Film - Digital Comparison

<p>My son has a science project and he chose the topic of comparison of film and digital photography. He may overestimate my knowledge of this subject. Actually, he does. Could anyone direct me to articles or opinions on this subject? I am, at this point, surmising that film delivers more detail in enlargements (assuming away scanner limitations) than digital for the average 35mm camera. Is that correct?</p>

<p>No, it's not correct. Search the archives for film versus digital discussions; there have been a few. You'll get a lot of opinions, and hopefully some leads to objective comparisons. Others may have those at their fingertips and will respond to your question. [bTW, that's a huge factor you're dismissing regarding scanners.)</p>

<p>If you do a fair comparison you should not use a scanner. Film photography wasn't meant to be scanned. Film at its best is when you either project the slide directly or printing the negative or slide digitally not scanning. <br>

Good luck to your son for picking such a subject.</p>

<p>Hi Franklin,<br>

Without beating this subject to death and then some, not knowing the specific assignment I would stress to him that this is a "comparison" not a "which is better" project.<br>

And I agree...good luck with the project!</p>

<p>Thank you Mark. I don't know which is better but I can tell they are different. So a comparison is the objective. If we achieve that we will be fortunate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Film at its best is when you either project the slide directly or printing the negative or slide digitally </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Explain please how I can do that and what equipment I should acquire for the purpose. <br>

Thank you!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Search the archives for film versus digital discussions; there have been a few</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stephen was ironically understating the number of such discussions. As you will see on searching, there have been a lot. Mostly heat, little light.</p>

<p>Although for a real comparison, you should print the film using an enlarger, although it's nearly impossible these days to find anyone except a student literally using film who will do this for you for any price.<br>

There's a recent, mostly non-illuminating, thread on the issue of digital prints from negatives.</p>

<p>So long as the conditions of what is compared are made explicit and clear - honestly - you can probably use scans of film from any local shop that still does film developing ( that is C-41 color negative or chromogenic B&W) to compare with digital.</p>

<p>It is going to be a real problem to control variables, and that's not a good thing for a science project. Your son will need to put some real thought into how to do this and how to write it up. Otherwise any half-intelligent science teacher (or judge if it's a fair) will likely rip it to shreds if it tries to gloss over the difficulties.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I always wonder where the "film must be projected" meme comes from. Professional film photographers moved to digital scanning and printing long before moving to digital capture. Some still use film, and most of them also still use digital processing / printing.</p>

<p>Galen Rowell, for example, was publishing articles on the superiority of scanning and printing digitally in the late 1990's, before DSLRs or even film scanners became affordable for the masses. I've been to the galleries of several large format film shooters recently, and they all scan and print digitally.</p>

<p>I enjoy darkroom work and have great respect for those who have mastered it. But if push comes to shove and you need every last line pair and stop of dynamic range on a print, you slap the film onto a scanner. The scanner workflow requires just as much care as the darkroom, and good equipment to match. But it is better.</p>

<p>your son may also overstimate the complexity of what he's getting into although, if you get through all that heat that JDM points to it gets a lot clearer. Which means that in itself it's not that complex after all.</p>

<p>While for most people it seems to be limited to an either/or option the truth of the matter is that it's something like comparing <a href="http://www.hansstruijkfietsen.nl/img/product/PersonalBike_SpecDelivery_N3_U_08_NL%2811%29.jpg"><strong>this</strong></a> and <a href="http://bikesplaza.nl/media/catalog/product/a/f/afbeelding_3.jpg"><strong>this</strong></a>. Both are suited for the job but both have got some unique qualities that smart people take advantage of instead of blasting away at what they don't use (or in many cases don't even know). The bike thing is a metaphorical simplification I know, but you get the point.</p>

<p>Daniel has a point. The most notable difference is the dynamic range but it's not a problem for most photographers who shoot digital. Besides, there are ways around that. Apart from that most people don't even know what a fine art print looks like let alone how to produce one.</p>

