Jump to content

SLR versus Phone versus film images


camerart

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I have a Canon EOS D600 camera plus one of my lenses being a Canon 10mm Glass macro. (Also lots of other smaller digital cameras)

 

I used to have my own Lab (home made) I could process 35mm to 1/2 plate film and print 24Inch wide prints, B/W, colour and transparency, I had the most brilliant time. I did this privately, but did make some money near the end. I moved house and never got the lab going again, sadly. I still have lots of negatives, which I hope to copy one day.

 

I was talking to my friend the other day and he was extolling the virtues of new smart phone images. As I don't know what the smartphone quality is, i couldn't add anything.

 

My question is how do all of these mediums compare, especially when it comes to detail?

 

Camerart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people who take pictures couldn't care less about the detail, but are only concerned with the content of the picture, so it really doesn't matter. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Let's face it, nowadays, many people are happy to watch a movie on their smart phones vice a nice, big theater screen, so they'd hardly care about how many hairs one might be able to make out on someone's head.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people who take pictures couldn't care less about the detail, but are only concerned with the content of the picture, so it really doesn't matter. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Let's face it, nowadays, many people are happy to watch a movie on their smart phones vice a nice, big theater screen, so they'd hardly care about how many hairs one might be able to make out on someone's head.

Hi J

I appreciate that, 'most people' probably haven't seen different qualities to compare, so are quite happy with with what they get, but I'm interested in comparisons of old and new image quality, that some of may have, so I can find out the differences.

 

I think you may be missing a point thinking about how many hairs on someones head, when detail can enhance an image in other ways.

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detail, as defined by lensmakers who value high resolution and contrast. low distortion and low flare, is usually significantly better with modern DSLRs and even m3/4 than smartphones. But image quality of smartphones is nothing to sneeze at...one can get decent enlargements by taking the usual precautions...steady camera, avoiding flare, clean lens, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smartphones can be made, by a user, to take very good pictures. When viewing these images on a screen, the difference in technical quality between them and a dslr or film camera will often not be apparent, though sometimes it will be quite apparent. When printing, especially beyond an 8x10, more differences in technical quality often (not always) become apparent. Sometimes, a particular photo actually looks better with the inherent technical look of a smartphone, because of the content and style of the photo. Sometimes, it simply reads as degraded quality, again, especially when printed. These are general observations, not rules set in stone.
There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience started taking black and white photos with a 620 (2 1/4 X 3 1/4) black and white photos and developing and printing at home in a closet converted to a darkroom. I pasted the results in albums. Then I moved away from home and about the same tome bought a 35mm camera and soon started using Kodachrome. I bought a projector and screen but realized that I preferred a hand held slide viewer in daylight. When Kodachrome was taken off the market I switched to digital cameras and looked at the pictures on my computer monitor. Then I got a cell phone which allows me to send photos directly to friends or look at them on the phone. I seldom look at any of my older photos and when I do I don't study the details. They serve only as memory prompts. I hope this helps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used my iPhone7s to shoot photos when I don't have my DSLR with me. I sometimes find that the photos in question are bordering on terrible for the reasons SCL and The Shadow have mentioned. My experience is that it can be more difficult to steady a phone than a SLR or DSLR due to their relative heaviness. To me, the chief disadvantage of using a cellphone is shooting in low light circumstances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seldom look at any of my older photos and when I do I don't study the details.

That's a good point and certainly a valid way to look at your older photos when you do. I tend to look at older family snapshots and vacation pics the same way. Sometimes degradation over time of those pictures actually works!

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

By the way, those of us concerned with details aren't concerned with details to the exclusion of the bigger picture and we don't concern ourselves with details simply to study them. Especially when it comes to non-snapshot type photos, I concern myself with details because they can have profound effects on the bigger picture, whether anyone else realizes the extent to which the details matter or not. Details have an overall effect on bigger picture even on someone who may not recognize their importance. A viewer's not thinking about details doesn't mean she won't be affected by them.

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cell phone images are surprisingly good, but are limited to a single focal length and poor low light and S/N ratio due to the small sensor size. Zooming is possible, but strictly digital, as is any image stabilization. Resolution varies, but 8 MP or more is not uncommon. Phones have the advantage of convenience, and the ability to share the results with others without the need of a computer. The best camera is the one you have in hand when the moment arrives. You are more likely to carry a cell phone than any other type of camera.

 

I wouldn't trade a real camera for any cell phone for landscapes, group shots and portraits. However I often take and "establishment" shot with a cell phone to record the exact location, and often the nearest community name.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The image quality of smartphones are very good, and for many people, is more than enough so as to eliminate the need for a dedicated camera (the main reason that the digital point and shoot market has cratered but for high end compacts). Most higher end phones have 12 mp, optical stabilization (all current Iphones and the Pixel 3 for example), and many have multiple cameras (with longer lenses) to provide better portrait background separation. Improvements in "computational photography" are designed to mitigate the negative aspects of those small sensors and increase their shooting envelope, especially in low light. I don't always have a camera with me but my phone is always in my pocket.

