Film versus digital

<p>I am finding as I learn, shots I liked in the past are not as interesting as shots I passed over when taken.</p>

<p>By the way Eric there is many good books about composition you can learn from. Just do a visit in the nerest library. I think you gonna find it interesting.</p>

<p>I have today ordered a book for painters covering composition :) , looking forward to its arrival.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How does digital offer an advantage for how I want to view my pictures?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just time. This is why PJs adopted digital so quickly.<br /> <br /> Otherwise, any film/print/slide can be scanned and essentially turned into a digital file.<br /> <br /> I love shooting my F100 and wish I had more time to get my images scanned. I just got a ton of free Velvia 100 from an old fellow who completely switched to digital. But there are still enough occasions where I need digital. One example is a couple of events that I shoot for a local club. First, if I shot film it would cost me an arm and leg in processing and a lot of time in scanning. Second, I wouldn't be able to get their photos to them in under a week like I do with digital.<br>

Film and digital both have thier advantages. Which is better is completely in the eye of the beholder. I couldn't imagine shooting sports with film. Professional Photographer Magazine just had an article with portraits done by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders, all in color, with 11x14 and 8x10 view cameras...and they are amazing...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You can get a scanner with Silverlight software capable of 3300 dpi effective scans for 289 Euros.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do a lot of my own scanning with an inexpensive Canoscan 4400. It works great, but it can be a real pain in the butt sometimes. Dust is always an issue, and getting quality scans is time consuming, especially consider I can only scan five frames of 35mm at a time. There is also a big time lag when I have to send E-6 film out to be processed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do a lot of my own scanning with an inexpensive Canoscan 4400. It works great, but it can be a real pain in the butt sometimes. Dust is always an issue, and getting quality scans is time consuming, especially consider I can only scan five frames of 35mm at a time. There is also a big time lag when I have to send E-6 film out to be processed.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I find the same. While I do use a Minolta Scan Dual IV for higher quality scanning of 35mm, I find that having 24 frames done at a time on my Epson V700, with Digital ICE, to be very convenient. Yes, it's not as good as the Minolta, or a Nikon Scanner, but it gives me the same rez as about 7mp DSLR, but without the Bayer filter or AA mush.</p>

<p>The only volume shooting I do with film is for B&W. And slapping on 24 fames at a time is nice as the Minolta just does 6.</p>

<p>True, it takes time to scan, but that isn't a problem for me. I cut a 36-exposure roll of 35mm into six strips of six frames each and place two strips (so 12 frames) into the carrier for my scanner. I scan at 4800dpi with all the options "off." While the negs are being scanned I go do something else, then return to swap out two more negative strips, etc., until the job is done. It doesn't matter to me how long it takes, except that I don't start the project if I'm about to leave the house, LOL.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I cut a 36-exposure roll of 35mm into six strips of six frames each and place two strips (so 12 frames) into the carrier for my scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look into a Nikon 5000. A DIY modification to the strip film feeder will let it scan up to 40 frames at once. The bundled Nikonscan software will produce excellent results with everything on autopilot.</p>

<p>135 format scanning is now quite painless: feed the strip in and come back in an hour to 36+ 4000dpi 16bit deep frames on the disk drive. As an added bonus, long term storage of Xtol stock solution is no longer a concern :-)</p>

<p>jeez</p>

<blockquote>jeez</blockquote>

<p>Most likely.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way Eric there is many good books about composition you can learn from.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? Are there any titles that you'd recommend? The ones that I've seen have been rather disappointing. (Of course, they're not as bad as the laughable advice that hoards of self-proclaimed "experts" publish on their personal websites.)</p>

<p>There's an alternate approach to learning photographic composition: review lots of photographs and figure out why the good ones work and the rest don't.</p>

 

<p>To Dan<br>

Yes I have its just this, they are all writen in Swedish by Swedish authors and used in the institution of art and photographic education and hardly translated to english. I would suggest that you visiting some well sorted library in your town and look into what they got first and also ask the personal there which is the best one you can get. they probobly know as they educated of those subjects. I assume you living in the states and I would be very supprised if you won't find a very good book about the subject there.<br>

Good luck to you.</p>

<p>I'll keep looking! I wish that I could have found a good book on composition when I was starting out. I'm sure that it would have helped me a lot.</p>

<p>There were some great books on exposure, on general photographic technique, and on shooting in various situations, but I could never find one on composition that went beyond vague generalities such as "feature your subject" and "eliminate distracting elements." Those are excellent fundamental concepts, but most books don't have enough clear examples showing how to put these ideals into practice (and why they're important).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Compose-Better-Photos-editor-Shipman/dp/B000GZQQHK">How To Compose Better Photos</a> by HPBooks, 1981</p>

