more fun than I ever had before, and I've taken much better pictures.

There is NO digital VS film. They are two totally different mediums. In fact, scanning negatives pretty much defeats the purpose of BOTH, in some ways.

 

Only YOU can make the decision: do you want to spend the money and time in film, developing and scanning? Are you going to print the scans yourself? How much do you know about digital imaging?

 

If you plan to scan ALL your film prior to printing then, the question is an oxymoron because the moment you scan film it becomes, you guessed it, DIGITAL.

I made the decision to stick with film and buy a good slide scanner approximately 2 years ago. It was a bad decision made blatantly obvious after I picked up a 20D a year later. If you value your time, buy the 30D. As previously mentioned, scanning is a pain in the behind. I still have the scanner thinking I'll eventually get around to scanning my previous work but it's hard to find time to dedicate to something so tedious. The money probably would have been better spent paying someone to do it for me.

One thing to like about digital is that there are fewer scratches and dust artifacts than

film. The dust that one may discover on the sensor can be mapped out after a shoot in

Photoshop anyway. Plus, RAW files are even more flexible than film for printing. Printing

really huge was cost-prohibitive with film, but I can get a 20x30 done for $24 rather than

$250+.

 

One other bonus is that you can get to printing your image immediately. Photoshop work

is quite similar to darkroom work, without the time, space, and cost. However darkroom

skills transfer to the computer very easily, and because you can undo and use layers one

can achieve more repeatable and desirable results every time. Repeatability and broad

adjustability is one of the greatest aspects of using a digital camera / RAW file imaging

chain.

do you prefer the vinyl records or CDs? Spme prefer the sound of a vinyl record, but it is not getting any better, while the CD's have moved on to dvd surround audio and still improving. Same question.

>>Spme prefer the sound of a vinyl record,<<

 

Yes but, they don't convert the sound to digital...

please, let's leave the audiophile comparisons to the leica people...

I think the choice depends on a number of factors. Firstly, the fact that you are using Provia suggests that your subjects contain a lot of detail, and possibly that you use wide angle lenses. If you go with a 30D you would need to acquire additional wide angle lenses because of the crop factor - and the quality of the shorter focal lengths is generally less good than the equivalent angle of view 35mm lenses. On both counts that suggests that your DSLR choice might be better if it was the 5D (more and better quality pixels capable of higher dynamic range, and the ability to use your current lenses - though beware that the performance of wide angle lenses with a DSLR can differ from performance on film). Of course, that is a substantially greater cost.

 

Secondly, the economics and time involved depends on the volume that you shoot, and the volume that you would like to print (especially at larger sizes, which will require more post processing work for best results) and to post on the web. Scanning can be time consuming - although it is capable of some great results. The requirements for web posted images are much less demanding than those for large prints - so you can scan much faster because you don't need to use the highest resolution, and you can reduce the amount of post processing (which applies to digitally captured images too, although the workflow will differ between the sources). Bear in mind too that you may want to acquire additional software if you go the DSLR route compared with what you might want for scanning alone. I have noted that second hand scanner prices continue to hold up well - with some models actually selling for more than they originally retailed for. The second hand value of DSLRs continues to drop fairly fast, so if you decided to upgrade your DSLR later, you might well find its value had halved or worse, albeit the successor model would likely be somewhat cheaper than anything you buy now.

 

If your shooting and web posting volume is high, the economics will steer you towards the DSLR. If your volumes are more modest, you might prefer to stick with film for the time being. Indeed, if your volumes are quite low, you might want to consider using a larger film format, since MF and LF film equipment can be acquired cheaply these days, and you will have a gain in image quality from the larger format that can make the extra film and processing cost worthwhile. If you go that route, you might want to consider adding a digital P&S for web shots e.g. if they tend to be just family/social photos.