 

5 ways Google Pixel 3 camera pushes the boundaries of computational photography

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is how do all of these mediums compare, especially when it comes to detail?

 

When comparing between film and DSLR, it’s important to consider the role of lens in imparting detail, besides the recording medium. Apart from that, the detail retrieval of a DSLR will depend on the pixel resolution of the sensor, proportion of random noise to usable image information, in camera processing if using jpeg, and how the RAW conversion firmware handles the sensor data. The detail in film, on the other hand, will vary from film to film due to difference in technology. To my knowledge, the commercially available film that gives the highest detail is Velvia ASA 50. Most DSLRs won’t be able to match the level of detail retrieved in Velvia in conjunction with a fine resolving lens. However, all this is good to know and relevant to a professional who might enlarge his/her images to the level where such differences become apparent. For amateur photographers which most of us are, detail is not a practical factor that distinguishes between film vs DSLR. There is one thing though. In DSLR postprocessing, user intervention plays an important role in preserving detail when starting from the RAW file. The default setting for noise reduction works well most of the time, but not always. It is possible to improve detail retrieval by adjusting the noise settings in the RAW software manually. Here is an interesting but technical article on the question of detail between film vs digital: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

 

At present, a phone camera usually produces less detail than a DSLR or film due to the combination of tiny sensor and lens. The difference where the DSLR wins is in subtle details, like the fine wrinkles or pores in the skin. This is also partly due to the jpeg conversion software which cannot distinguish between noise and such subtle details. However, lack of detail doesn’t bother me that much as does the lack of dynamic range. At least in the iPhone, the way images are processed sometimes creates blown out highlights with no way to correct them in post processing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what kind of resulting images you want to produce. Film become niche product for enthusiasts and some pros who is looking for special look and qualities in the prints, Sally Mann still shooting film.

Cellphones mostly replaced cameras for ordinary folks, who were using camera for family snaps and printed them in Walmart as 6x4 prints for family albums, now it's all digital and exist till next phone purchase :( Cellphones were used for shooting some big gigs, mostly sponsored by cellphone companies.

And interchangeable lens digital cameras is still main stream for the pros and advanced amateurs for their versatility and excellent output quality of images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never worried too much about camera details. They all seem to work fine. I just shoot with my phone.

 

Maybe someday when cameras come loaded with curiosity, imagination, life experiences, reason, skill, ability to feel, etc., I'll pay more attention.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someday when cameras come loaded with curiosity, imagination, life experiences, reason, skill, ability to feel, etc.,

Ya musta got bad cameras - mine always came just as you described, from earliest days, plus they had / have viewfinders! I will say, you get fine results with your phone - neither cameras nor phones are for everyone.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Thanks for those really good answers.

 

Regarding the snapshot, where a moment in time is captured, such as sunsets, parties, friends, locations etc etc. I agree that most cameras including smartphones are plenty good enough. I have a 1/2 smart phone, that I've been using for years, with a 5MP camera, that I whip out for those situations.

 

My most fun period with a camera, was my 70s Pentax ME Super, with a pancake lens, and a 70-150 zoom lens. I think I enjoyed the taking more than the viewing, and did every experiment possible!! Occasionally though, I would get a really good and interesting bits of art, when I wished they were better detail quality.

 

Years later I bought a DeVere 1/2 plate enlarger, I told my mate. He had just bought a Kodak 1/2 plate camera. Talk about coincidence! Anyway, he lent it to me, and I studied Ansel Adams and his zone system. These cameras/film and tripod are heavy, so a day out in the forest with 6xfilms, was a trek, but it certainly made one concentrate before pressing the button. So I now have lots of B/W colour and colour transparency, large negatives.

 

In the above replies, film/digital detail comparison was discussed. I gathered that a good DSLR camera would be more or less fine, for copying 35MM film. I have a 35mm film transport from an old shop processing lab, that's been followed me around for years, that I could adapt for copying. (I also have a 35MM one that I am adapting for 8MM film copying)

 

When it comes to 1/2 plate copying, using the same DSLR, it seems I would have to make an XY plotter to make a matrix of 25 plus overlap, shots, for one film. I once cut a film into a 5X5 matrix, and made 25 prints, which looked really effective when pasted on a wall.

 

When I get time, I'll post a copy of a large print, with an accompanying, small section, to illustrate the detail, when detail is needed. (for those who haven't already seen what large format can do)

 

Thanks for all of the input.

 

C.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...