<p>Admittedly it's a little basic, but I think it's all the introduction a person might need to get started thinking about composition correctly. I picked this up at a thrift store for $.50, but it looks like you can get a used copy shipped online for about $7. I doubt you'll find anything this good printed in the last 10 years.</p>

<p>[/lurk]</p>

<p>ARRRRRGH! I CAN'T STAND IT!</p>

<p>OK, I did a search for "wind" and "blow" on this page. I didn't find either. Without taking a year to read through the entire thread, I think everyone's missed the most obvious problem with Rockwell's analysis. Addressing the OP's question directly...</p>

<p>IT'S ALL BOGUS!</p>

<p>Look carefully at the blur in the images. Doesn't it look kinda swooshy? Do the rollovers, and look at the branches of the trees. Some of the photos were taken in close enough proximity that it's not just the shadows. There's WIND. There's a WHOLE LOT of wind, and those branches are a'swingin' back and forth. Rockwell is shooting at around 1/150s. Sure, the images are going to be OK-sharp, but they're not going to be TACK sharp -- not with that wind at that shutter speed.</p>

<p>You can't draw any useful conclusions from his images with regard to sharpness. I also question whether there's any useful info with regard to any other aspects of the cameras' performance, as lighting conditions seem to have varied between batches of tests, settings are very different, exposure levels are different, and so forth. It's all bogus -- all for naught -- useless, like much of the content of his site.</p>

<p>If this observation of mine has saved you the price of switching over to whatever camera you might have thought won this analysis, please PayPal me at least 10% of your savings.</p>

<p>[lurk]</p>

<p>Hey, nobody ever accused Ken of being a photographer...</p>

<p>Here's why I'm shooting film these days.<br>

I was one of the first to get the Nikon D300, my first DSLR - after shooting 35mm Nikons for years.  Enjoyed the D300 for sure, but to be honest since I'm in the I.T. industry and already spend way too much time in front of computers, I was tiring of the computer work.  In addition, I found that digital had made me lazy - I stopped actually working out exposure and contrast in my head while shooting, instead "letting the camera figure it out" or doing the 'ol "click/view, click/view, click/view" - which was starting to bug me.  So I finally got tired of all that and started longing for the simplicity of shooting transparencies again - along with the required discipline.<br>

When Nikon announced the D700 I thought now there's a sweet idea - better quality, decent price, works fine w/ older lenses and since I figured it will all end up FF eventually and with the rumors of the D300 being replaced and its resale value likely declining I decided to sell the D300.<br>

Took advantage of fabulous deals on recent-vintage pro-level Nikon film bodies, found a good deal on film/processing, and started back in earnest with the film work. I love the fact I can "just go out and shoot", without having to deal with all the computer-time.  I love the "look" of the slides, seeing them on a (color-corrected) light table, or projected - that stuff just has a real timeless appeal to me.  And I'm starting to get my "photographer's chops" back, being forced to not to be as lazy as I had gotten with digital.<br>

Now I will probably eventually get a D700 or perhaps something even newer, but I'm not in the rush I once was.  I'm enjoying my own "film renaissance" for now.<br>

 <br>

 <br>

 </p>

<blockquote><strong>Dan South wrote -</strong> <br />

<p>Are there any titles that you'd recommend?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In addition to the title already mentioned by Hal, there's:</p>

<p><em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Photographic-Composition-Tom-Grill/dp/0817454276/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255757420&sr=1-1">Photographic Composition</a> </em> , 1990, by Grill and Scanlon<br>

<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Learning-See-Creatively-Composition-Photography/dp/0817441816/ref=pd_sim_b_4">Learning to See Creatively</a> </em> , 2003, by Bryan Peterson</p>

<p>Like, <em>How to Compose Better Photos</em> , both also provide a good introduction to the subject of composition.<br>

However, after that, the much more useful:</p>

<p><em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Perception-Imaging-Third-Photography-Seeing/dp/0240809300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255757342&sr=8-1">Perception and Imaging</a> </em> , 3rd Ed., 2007, by Richard Zakia</p>

<p>In my opinion, the last provides a real education in the subject and requires a couple of reads through and a lot of application to really grasp what it is saying.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Peter</p>

<p>Which is "better," chocolate or vanilla? I'm optimistic that we'll be able to have a firm answer to that question very soon. I like it when we can draw firm conclusions about personal preferences, it makes me very happy.</p>

