Digital vs. Film

And this is an actual pixels crop from the 4000 dpi file. Remember, on an average monitor you're looking at a size of this picture as if it was cropped from a print 1,8 m wide...

Andreas

Why does a 100% digital man like Scott Eaton even bother to visit the "film and processing" forum?

Seems to me some people have nowt better to do.

Scott Eaton still shoots his Mamiya RB.

Did you see the Iris study in his portfolio?

Pretty amazing, if you've ever tried to photograph irises.

I get such a kick out of the film vs. digital threads.

Im NOT trying to sound rude or start a fight but after looking through a bunch (not all) of

OUR galleries I really think the film vs. digital thing should be put on the back burner for a

bit longer use what WE have and practice a lot more.

PS let me know how this turns out I really want to know whats camera to buy to make me

better than I am

regards

Ray

Take it easy.

I can understand where your anger comes from, but I respectfully disagree with you. You just took it way too seriously.

Did I say that I reached the top on digital? My question was 100% out of curiousity. I hope you don't mind my right to play with whatever I want.

I might never be a pro, however it doesn't suggest I shouldn't enjoy my little games.

Raymond,<BR>

This is not a film vs. digital thread. Anton's question is why he is getting better results with digital than with film. Most responses have addressed that problem specific to him.

Try better film like Fuji 160NPS for outdoors or 400NPH for indoors.

Buy or borrow a lightmeter, because no two camera meters are alike.

Shoot 100% manual.

Shoot all sorts of tough lighting situations.

Use a pro lab.

Have fun!

"Well, as Mr. Taylor once again claims to know how much better pictures from a consumer DSLR look than those from film, let's take a look at what film is capable of, o.k.?"

Andreas, you've made this way too easy for me. Below is your film detail crop against one of my DSLR detail crops.

Let's take a look at what film is capable of indeed...<div></div>

I think I've made my point. (BTW, in the comparison with your shot the 10D was hand held at ISO 400. The one I labeled hand held was also hand held at ISO 400.)

"What Daniel and I are both telling you is that getting optimum results from 100 speed color films involves radically more screwing and spending more money around shooting straight digital SLR, so what's the point? You want to screw shooting resolution targets with film, or produce nice pictures?"

Yes, thank you. If you've got a good scanner, you use the finest films, and your reproduction chain is nailed down, you can get very good prints from 35mm. But it's a lot more work than with a DSLR.

The original poster has realized this. A DSLR plugged into a Fuji Frontier can produce spectacular results with ease. Not so easy to get the same results from film.

"Pop Photo, Shutterbug and others have compared the Kodak 14N and Canon 1Ds to Kodak Gold 100 and their results were that these two DSLRs were just slightly(?) better but only in terms of resolution."

What lens did they have on the FF DSLR's? A "lens baby"???

The Canon 1Ds has been repeatedly compared to MF film. While some comparisons show MF with the edge, it's pretty clear that the camera is well beyond the capabilities of 35mm.

"Funny, I always thought style and technique determined the success of an image not the medium used."

Yes, style and technique are more important. But this thread was about the original poster's comparison of 35mm to a DSLR.

Some people, for some reason, just cannot handle the truth: that DSLR's produce technically superior images compared to most 35mm films and workflows for a fraction of the effort. It's just reality. It was bound to happen sooner or later any way with Moore's law, which applies to IC's but not to film. It's going to get "worse" for film in the comparison as Moore's law continues to apply itself. Lenses will prove to be the upper limit on digital capture, not chips.

That doesn't mean you have to stop using film or can't get excellent results from film. But you are going to put more effort into film just to try and match a DSLR, guaranteed.

<i>Buy or borrow a lightmeter, because no two camera meters are alike.

<br><br>

Shoot 100% manual. </i><br>

<br>

I agree, Robbie. Plus don't forget to bracket, bracket, bracket!