<p>The biggest difference is that since the introduction of digital a lot more people got into photography because it got a lot easier to produce acceptable to perfectly exposed photos. That's because real-time feedback came with it and chiptechnology i.e. multiple segment light readings seems to be able to correct for a lot of mistakes. About 95% of photography is perfectly to produce with full automatic settings. Most photographers will argue that the really good results are to be found into the remaining 5%.<br /> The impact of the above, not just on photographers but on society as a whole can't be overestimated.</p>

<p>Another notable difference is ISO. When loading a film on the whole one is bound by a preset ISO setting. On a digital camera one is able to change that with every image. It's surprising though how many people get overly excited from ever increasing ISO capability like it's the holy grail. Sure there are circumstances where it's nice being able to shoot at ISO 6400 but personally I prefer the lowest ISO setting I can get away with.</p>

<p>In the end the real difference lies in accessibility and I think that is a good thing especially when you consider that quality criteria, such as they are, need to be seen in the light of usage and intent of the photography itself. Not all people who shoot a lot are photographers. Indeed, only a relatively small portion is.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Remember this is a <strong>science project</strong>, not a <strong>literature review</strong>. Your son is expected to do some experiment scientifically, himself, with some original idea and then come to some conclusion of his own and somehow convince others</p>

<p>What some folks said about making an objective comparison ("what are the differences") rather than a subjective comparison ("which is better") is really good advice. While both can be designed as experiments, the first can involve just your son honing in on ways to make an objective comparison, while then second would have him interviewing many people expressing their opinions on a variety of digital-film comparisons. It's the difference between physical sciences versus social sciences, and a physical science experiment would be much more manageable for a young person.</p>

<p>I'll offer an example of a comparison I once did: a digital and film photos taken minutes apart using identical apertures, shutter speeds, and ISO values. If I were to do this as a full-fledged experiment, I might consider using a range of shutter speeds (one variable at a time -- the hallmark of a well-designed experiment!) and a variety of colors and/or subjects.</p>

<div></div>

<p>What factors is he planning to compare? Digital wins hands down in cost, and ease of use. And small to moderately enlarged digital and film prints are basically indistinguishable from each other. The newer high MP digital cameras are capable of bigger prints than 35MM film. So that assumption is no longer valid.</p>

<p>The comparison of: characteristic curves, color reproduction, resolution, contrast, sharpness etc. These might be worthy of a comparison. But to the lay person's or expert eyes, there really is little difference in the images and prints themselves.</p>

<p>How old is your son? You need to think about an age appropriate project. </p>

<p>Question #1: What do you want to compare? Idealy you might want to compare a digital sensor to a film sensor witrh everything else the same. You could do that if you have a full frame DSLR and a matching film SLR so you can use the same lens. It should be a good prime lens to avoid compromising the results. You will still have to compromise the comparison by introducing scanning into the film path. A top quality scanner with 4000 lines per inch will capture essentially everything the film can record.</p>

<p>If you want to compare systems, the job is easier (and perhaps les meaningful). This would be more appropriate for younger children. Pick a digital camera and a film camera and shoot the same scene (or several scenes) with both. Get prints made the way you normally would with that system. Then compare the prints.</p>

<p>Question #2: How do you want to judge results? The stiffest test is usually a large print (at least 8x10. 16x20 would be better). While this is a tough evaluation, this is not the way most images are viewed. 4x6 prints are more typical, but it will be harder to find image quality differences. (It will still be easy to see tone scale and color reproduction differences.) A scientific comparison might involve shooting resolution targets. but you could also shoot a typical scene and then have "normal" subjects rate their preferences.</p>

<p>Put in the simplest terms, in the parts of the system that are different - film is a chemistry based medium and digital is a medium based on electronics.</p>

 

<p>Boy, this is probably one of the most complex subjects to choose. There are so many subjective factors that have to be footnoted that it could become totally daunting if done with precision and good scientific procedures.</p>