<p>Canon or Nikon?</p>

<p>Catholic or Protestant?</p>

<p>Soft or Firm?</p>

<p>Fast or Slow? </p>

<p>Clearly as the onset of DIGITAL PAINTING made acrylic, dry pastel, enamel paint, encaustic, fresco, gouache, ink, light, oil pastel, spray paint, tempera, and watercolor obsolete? are we seeing these medias disappear?<br /> Film will exist as long as it is treated as an arts and craft mode of expression. Sadly PROFIT is what drives everything nowadays and this blocks new possibilities and further development of great film emulsions (hence further development will occur at a slower pace privately) Digital fits perfectly into consumerism state of mind. Digital this digital that.<br /> In my opinion Digital technology should help CREATE new types of photographic films, papers,enlargers, chemicals not displace the whole media.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sadly PROFIT is what drives everything nowadays and this blocks new possibilities and further development of great film emulsions (hence further development will occur at a slower pace privately)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So why did Kodak recently introduce Ektar 100 then offer it in 120 by popular demand?</p>

<p>I use both and love taking pictures regardless of the media. Film makes me slow down and the percentage of keepers is higher as I shoot less as the film format gets bigger.<br>

With BW film of moderately low speed (TMax 100) there is a lot of detail. With a Nikon scanner and an appropriate subject, well exposed and shot with one of my Leica lenses, I am happy with the look of 20x30 inch prints I have made. This is one such shot:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/8380967&size=lg<br>

I have tried the same shot in the same light with my D300 and either I blow out the highlights or can't recover the shadowed bricks without excessive noise. Film works well for this.<br>

In my studio, digi reigns supreme...and when everything is perfect I shoot a couple of shots with a Mamiya 645 or RZII which look great, also.<br>

New TMAX 400, by the way, can be scanned and printed nicely to 11x17. Tri-X I find less amenable to scan to large sizes as the grain is much more apparent and I stick to 8x12.<br>

Now, did somebody say they were giving away an S2?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Without taking a year to read through the entire thread<br /> (snip)<br /> You can't draw any useful conclusions from his images with regard to sharpness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, that was my conclusion, too, because there's no way to tell where the actual focal plane is in the photos. He may be comparing areas that are softened by <em>bokeh</em> effects. There, I saved you some reading.</p>

<p>Hal and Peter, thanks for the book recommendations. I'll head over to Borders or B&N and check them out. There's always more to learn!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rather than reading through everything...<br>

In most cases, digital is superior in terms of resolution, there are few cases of it not (discontinued films and the modern Adox CMS 20.. but then you need a scanner for it, or a good enough enlarger for optical prints anyway) on a 1:1 comparison, ie: 35mm digital vs 35mm film and grain vs noise.<br>

Motion picture film wins for grain size, as its designed for extremely fine granularity so it doesnt look like sand paper after its been through 3 or 4 generations of film to film then a final release print.<br>

Then you have negative films with their great dynamic range with their ability to hold highlights extremely well before blowing out - comparable to the Fuji S3 and S5 etc.</p>

<p>You also have development techniques to compress contrast, ie: develop shadows faster than highlights so you dont blow out higihlights - which can be applied to colour (particularly colour reversal with the b&w first dev) if youre really into it.</p>

<p>There are certain looks such as tonal response curves of certain films that are particularly lovely, one of my favourites is really expired Ektachrome.</p>

<p>"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1663928">Richard Karash</a> " that's a poor comparison imho as its misleading, the digital sensor is smaller than the film area, if you wanted a real comparison the same lens on both, then centre crop the film size to an APS-C frame and examine it, plus there are more updated sensors than that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rather than reading through everything...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Without taking a year to read through the entire thread, I think everyone's missed the most obvious problem</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why bother leaving a comment at all if you aren't going to read through the thread? It's possible that someone else has already addressed whatever comment you are about to make. More people should read through threads and decide if their input can really bring anything to the forum that hasn't already be discussed, before just spouting off the first thought that pops into their head.</p>

<p>Along that same line, you should search for answers to your questions before posting a new question in the first place that's already been discussed a hundred times, like "Film vs Digital"</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3917590">Dan Lee</a> , Oct 19, 2009; 05:39 a.m.<br>

Rather than reading through everything...<br>

...<br>

"<a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=1663928">Richard Karash</a> " that's a poor comparison imho as its misleading, the digital sensor is smaller than the film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>you provide nothing and yet you decide that its misleading. Many people are using sensors which are that size, and have you compared them yourself?</p>

<p>I happen to think its a good comparison and certainly shows that the two are close. Perhaps if you have a Full Frame digital it will exceed it ... by giving you all the parameters he allowed the reader to make a comparison and use their judgment on how that may apply to their equipment. If you have less than 10Mpixel full frame I'm sure that it remains a valid comparison</p>

<p>could you please produce some better comparison?</p>