Is there a situation where film is better?

<p>Archival ability?<br>

see <a href="http://www.wilhelm-research.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.wilhelm-research.com</a> for some data on those "archival" film images.</p>

<p>Platinum prints and color separations using the same, for example, are a little pricey these days but could provide true archival stability, insofar as assumptions like the continuation of our civilization are made.</p>

<p>Our new machine masters will no doubt see to the maintenance of digital data without our being involved.</p>

<p>I do think that digital has surpassed film in many ways, and that it has more to do with the steps in the entire process from the click of the shutter to the final print or image, rather than the quality of the image itself, which is at least partially a matter of taste - not to mention our skills as photographers and digital darkroom techs. It may be true that film emulsion is now at its best, but that's like saying that an actor's best performance was his best one, just before he died.</p>

<p>That said, I really hope that film stays around forever, as an artistic medium (watercolor vs. oil painting, anyone?), but not because of any disputable technical superiority. Every now and then, I drag out my beloved Olympus OM-1 and shoot a roll or two of BW, just as a reminder of "the good old days" of manual focus/aperture/shutter speed settings, the almost silent shutter, the manual film advance, etc. It's kind of like a Tesla driver taking a time out with a horse and buggy.</p>

<p>Momma, don't take my megapixels away...</p>

<p>After 3+ decades, "Film vs Digital" still attracts a crowd. Amazing!<br>

;~)<br>

Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>I do a ton of digital, but I still enjoy the "hands on" of film and my wet darkroom. Plus the scotch is more rewarding sipping while looking at wet prints or film hanging...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"IR photography that doesn't require altering your camera to snap shots..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some digicams don't need any modifications for infrared. Some older P&S digicams and dSLRs with weaker sensor filters can handle IR with just the usual on-lens IR filter(s).<br>

<br>

My old Nikon D2H can do IR with a combination of an ordinary 25A red filter and dual polarizers. Presumably a standard IR filter would work as well, but I already had the 25A and polarizers. It should work on my Olympus C-3040Z P&S digicam, which was among the Olympus digicams favored for IR photography several years ago without need for internal modifications.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Archival ability. That is the only true advantage of film that I can honestly think of."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>USB flash drives and media cards have proven impressively durable - some have been recovered from sea water immersion with images intact.<br>

<br>

However, film and prints retain an undeniable advantage - the contents are readily identifiable, and the light sensitive media and processing chemicals are low tech. Future generations can easily print or duplicate from negatives, positive film and prints.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> If both were left in safe deposit boxes side by side for 100 or even 300 yrs, I think there is about an equal likliehood you'd be able to recover usable images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fifty years perhaps. After 300, the data might be o.k. but what are you going to read it with?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>After 300, the data might be o.k. but what are you going to read it with?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...The same thing you would use today... a computer. Seriously. Ironically, it is probably the same tool you would use to 'read' a negative (ie. a computer with a scanner) -even today, much less 300yrs from now.</p>

<p>All in all, I would argue that fears over the inability of computers to read data written 20, 50, 100, or even 300 yrs in the past are largely overblown. In 100 yrs Even if the quantum crystalline workstation surgically implanted into your brain can't read an ancient archival USB stick, or archival DVD-R directly, as long as our society uses computers, I am 100% confident that there will be ways to read old digital images and files - and some Chinese company somewhere will make a port to plug that ancient USB stick into that beams the pictures right into your brain...<br>

...Seriously, for a couple benjamins, I could buy the hardware to allow my desktop to interface with ANY memory media EVER made widely available - whether that is a floppy disk, a DAT tape, old HDDs, even the Data cassette tapes or Laserdiscs. Not saying it would be completely simple, but certainly easily doable.</p>

