Digital seems to be overrated

I'm a photography student, currently in my second year of full time

study and have been using the school's canon 10d digital and both

35mm and med format film, which I often scan to the computer or print

myself in a darkroom. My question is to all photographers out there

who are advocates of digital photography. Why all the hype? the

quaility is not as good as film. What I mean is, from my own

observation and from talking to professional photographers, it is

clear that taking a photo on a pro/semi-pro digital camera, then

sharpening the soft pixels using softwhare just doesn't compare to a

wet print straight off a slide/neg. When I observe a darkroom/wet

print through a loupe - and I realize this irelevant to the average

viewer - there is a whole new world of detail that cannot be dicerned

by the naked eye, but this is not so with a digital print, as they

are generally printed at around 300dpi. I just don't understand why

so many people from photo.net are changing to digital and claiming

better quality prints, are there others out there who feel the same

or am I ignorant?

<p> I think that <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml">this article</a> started it all.<p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

All such considerations I have seen until now have compared slides with digital. I have not

yet seen anybody arguing that digital sensors are better than b&w film. I only do b&w and

to this date, no sensor is giving me an urge to change. That is true for resolution/

definition and even more true for dynamic range.

 

Also, it seems that everybody forgets that a digital camera is like a fixed film camera.

 

Anyway, the debate is a bit useless, digital has its uses, it *is* superior to film in a number

of situations, especially if you count all the costs for heavy shooters like big studios. What

creates the success of digital, imho, is that for most usages, it gives enough perceived

quality. In the end, that's what matters.

 

Personnaly, I shoot on film and then scan and print on a dedicated b&w inkjet printer.

Danny, I don't think I can be called a digital advocate, but it doesn't take much experience to realize that digital SLRS in the 6 MP range produce overall considerably higher quality images than 35 mm colour film. They have much more accurate colours, automatic white balancing, and they're noise-free for practical purposes at slow ISO speeds. This means that in the range of spatial frequencies that are visible in an 8x12 inkjet print, digital produces better contrast at these frequencies, which essentially means that the prints show detail better than with 35 mm color film, which shows grain at these frequencies. At even higher frequencies, 35 mm film may give more fine detail than 6 MP digital, but all of this is cluttered in grain, which in practice means that the rendition of the details of the scene are distorted and become a muddy mess. There are some 35 mm films such as Velvia which not only distort colours but they also oversharpen the edges of the image, produces and artificial sense of high sharpness, which the digital user can control completely as there is no intrinsic sharpening in the raw data that is obtained.

 

I feel that you just haven't used a good digital camera, with a decent modern inkjet printer.

 

Because of the excellent colour rendition, wide dynamic range (because the noise is low), and consistency, my odds for wall quality prints have increased by maybe a factor of 5 per day of shooting. And it's not because I don't know how to use film, I do.

I shoot black and white film, develop it myself, scan, and print using MIS inks -- it's nice enough output in its own right, and I don't have space for a darkroom right now...

 

Having said that, you should realize that "best" rarely wins out over "good enough but cheap." Digital is getting better, but it at that "good enough" point for almost all situations right now. If you're a professional (think wedding photographer with 1,000-2,000 frames per wedding) and can work out a reasonable workflow for your images, you can save a ton of money on film/processing by moving to digital capture. Throw in some positive marketing related to digital (individualized keepsakes handed out at the wedding using images captured at the wedding, for instance, or a DVD given to the bride 'n groom before they leave on their honeymoon, or near-instant online viewing of images) and it's an easy decision to make.

 

I'd seriously consider it if there was a reasonable digital rangefinder choice out there. At least for one body, anyway...

"I realize this irelevant..."

 

You've answered your own question. Vast hordes of people simply do not care about the nits lovingly groomed here, no matter how emotionally attached their owners to them.

 

That I, for instance, majorly like being able to read the book titles or signs in the backgrounds doesn't mean most people even notice they're in the shot.

The main thing is cost savings,not image quality!Although the current crop of high end DSLR's can make an 11" print that will cut you with its sharpness.A lot of PJ wedding shooters "bang out" 500-3,000 images at a wedding.Traditional shooters will average between 100-500 images.The math here is quite simple,$4 a roll for film,and $10 to prolab process,equals $14 a roll for 36.A friend of mine shoots over 100 weddings a year,by having 1 or 2 part timers work for him.One hundred weddings cost approximately (based on 10 rolls each)$14,000.00 a year for film & developing!Currently the Nikon or Canon cameras run around $1500,add $500 for glass,and another $1000 for a lap top,this equals around $5000 for a 2 camera,2 lens set-up.In this example,my friend can save $9000 in his 1st year!

