Anyone have a direct digital print/film print comparison I can look at?

I'm looking for 5x7-8x10 prints (same subject), one shot digitaly

(DSLR) and one shot on film. I'd like to see for myself if one is

better than the other, are they the same, do they have different

looks, whatever. I can buy the prints if they're cheap, or just pay

postage both ways for a look see. Can anyone help out?

 

Reason is simple, I'm tired of reading subjective descriptions and

want to see with my own two eyes.

 

thanks,

 

rivchap at ixpres dot com

Jeff,

For the price of a media card (or maybe perhaps even a borrowed one) you could walk into any decent camera shop, snap a few shots with whatever DSLR you wanted, then take the same shots with your own camera. Go home, print both and see if you can see any difference. I'm betting you wont be able to tell them apart.

<P>

Personally I think it all boils down to which <I>tool</I> you want to use, and for some reason (some) people have a hard time admitting that.

I'm not sure you could see the difference: 1) on an internet monitor image (you need to see the real thing), and 2) it would depend on the quality of both the film and digital print production.

 

This past year, I have been playing seriously with digital photography, and, as I've mentioned previously, I think that a digital print and a chemical print (from film) display a different visual "feel" (words escape me here), and neither one is better or worse than the other...they are just different, and I like them both.

 

I have what I consider to be a beautiful 5x7" digital print I made of two Calla Lilies with my digital camera on matte paper. The image is smooth and creamy with fine tonal transitions. It is very sharp but there is a smooth feeling of softness. I have it taped to my computer. Yesterday, I picked up about 350 quality proof prints from a wedding I shot last Saturday with Fuji film and Fuji Frontier processing. They are beautiful...but a bit different from what I would have captured with a digital camera.

 

I think that we can not make direct comparisons since I am convinced that digital and film images create a different aesthetic presentation.

 

I use both mediums much as a painter may sketch, watercolor, and work in oils. All good, but different.

 

I think of December 25, 2003 (Western holiday gift giving season) to be the death of film. In 2003, more digital cameras were sold than film cameras, Kodak is making radical changes in it's corporate goals and moving away from film to digital, all the mini-labs and drug store photo centers are bombarding us (in the USA at least) with ads promoting quick and easy digital camera downloads and prints without a computer. 2004 is the start of the digital age, big time.

 

I just hope that some forms of film will stay with us in the near future, especially for those of us who like to play with vintage cameras, medium format, and large format imaging. I still prefer 35mm film for weddings, though I know I will need to switch someday.

 

I don't think too many people use hand coated, wet emulsion glass plates much now days!

 

As suggested, you need to do the comparison yourself, especially so you can see the results "up close and personal!"

PS: I will totally give-in to digital when Randy Smith (http://www.holgamods.com/) creates a "DigiHolga!" (^O^)

I think Kodac is getting rid of their disposable film cameras. I don't think they will get

rid of their film as long as film cameras exist.

>I think Kodak is getting rid of their disposable film cameras. I don't >think they will get rid of their film as long as film cameras exist.

 

I doubt it. Disposable cameras are a HUGE cash cow and maybe the only part of the film market, except BW film, that is actually not shrinking.

 

feli

Check out luminous-landscape.com Micheal Reichmann does several comparisons in his Canon D30 and D1 articles of digital vs film. There are obvious differences. This is not a print comparison, but I still think you can learn a lot from it.

Not everone can afford a $1,000 digital camera, or even a $100 digital camera. The film market won't die. It will shrink, possibly quite dramatically, but it won't die.

There is a comparison <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a>. This article also seems like a reasonable assessment of film vs. digital.

Well, Jeff, if you'll accept inkjet from both film and digital - I can do that in a month or so, once the digicam arrives.

 

Unlike everyone but Stephen, I did notice you weren't talking about on-screen images, but real prints.

@Ken

 

Interesting comparision...first compares a 4x5" sheet with a 6 MP DSLR...then says 24x36 would eqaul 25MP. Ridiculous. Look at the pros getting rid of their Hassis for Canon DSLR's.

Thanks Andy.

Not necessarily ridiculous. Pros might be switching from Hassies to DSLRs for reasons other than pure image quality. Even if a DSLR provides comparable (not superior) image quality compared to medium format, the savings on processing, time, etc. could be enough for many pros to switch.

 

-------

 

"Interesting comparision...first compares a 4x5" sheet with a 6 MP DSLR...then says 24x36 would eqaul 25MP. Ridiculous. Look at the pros getting rid of their Hassis for Canon DSLR's."