<br><br>

And as they say, shoot what you want and what works best for you. It's no skin off my back if you use photo paper and an oatmeal box to make your images. I mean, some critisize my using Elite Chrome 100 but I get great results when using it. I've also made some pretty darn good prints from it and projected the sildes themselves.

Daniel,

> Andreas, you've made this way too easy for me.

Obviously not, as you clearly didn't get it...

- While you once again claimed superiority for DSLRs, I was merely trying to show the original poster what was possible with film without all that fuss others claimed necessary.

- Once again you fail to state what you're comparing. Are your pictures actual pixels crops from your cameras output files (after RAW-conversion, of course), or did you resize them to the same dimension my file had? If you didn't resize them, you're comparing them against pictures which print 59% wider and taller. And for my taste *your* pictures just barely compete. While 35 mm and 6..8 MP DSLR both are far beyond useful enlargement at this size, film images don't fall apart that ungracefully.

Just in case you did somehow forget to resize for a fair comparison, I add your first posted picture with the necessary enlargement made. Everybody can do it for themselves with the others. (Warning: Those flower crops look downright ugly at 159%...)

Andreas<div></div>

Ooops, how embarrassing, I did the right math with the wrong numbers for my last post. Those 59%/159% were from a calculation to obtain the real crop factor for a 10D. In fact, Daniel would have to scale his pictures to about 185% for equal print size. Daniel, you would pipe up if I didn't err in your favour, wouldn't you?

> Some people, for some reason, just cannot handle the truth: that DSLR's produce technically superior images compared to most 35mm films and workflows for a fraction of the effort. It's just reality.

Then how do you explain that people like me, who own DSLRs *and* film cameras, prefer the output from film? I could produce "superior images" "for a fraction of the effort", but I won't? I have files from both systems on my computer, and I still don't see the light...

I won't repost my comparison from above with adjusted scaling. What brought me back to this thread was an another idea: If I cared for the clean, plasticky look of DSLR pictures and didn't own one myself (I don't and I do...), I could apply NeatImage to my film scan (auto profile, default filtering, no fiddling), scale it down to 54% size and post an new comparison:<div></div>

"While you once again claimed superiority for DSLRs, I was merely trying to show the original poster what was possible with film without all that fuss others claimed necessary."

The original poster saw first hand what is possible with film "...without all that fuss...". That's why he came here asking others if he should believe his eyes when they tell him how much better prints from his D70 are, even though that first hand information conflicts with the theories postulated in message boards like this.

"Once again you fail to state what you're comparing. Are your pictures actual pixels crops from your cameras output files (after RAW-conversion, of course), or did you resize them to the same dimension my file had?"

You didn't provide the final pixel dimensions for your file, so there was no way to reliably perform the adjustments you claim are absolutely necessary. I didn't consider it absolutely necessary to make the point that digital records clean detail right down to the pixel level, while scanned film is a mottled mess at pixel view. I think the crops illustrate that nicely.

"And for my taste *your* pictures just barely compete. While 35 mm and 6..8 MP DSLR both are far beyond useful enlargement at this size, film images don't fall apart that ungracefully."

LOL! Whatever. I'll leave it to the viewer to decide which crop has "fallen apart ungracefully."

"Ooops, how embarrassing, I did the right math with the wrong numbers for my last post. Those 59%/159% were from a calculation to obtain the real crop factor for a 10D."

What's embarrassing is that you have no idea how to equalize the image sizes for comparison. The crop factor has *nothing* to do with it. So we can trash all your attempts at "fair" comparisons and start over.

What are the exact pixel dimensions of your image? (Post-processed as film scans always involve cropping of the edges.)

(BTW, the crop factor as it applies to lenses is 1.6x. To go the other direction would be 0.625x. So you didn't do the math right either.)

"Then how do you explain that people like me, who own DSLRs *and* film cameras, prefer the output from film? I could produce "superior images" "for a fraction of the effort", but I won't? I have files from both systems on my computer, and I still don't see the light..."