Location photography - Using digital is far easier to plan your daily shoot. You can review and delete your images every evening and plan the next days shoot accordingly, if you mucked up on one topic you can reshoot the next day, or move on to the next shoot location.

 

Using Film you have to wait for development before deciding what has worked and what hasn't, so when on a foreign location shoot, unless you process every evening (err how?) you are at an immediate disadvantage.

 

This is a significant advantage of digital over emulsion photography.

 

As you are aiming to be a pro, this immediacy of image feedback is what the digital revolution is all about.

Two words: Speed, Feedback

<<from my own observation and from talking to professional photographers, it is clear that taking a photo on a pro/semi-pro digital camera, then sharpening the soft pixels using softwhare just doesn't compare to a wet print straight off a slide/neg. >>

 

Glad to hear that some professional photographers and even a rank student understand that concept, which is ignorantly and stubbornly flamed and denied on the internet. Digital capture does look better than scanned film using a home scanner, but not a drum scanner and not wet prints. The problem is, there are so many people that have been perfectly willing to dummy down, that the availaility of wet printing (unless you do it yourself)has dwindled to almost zilch, and not that many labs have invested in drum scanners, so these days shooting film and having it printed commercially may in fact be inferior to digital capture, but not because digital capture has anywhere near the resolution of film, which it does not...at least not until maybe you get to 22MP $30,000 digital backs.

One reason for going digital: "Full control of the printing process".

 

A wedding photographer's opinion on this subject (see the "Advantages of digital" section):

 

http://www.camerahobby.com/Wedding-EquipmentDigital.htm

 

However, "full control of the printing process" and "image quality of digital versus film" are two different, unrelated subjects.

 

Just my 0.2 cents.

The simple fact is that the highest possible resolution/sharpness is NOT the only factor to consider in approaching photography. I sometimes wonder at photographers who nitpick over whether you can make out the finest little detail in a 16 x 20 print, when the fact is that anyone looking at the print from more than eight inches away would not really notice whether that particular detail is "sharp" as opposed to "razor-sharp."

 

Digital cameras, especially the SLR's, now can provide images that for MOST purposes are quite adequately sharp, i.e., only people who are looking oh, so closely will be able to point out the differences between a good digitally based enlargement and a good film-based enlargement. It's within this context that the advantages of digital then can be discussed: immediate feedback, convenience of not having to buy, load, and process film, the maleability of the image files via computer programs like Photoshop, and the ease of creating prints at home without a lot of darkroom equipment.

 

If you (Danny) have a strong feeling that for you film seems superior, then you should use film. It's evident that your style of photography demands a level of detail in the final product that at this point digital can't provide. But keep in mind that this is NOT the case for many, or even most photographers these days.

Shooting film can allow a photographer practically the same advantage as far as control over image quality, especially if you bypass the printing stage at the lab when it comes to negative film. I get my film processed at Walmart- $2.97 to process and 36 exposure roll only and do one 4x6 index print. I then take my negatives home , pick out the keepers and scan them myself with my dedicated film scanner. Once in the computer the same Photoshop adjustments can be made, giving me a much larger JPEG file for printing at virtually any size without having to rez up a file like I would need to do if I wanted a 16x20 from a file captured with my Digital Rebel.

 

The additional plus is I still have my negative that someday will able to be improved even further as the technology evolves. Digital files created today with my Digital Rebel will always be at the same quality level as they were when captured. Today that quality is quite good. Down the road I'll probably be more impressed with images from today where I have negatives to work with, because original analog data has always been able to be improved with new technology. I know today I am much more impressed with the Fleetwood Mac "Rumors" album from CD than that same music through my old 8-track tape player.

Danny - pretty much cost, as far as I can tell.

 

Understand the the PN crowd here is pretty darn sophisticated in their use of cameras - digital or film cameras. But I'll use my own parents/family as an example of consumers.

 

As a group, my family members don't care too much about pictures - plain and simple. There are great MF negs from the 1950's, but that's a side effect of the consumer technologies of the day. Over the years, my own parents dabbled with Polaroid (under the armpit) and various inexpensive cartridge film cameras. Most of those shots are now long gone. Polaroid prints long faded. Some negatives tossed during the creation of albums and cleaning up the closet. You get the idea.

 

For these folks, a digicam represents cheaper pictures, which is just fine to them. They never looked at MTF charts, worried much about archival quality, and what not. They'd get good pics and bad ones, but it was pretty much a mystery. So digicams pretty much give them the same quality they ever got.

 

Pro's (and businesses) have other cost issues. I don't imagine it's real easy making a living as a photographer, so cost savings that yield pocketable margins should be a big plus. But here, eventually (!) I imagine new price competition in the market will pass on these savings to consumers for a net draw.