<p>But I will say this, if it is only based on what something might look like in an enlargement, digital will probably win (if the original formats are the same). Below is an example of an area taken from the equivalent of a 40x60 inch print from a 35mm dslr (1dsmkIII). I think most would agree that the grain of film would have compromised the detail to quite a degree here--even with slower films--and this level of detail would be want.</p>

<p>I am not going to comment on what I see as a lot of side issues, but although I prefer film (subjective) in many ways, I shoot almost exclusively with digital cameras these days (convenience)--and I shoot a lot and often. In addition to convenience though, digital is just more flexible. I often find myself shooting something I know would be impossible if I were using only film, but that is a longer discussion as it would entail things I know would be better with film IMO (generally also a change in format).</p><div></div>

<p>I would consider writing a paper on digital versus film, perhaps focus on the process stage; why, with so much available with hardware (computers, monitors, storage) and software this topic can be a foundation for an interesting paper.</p>

<p>The process stage can include film, but carry out the process stage with film using a darkroom, what can be accomplished. I still have a darkroom set up, I can escape there every so often and I find one of my best darkroom friends is a garbage can! Ha!</p>

<p>The paper could also include the viewing stage where so many ways of viewing digital are available versus a darkroom print. Sure the negative could be scanned but carry the film all the way through using only analog,</p>

<p>As long as I'm thinking, it's morning and my brain is still working!, the time element could be mentioned as to how long it takes from capture to viewing with film versus digital. It takes time to develop and print/or scan film where with digital it doesn't take me very long to go from RAW capture, to process and viewing as, for me time is money and I work hard to get it right in camera.</p>

<p>Hope this helps you.</p>

<p>A science project usually goes into the depth of a problem and should probably involve some controlled experiments, as mentioned in several of the replies. While dynamic range, resolution and other final aspects of what makes film and digital different are all very important for a photographer and for the final result, in a science project I would be more interested in what is the <strong>source</strong> of these differences.<br>

The very basics of the chemical reactions that allow film to record light should be investigated as well as the physical principles of electronic sensors (how a photomultiplier works, its efficiency, and so on). Then, to prove or disprove a hypothesis about how the two media work, an experiment needs to be planned, done and the results recorded and interpreted. Understanding the principles of how these things work can help later in various ways unrelated to photography.</p>

<p>This discussion has really helped me see how we are going to have to narrow the comparison carefully. He is only 13 so we have some latitude here but we want it to be empirical and interesting. We do need a hypothesis. Perhaps we can find a thesis involving dynamic range or exposure latitude that could be controlled in an experiment of some kind. </p>

<p>Let's sidestep the impossible-to-resolve resolution debate for a moment and compare film photography to digital photography on a number of practical dimensions.</p>

<p><strong>Composition</strong></p>

<p>Composition works the same whether the photographer uses a film camera or a digital camera. The only thing to note is that many digital cameras have a "crop factor" that modifies the angle of view of lenses. "Full frame" digital SLRs have sensors that match the size of 35mm film. On these cameras, a 24mm lens will have the same angle of view as on a 35mm film camera. The majority of digital cameras have sensors that are SMALLER than a frame of 35mm film. In this case, the 24mm lens offers the same perspective (in terms of subject distance), but the effective angle of view will be smaller. When using a crop-frame sensor, it's as though the photographer printed the full-frame image and then cropped each edge to leave only the center of the image.</p>

<p><strong>Determining Exposure</strong></p>

<p>Most digital cameras offer tools that can provide instant feedback on exposure settings. With a film camera, the photographer will have to wait until the film is developed in order to know whether the exposure will work out as they intended.</p>

<p>Digital cameras feature image review. This gives the photographer a chance to look at a rendition of photo almost immediately after it's captured. (The rendition uses options that the photographer has set in the camera: contrast, color saturation, etc.). A caveat is that the image might appear to be too bright if the ambient lighting is very dark, or vice versa. Therefore, image review is more useful for judging compositional choices than for exposure choices.</p>