I don't care to explain "people like you". Shoot what you want. I made a single post offering the opinion, shared by many, that 35mm film required considerable effort just to match a DSLR. You're the one who wanted to get into a pixel-peeping-p***ing contest: "Well, as Mr. Taylor once again claims to know how much better pictures from a consumer DSLR look than those from film,...".

Maybe you have a thing for grain. Maybe you feel that the extra effort makes the images more meaningful to you. Maybe you're so accustomed to the look of certain films that you have a bad reaction to the look of digital, the way some people love a film while others hate it. Maybe...who cares?

Let's invert this question: how do you explain the growing masses of photographers who overwhelmingly prefer digital? Most of which have shot both. Why don't they see the "light of film"?

> You didn't provide the final pixel dimensions for your file, so there was no way to reliably perform the adjustments you claim are absolutely necessary.

Well, the full frame I posted is exactly 1/8 of the original file, as stated in my posting (4000dpi down to 500 dpi). Depending on where you crop exactly, the picture area is about 5650 pixels wide.

And you could simply have stated *what you are posting*. From your last post I gather that you pictures are indeed actual pixel size crops from you camera files?

Do you think you could fairly compare negative/file quality in two prints, one 50 cm wide, the other 27 cm?

> I'll leave it to the viewer to decide which crop has "fallen apart ungracefully."

Doesn't happen often, but here I agree with you ;-)

> What's embarrassing is that you have no idea how to equalize the image sizes for comparison. The crop factor has *nothing* to do with it.

And if you could read, you'd know that I erroneously used the numbers from a crop factor calculation. *I know* they don't apply here, and *I said* so. The image widths are 5650 and 3072, so for a fair comparison you can either scale your pictures up to 184% or scale mine down to 54%.

> (BTW, the crop factor as it applies to lenses is 1.6x ... So you didn't do the math right either.

That's 160%, or +60%. Calculated as 36mm/22.7mm it's 158.6, or +58.6%. Again, read the posting your replying to...

> I made a single post offering the opinion, shared by many, that 35mm film required considerable effort just to match a DSLR.

And as in all posts before you didn't state what you compared, and your claimed *facts* are mostly just opinions, too.

I just *offered another opinion*.

> Maybe you have a thing for grain. Maybe you feel that the extra effort makes the images more meaningful to you. Maybe ...

As I said before: When *I* compare the prints *I* can make from files from *my* DSLR with prints *I* can make from *my* film scans *I* prefer the prints from film scans.

That's all...

Andreas

Also comparing a closeup of a cat's eye to an outdoor scene

doesn't make sense. It's apples and oranges.

Of course a cat's eye is going to be clean and plasticy looking

because cat hair and the translucency of the eye is suppose to

look that way.

An outdoor scene is loaded with varying degrees of surround

tonality that judging one against the other is futile.

I still think digital trumps film in color accuracy and resolve. The

one complaint I have about digital is the way it captures color in

wide gamut shots of flowers. It tends to look monochrome like in

the above sample of the closeup of the fuchsia colored rose

petal.

It 's still a great accurate looking shot with in your face clarity, but

there's something missing in the feel of the color. And I think I

know what it is.

It's the way digital neutralizes catch light in the midshadows of

single colored objects. Film will tend to inaccurately apply a

complementary cast only to these regions but not to the 1/4 tone

to highlight areas.

Note the pinkish cast in the background haze of the outdoor

scene. It complements the foreground green shrubbery which

optically creates a perception of depth at the expense of scene

accuracy. This is an old eye/brain color trick used as far back as

the 17th and 18th century master painters. Film's grain texture

also tends to lend itself to this effect quite a bit which I believe is

the reason for its appeal.

If you were to put a little green/yellow noise, tinting or texture in

the shadow region of the fuchsia colored petal it might improve

depth and alleviate the monochrome "plasticy" feel somewhat.

Other than that I still think digital has more going for it over film in

other areas that make film seem a drudgery to use.

"> You didn't provide the final pixel dimensions for your file, so there was no way to reliably perform the adjustments you claim are absolutely necessary.