 

Many folks just like new technology. I'm a technologist, and I have faith that someday digital capture will surpass film in quality, mostly due to lower cost large sensors. I hope the dynamic range issue is addressed as well by the camera companies. We'll see. Time will tell, etc.

 

But in the meantime, I shoot film. I'm proudly an amateur, but I get a kick out of my snapshots in a way most of my family members (and presumably, most consumers) do not. Given the nature of your post, I'd say go and shoot film and enjoy it.

 

Personally, I'm looking for new photographic technologies that give me even better quality for constant dollars spent. Or heck, even for a little more $$. For my own interests in photography, that is progress.

 

In any case, really good photographers (alas, not me, but I'm working on it) can work wonders with a disposable camera. So film or digital, happy shooting!

That is EXACTLY my parents, to a T. For years a Kodak Instamatic 126 camera, with the old flash cubes. Now, mom did do an excellent job of creating photo albums, but most all are of a type material that will eventually harm the photos enclosed, and where the negatives went are anyone's guess.

Have you ever tried to make a good Type-R print from slide? It's a pain in the butt because the print comes out with lot more contrasty than what you see in the slide. Shadows and blacks tend to block up. That's because slides are meant to be viewed with transmitted light coming through it, but when looking at a print you are looking at reflected light. Another way of printing slides is by scanning it (ie. with a Fuji Frontier machine, drum scanner or home film scanner), but then you just end up with a digital file anyways, so why not start with a digital file to begin with and cut out the middle-man? And if you want to see how a slide scan compares to the same image on a 10D, look

<a href="http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor2.htm">here</a>. The 10D image is much cleaner, with slightly better detail, not to mention a lot faster to attain and absent of any film or processing costs.

<p>

Cost, convenience, quick turn-around, immediate feedback, and ease of handling are all factors that are also advantages of switching to digital. It's definitely not hype. Many, many, many professionals with a lot more experience and a lot more demanding clients than you, or me, have all switched to digital. It's not hype to them.

Greg Chappel wrote:<P>

<i>

The additional plus is I still have my negative that someday will able to be improved even further as the technology evolves.</i>

<p>

After a certain point, all you are scanning is the film's grain. You're not going to get a scan that is going to improve your negative "even further as technology evolves." A digital file, on the other hand, lacks grain and is comprised of only pixels. You can apply the latest applications to remove digital noise or interpolate the pixels or increase apparent sharpness by changing or modifying adjacent pixels.

You are right, based on todays technology you do get a lot of grain with high ISO films. Slower films like Reala scan very well though, and it's a look I happen to like very much. Fuji Press 400 film also does very well. Scanner technology will get better.

 

Don't get me wrong. I use both film and digital. Right now I cannot afford $8,000 (EOS 1Ds) just to be able to shoot super wide angle shots with my 17-40 f4L, so the EOS 3 is what gets used for that. Stitching images for me is problematic and creates all kinds of weird file sizes i don't want to deal with. I LOVE super wide angle photography, and my Digital Rebel's 1.6 crop factor, despite the untra clean image sensor, great ISO range and all that other stuff we love so much about digital photography doesn't do it for me because the angle of view is so narrowed. I'd rather have one super wide angle shot with known diameters that can easily be printed on my i960 printer.

 

I gave up trying to scan slides myself. They are way too contrasty, even the less contrasty films. The low light detail just gets lost in a sea of black without going to great expense at the local pro lab, and I have no desire to learn about multiple scans and combining images with layers and gradient tools. I've had great luck scanning negative film though. At $2.97 to process and get one index print, then scan what I want to see or print myself that's a small price to pay to be able to shoot at a true 17mm setting.

Peter Phan is absolutely correct. The original poster most likely has very little experience with computers. I ran into this same type of argument in college. I am an archeology student an everbody was into using film. I am noy trying to get into an agument about why film is not as good as digital because it does have its pace where batterie and chargers are scarce. But what I did find ut was that everybody who was anti digital did not know how to use photoshop. Every complaint I ever heard was from a ludite. I'll bet th film student coul nt even repeat Peter Phan's experiemet In my opinion that lack of ability and knowledge nullifies his opinion. SorryifI was harsh, bu I should hve gotten paid for all the "into to digital" lessons I had to give to get everyone on the same page before a dif started.

My Canon 1Ds gave me raw files that were incredibly detailed up to say 18" x 27". I played

with some scans of medium format and couldn't for the life of me see any improvement in

what I was doing - so I put my medium format camera aside. (I had long before retired

35mm for good or ill by the time I had a Nikon D1x - which the Canon 1Ds blows away).

<p>

Maybe I'm waxing too poetic...

<p>

So, the quality, convenience, immediate feedback, and simple digital workflow to obtain a

print (scanning is harder) are certainly what drove me away from 35mm - in addition to

the film cost.