<p>Laserdisc video data was analog.</p>

<p>don't know if one can say digital is better, it's progress though, that's how I see it (no pun intended). But I'm still an almost daily film user. I still have a little stash of frozen film, so that feeds my pursuit of film fun. When I'm shooting film though it is a bit like time travel, a 30 year old camera, old (pristine) Canon FD glass, and time really, really slows down. You savor the moment instead of the rush of instant gratification of digital. For the sake of sharing "on the spot" in a social setting, digital is best of course. I think the question is "are digital pictures better than analog pictures" ? There are definitely more people out in the photo cosmos today shooting on their DSLRs or the smart phones but are those pictures really better than if someone was taking the time to make a film image ? Quantity vs quality. I do know that living and learning through the "film" age has made me a better digital photographer.</p>

<p>I'd like something like a Fuji X100s <strong>without</strong> the LCD. That would take a dent on the instant gratification thing. Maybe one could use the EVF to check if exposure and focus had gone OK, or use wifi and a phone app for that.</p>

<p>Film is excellent for star trails. Long exposures without the need to stack images. Long exposures in the cold where batteries die and digital & film battery dependant shutters die.<br>

Multiple exposure images are often much better done with film where you can get all the elements on one sheet of film without the need for computer layering.<br>

If it works for you it is worth it. </p>

<p>Maybe with Black & White Medium Format. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/modern-bw.htm. <br>

It also depends on your skill level. If you are a film guru, and know how to use film, you can produce some stunning results that may rival your digital. I have some film shots from Agfa 25 B&W taken with an old Yashica twin lens reflex camera back in the early 90s. Had to use a light meter and a tripod (no on board computers-LOL). I still can't reproduce the level of detail, and the richness of tone from the film with my digital equipment. Something about the black and white seems better with the film. To get these results you do have to know how to use film. There's a learning curve if you're coming from digital where the on board computer does most of the work for you. To pick up an old camera and a roll of film and take shots and run it up to Sams, isn't going to be a good comparison.</p>

Film has an advantage for certain situations where a large "sensor" is needed. While I shoot a lot of digital images with

tilted or shifted lenses it is much easier on my Fuji Gx680 due to the size and clarity of the image in the viewfinder. Of

course with large format there is even more of a gap.

 

For most uses the resolution gap is not that important as in both cases the resolution is adequate for the likely image

sizes that are produced.

 

While I mainly shoot digital I do find that I prefer the results of a completely film based process when shooting black and

white. With colour film I generally scan the negative or positive - with black and white I still prefer the results of paper and

an enlarger.

 

Digital is clearly more convenient and has "won" the battle.

 

I have found that when I taught my kids to shoot they learned a lot more with a manual focus film camera than with a

DSLR (although with a digital Leica their learning was also very good). I don't think this is due to a inherent film benefit -

merely to the fact that with an old MF camera and almost no automation the photographer has to understand what is

happening and take care with the process.

 

Interestingly I find it surprising how people don't see basic image flaws. My personal favourite is how people will not

notice a TV show in the wrong format - usually 4:3 stretched to fit 16:9 which is common in hotels these days. I used to

keep a screen saver image taken with a terrible compact camera - the image looked sharp and bright (it was the

mountains by my home) and most people thought it was a good image. In fact the lens was at its widest setting and had

seriously distorted the image edges. Almost no one noticed until this was pointed out - in general those that did notice

immediately were older.

<p>I have almost completely transitioned to digital. However, I keep trying to duplicate the smooth mid-gray tonal distributions prints of a few of my favorite snow scene photos, where a snow field is the main subject, that were taken with a Fuji GS645s camera using Ilford XP2 120 film. I scanned the negatives using a Nikon 9000 scanner. Although my digital printing technique keeps improving, I still have a ways to go before these prints look as good as what I accomplished in my darkroom a dozen or so years ago. Other prints from scanned negatives, without smooth mid-grays dominating the images, look mostly better than what I accomplished in the darkroom.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...film handles highlights much better. But I've always put that down to my own ineptitude with the medium.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my experience, slide film is a unforgiving beast. Overexpose it as much as a half a stop and it will blow out your highlights.</p>