Well, the full frame I posted is exactly 1/8 of the original file, as stated in my posting (4000dpi down to 500 dpi). Depending on where you crop exactly, the picture area is about 5650 pixels wide."

"Depending on where you crop exactly..." was exactly why I didn't venture to guess what the original size of your image was.

"Do you think you could fairly compare negative/file quality in two prints, one 50 cm wide, the other 27 cm?"

I think your film scan, at pixel view, looks like crap. Got it? It's an ugly, mottled mess. A classic example of why Scott often says film breaks down past 2000 ppi.

You had to reduce it to 54% and run it through NeatImage to get close to what comes off a DSLR, pixel view, without any effort.

Which *** surprise *** brings us back to the original statement I made: "Yes, thank you. If you've got a good scanner, you use the finest films, and your reproduction chain is nailed down, you can get very good prints from 35mm. But it's a lot more work than with a DSLR."

I side * twice * that 35mm on a desktop scanner with a proper workflow will produce good prints. But somehow you took this as an invitation to get into a p***ing contest over digital vs. film detail under pixel peeping conditions.

"And if you could read,..."

And if YOU could read, you would know that this thread was about D70 files vs. Gold 100 negs printed at a local lab. Not peeping pixels from a desktop scanner at about twice the magnification where film starts to break down. The person who started the thread wanted to know why his film prints didn't look so good. It's because to get film to look good requires more work than simply printing at the local lab (unless that lab happens to be one of the dying breed of labs interested in putting in that extra work for you...and you're willing to pay). On the contrary, simply dropping a CF card in a Frontier generally produces very good results.

Did you put more work into your sample scanned image than simply dropping it off at a lab? Yes, you did.

"> I made a single post offering the opinion, shared by many, that 35mm film required considerable effort just to match a DSLR.

And as in all posts before you didn't state what you compared, and your claimed *facts* are mostly just opinions, too."

So it's not a fact that sitting at a desk scanning and post processing an image, a good 10 minutes a frame, is not more work than plugging a CF card into a Frontier and taking the prints home???

"> Maybe you have a thing for grain. Maybe you feel that the extra effort makes the images more meaningful to you. Maybe ...

As I said before: When *I* compare the prints *I* can make from files from *my* DSLR with prints *I* can make from *my* film scans *I* prefer the prints from film scans."

Good for you. When Anton compares the prints *he* can make from files from *his* DSLR with prints *he* can make from film printed at the local lab (equal effort), *he* prefers the prints from the DSLR.

Some of us tried to explain to him why. Needing everything film to be superior in every way, you jumped in with an irrelevant p***ing contest.

You know, at this point I think I'll be glad when film is dead. No more stupid contests because somebody dared to claim that digital was in some way easier or better....

> "Depending on where you crop exactly..." was exactly why I didn't venture to guess what the original size of your image was.

Well, you might really have erred about 10 pixel of 5650 ...

> ... somehow you took this as an invitation to get into a p***ing contest over digital vs. film detail under pixel peeping conditions.

The first comparison was

>> Below is your film detail crop against one of my DSLR detail crops.

which obviously *isn't* from me ...

> Some of us tried to explain to him why.

As I was trying to show *him* what was possible with film.

> Needing everything film to be superior in every way, you jumped in with an irrelevant p***ing contest.

I never claimed superiority for anything, I merely stated what was possible. Again, look for yourself who started a "contest". And who claims superiority for *his way*.

> You know, at this point I think I'll be glad when film is dead. No more stupid contests because somebody dared to claim that digital was in some way easier or better....

Of course it's much easier to start with DSLR files if you like the results you get that way. Show me where I claimed otherwise. And if you need the picture *now* there simply isn't a choice. But that doesn't make digital capture better for everything, for everyone, everytime.

End of debate, I won't react to any further provocations, neither personal nor technical. This is of no use to anyone anymore. At first I really thought you had misunderstood me (and were trying to understand), but clearly you're just trying to pick a fight. Find someone else, someplace else.

Andreas