<p>

That said, digital cameras complicate your life if you were having film developed at a lab,

because you now are the lab... But, you get better at it.

<p>

But an interesting outcome of all this for me was while I put aside 35mm and medium

format film, I picked up a 4x5 view camera. And am tackling the scanning. And doing

B+W film. For lots of reasons - but one thing is taking a 1/3 section of a 4x5 slide or neg

and producing stunning (to me) images in the large on the Epson 7600. I don't believe

you could get the same result from from a crop of 1Ds.

<p>

But it's all personal quirks for me - as opposed to eternal verities.

<p>

It's all fun.

<i>I'll bet th film student coul nt even repeat Peter Phan's experiemet</i>

<p> The link I posted isn't to my experiment. That test was performed by Steve Hoffman at http://www.sphoto.com. I was just referencing it. The credit goes to Steve.

<p>

It should also be noted that the 10D image is the unsharpened image. Applying sharpening would have brought out even more detail. You can also apply sharpening to the Provia scan, but you would also be accentuating the grain as well. So you would still have more detail and quality in the 10D image.

Being a photoshop expert is about as important to photography as being an excellent typist is in rendering an opinion over the internet....

 

I do very little photo editing in Photoshop, but I do have Elements 2.0 for those few times it is required. Everything I shoot with my Digital Rebel is shot in RAW format and corrected and output in Capture One, which leaves very little if anything to have to be done afterwards.

Greg, maybe 13 years ago being a good photoshop artist had nothing to do with

photography, but now it's as important as knowing how to use an enlarger or a developing

tank used to be.

 

Danny, many people have the kind of quality and control with digital that has never been

possible with film. I'm sorry you don't. With some work you'll see that digital cameras are

indeed useful photographic tools.

<i>Being a photoshop expert is about as important to photography as being an excellent typist is in rendering an opinion over the internet.... </i><p>

 

For people who want no control over the final print, obviously Photoshop is irrelevant. There are plenty of people who have been perfectly happy with the output of minilabs for years. However, as Andrew points out, anyone truly interested interested in the craft of making a fine print (or image for publication, whatever), either Photoshop or a darkroom is essential.

I've got to agree that digicams do not live up to the often extreme hype.

 

Here's an article that strongly contradicts the Luminous Landscape notion that 6MP is equivalent/superior to 35mm. Even when the film is scanned, the representative D60 comes up somewhat short.

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.6mpxl.digital.html

 

"More accurate colors..." No.

"Superior resolution..." No.

 

Yea, taking digipics is 'free.' This the the great digicam claim to fame. If you shoot high volume, it makes economic sense to go digital. The rest of us need to consider the huge buy in cost of a DSLR (lenses too, if you're unlucky enough to own a fleet of manual focus lenses). I shoot an average of 1 roll every two weeks. Figure $3 for the film, and another $4 for processing. That's $~180 per year in film expenses. At that rate, a new DSLR kit will be (by design) obsolete by the time it's paid off (If it hans't fallen to pieces by then.) If the image quality truly shamed my scanned film, I'd be tempted. It doesn't (at least in my price range), so I'm not.

 

That said, I'm sure I'll eventually make the leap. When I can buy a full featured DSLR with ~10MP for roundabout a grand, I'll take the bait. Until then, 'no thanks.' My moldy Canon FD kit works as well as it did 10 years ago, and I'm still content with the quality (vs. digital).

 

 

To address a few other points brought up in this thread:

 

Instant feedback (Chimping) is (OK, "IMO") largely a waste of time. Put your effort into metering and carefuly composing your pictures! (Sports/action shooters are given some slack here, but are not completely off the hook. See the highly intructive video at http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/chimping/ ;)

After shooting film for years, I can honestly say that 90% of my unhurried pictures are technicaly correct. I have a darned good idea how they are going to look. Of course 'the vision' doesn't always work, but that usualy becomes clear only when the image is viewed at a decent size. Everything looks 'great' when displayed on a 2" LCD (or slide table).

 

As for emotional attachment, I see a lot of people going spindizzy worrying about "what camera is best?" They spend a fortune keeping up with the (often imaginary) Joneses, seldom bothering to actually take more than a handfull of pictures with their new toy. When the camera grants bragging rights, advertises status, or serves as a security blanket, it has become far more (emotionally) important than any actual photography that may be going on. Bad Juju. :(

 

(I know, film users are not immune to equipment envy. It seem all those advertising dollars actually ARE effective in influencing the teeming hordes. =:o )

 

I'll also confess that my 3 MP P/S camera is a darned handy thing to have for casual/fun shooting. It does not, however, even begin to compete with my 17 year old SLR for 'serious' picture taking.

 

-Greg (Humbug!)