<p>Digital cameras also feature a histogram that shows the density of captured information across a scale from dark to light. Another common feature is a "blinking highlights display" that shows areas of the image (in Image Review Mode) that have exceeded the capacity of the sensor to capture detail. There are varying theories about how best to use these tools. Further, the histogram and blinking highlights displays are based on an 8-bit JPEG rendition of the image and may not fully represent the data captured by the sensor. As a result, some time and study is required in order to use these tools effectively.</p>

<p>Film cameras do not give immediate feedback on exposure settings. The photographer must meter the scene carefully. One technique uses an incident meter to measure that amount of light that's illuminating the scene. (A variation of this technique can be used for flash photography.) A more common method is to use the camera's built-in meter to note the amount of light reflected b the brightest and darkest areas of the scene as well as the most important feature (e.g. the face in a portrait shot). Care must be taken, as not all materials reflect the same amount of light. Snow reflects more light than green grass, which in turn reflects more light than a black tuxedo. These details must be considered when making the exposure.</p>

<p><strong>Exposure Latitude</strong></p>

<p>A given film (or digital sensor) can record a fixed amount of variation between the lightest and darkest details in the scene. If a film (such as color reversal film) can only capture five stops of detail and the scene meters at eight stops of difference from darkest to lightest, some detail will be lost during the exposure. The photographer has to decide which details are important to capture accurately and which can be buried in deep shadows (for a Rembrandt-like effect) or scorched highlights.</p>

<p>The photographer must know the latitude of his chosen medium and apply that to his exposure calculations. For example, print film typically has more latitude than slide film, and black and white print film offers more latitude than most color print film. Digital sensors vary in latitude as well.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams developed the Zone System and customized development recipes to help him match the latitude of the scene to the latitude of the films and plates that he used in his photography. His books explain this approach in great detail. Photographers who used slide films such as Kodachrome or Velvia for their work used special graduated neutral density filters in order to darken bright areas of the scene enough to be recorded on the same slide as the darker details. Digital photographers use the same techniques plus specialized post-processing techniques such as exposure blending and HDR photography in order to maximize what can be represented in a single image.</p>

<p><strong>Noise, Dynamic Range, and Long Exposures</strong></p>

<p>Each pixel in a digital sensor has electrons (electric current) running through it as it's capturing an image. Sometimes electrons from one pixel are interpreted by neighboring pixels as light. This results in and image cluttered with colored dots. Photographers refer to these dots as "noise." Modern sensors have been engineered to eliminate some of this noise, but it's still a factor. In some cases it can be removed with special software, whether in the camera or later in post-production. Noise is especially prevalent in long digital exposures of several seconds or longer. Film cameras do not suffer from noise, and therefore can be more practical for extremely long exposure such as the capture of star trails in the night sky.</p>

<p><strong>Reciprocity Law Failure</strong></p>

<p>It's possible to create two equivalent exposures with different camera settings that expose the film or the sensor to the same amount of light. For instance, 1/500th @ f/4 is equivalent to 1/125 @ f/8. For the latter exposure, the shutter was open for four times as long, but the area of the aperture was only one-fourth as large, so the light that enters the camera is the same in each case. Hence the Reciprocity Law: We can increase the time that the shutter is open as long as we decrease the size of the aperture by an equivalent ratio, and the two exposures will be equivalent.</p>

<p>However, for film, Reciprocity Law doesn't work for extremely long (or short) exposures. The film will need more light in these cases than the normal calculations would suggest. If a light meter suggests a 60-second shutter speed, the film photographer will have to add extra time, or the image will be too dark. The shutter speed in this case might have to be two minutes or longer.</p>

<p><strong>Strobe (Flash) Photography</strong></p>

<p>The immediate feedback of digital photography is helpful when setting up complex strobe lighting setups. In the past, quick-developing Polaroid film was used to show the results of lighting setups prior to committing the image to a film that would then have to be developed in the lab.</p>

<p><strong>Color Correction</strong></p>

<p>Light does not always contain the same mix of colors. Midday sunlight contains a lot of blue. Shade on a sunny day contains even more blue. Incandescent lighting has a strong orange/yellow cast. Digital cameras have a White Balance feature that lets the camera adapt to different colors of light. Film photography requires the use of special filters in order compensate for these color shifts. This is especially critical when using color reversal (slide) films which tend to be very color-sensitive.</p>

<p><strong>Color Filters for B&W Photography</strong></p>

<p>B&W film shooters sometimes use colored filters to emphasize or de-emphasize parts of a scene. For instance, a red filter makes red objects look blight and all other colors look dark. With the red filter attached, red roses will look as though they were original white or very light in color, and a blue sky will look black. Digital photographers can create a similar effect by capturing their images in full color and boosting or lowing selective colors before converting the image to monochrome.</p>

<p><strong>Post-Processing</strong></p>

<p>Film contains a light-sensitive compound that will be destroyed if it's exposed to too much light. Film must be developed and "fixed" before it can be handled in normal well-lit conditions. Development can be done in a lab on the the photographer's own darkroom if he or she wants to take full control of the process.</p>

<p>Digital cameras create computer files. Some versions of these files are already "developed" by the camera and saved in JPEG format. These files can be viewed and shared immediately. Digital cameras can also create RAW files that represent the data that was captured by the sensor. RAW files are then "developed" on a computer using specialized software such as Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw or Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. </p>

<p><strong>Editing</strong></p>

<p>Digital photographs can be edited immediately and extensively. Lens distortion can be corrected. Colors can be adjusted. Images can be cropped and straightened. Skin imperfections can be effectively removed. In some cases, edits can be automated so that they can be applied to many images at once.</p>

<p>Edits in film photography have to be made manually for each image and may require a great deal of skill.</p>

<p><strong>Printing</strong></p>

<p>Digital images can be printed from the same software that's used to develop or catalog them. They can be printed from the photographer's own printer, or they can be sent to a lab where "large format" printers can create many copies or huge exhibition prints.</p>

<p>Film images can be printed in a number of ways. The most common way or printing a negative is through use of an enlarger. However, B&W shooters, particularly those who use larger film sizes can make very high quality contact prints or their negatives. </p>

<p>Slide film was once printed with the Cibachrome for exhibition prints, or the slide was photographed onto and "internegative" of print film for access to standard wet-printing techniques. These days it's more common to digitize a film image (positive or negative) with a scanner. The resulting film can be edited in Photoshop, et al., and then printed in the same manner as any image that was captured with a digital camera.</p>

<p><strong>Durability and the Elements</strong></p>

<p>Film can be damaged by extreme heat, cold, or moisture. Film photographers have to take measures to store their film so that it won't be damaged. Digital sensors are a bit more rugged, but they tend to collect dust when camera lenses are changed. Film collects dust, as well, but each new roll is clean when it enters the camera. Digital sensors must be cleaned on a regular schedule in order to remove the dust that they collect.</p>

<p>Film cameras tend to last a long time, because the recording media are separate. The digital sensor is built into most digital cameras. When they photographer wants to upgrade his sensor, he must replace the entire camera in most cases (except for very high-end systems with detachable digital "backs").</p>

<p>I did my own rather basic comparison of Velvia 100 with a Nikon D200:<br>

http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/DigitalVersusFilm/Velvia100-versus-D200.html<br>

As you can see I used a microscope to avoid the criticism that a slide/film scanner degrades the image from slides/film. There are of course many other comparisons online.</p>

<p>And you also have fine grain slow B&W film, and fast film e.g. ISO 1600. So you can compare high ISO performance. Then there is white balance. And cost. And convenience. Etc.</p>