Digital vs. film

<p>After much trial and error, I've got a workflow that I like: M6 with slide film > light table or projector to weed out the trash > Nikon LS-4000 slide scanner > 90dpi scans for the web or high res for Epson 2000P. <br>

<br>

However, the interesting thing is that I also use a Nikon D1. I'm an eager amateur and as you can probably guess from the email address, the interest is combined with work. I find the M6 and the D1 are very complementary and as so much of my output is to the web, the digital camera is very useful. <br>

<br>

I am considering replacing my D1 with a D1x. The latter is higher res (6 millions pixels vs. 2.7 mp) but, of more importance to me, has much improved high ISO performance. But...<br>

<br>

...here's where you guys come in:<br>

<br>

Now that I have the M6 workflow down, I am sort of disappointed with digital images. Even viewed on screen, they look rather flat when compared to the film. However, there is a lot of fact-blurring emotion with the film. First, there's the Leica and the I-want-to-be-better-photographer feeling that comes with that. Then there's the excitement of picking up processed film (the fact that the lab I use in Seattle - Ivey Seright - is right next to my favorite camera store - Glazer's - doesn't hurt). Lastly, the editing process using the projector or light table is very pleasant. I'm delighted with the Nikon scanner, too, so that last step is easy and fun. <br>

<br>

So am I just having a better time with the film and that's making me think those images look better than the ones from the D1? I just posted some new pictures at my website: <a href="http://www.dingoboy.com">http://www.dingoboy.com</a>. Most are from the M6 but some are from the D1. Can you tell which? There's another good example at:<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.dingoboy.com/0104/new-april.htm">http://www.dingoboy.com/0104/new-april.htm</a>l<br>

<br>

There are five separate galleries here; can you tell which is from the D1?<br>

<br>

Ok, this isn't really Leica specific but I thought it may be of interest to folks here.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

Fergus</p>

<p>Sorry, bad link. It should be: <br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.dingoboy.com/0104/new-

april.html">

http://www.dingoboy.com/0104/new-

april.html</a></p>

I've got 2 digital cameras I use for sending images online, a 1.3mp

Olympus D600L and a 1.5mp Sony D770. Prior to using them I used a

Nikon 105/2.8 Micro, K25, and scanned on a Polaroid 4000. At least

on any of the monitors I've used I can't see any difference. So I see

no advantage in upgrading digital cameras for screen display. When it

comes to *printing* the images, affordable digital cameras don't yet

match the resolution of film which has been scanned in a high-res

scanner, including the D1X. My decision is to hang with my 1.3-1.5mp

cameras for online use and wait for the resolution race to hit level

ground. When I see digital cameras being introduced offering

improvements but not increased resolution, I'll know it's time to buy.

I do a lot of this stuff and my experience is similar to Jay's. If you

are going to display the results on screen, it makes no difference

if you use a lower resolution digital, a high resolution digital, an

M6 or a throw-away camera; they all come out pretty much the

same. If you want to make prints, using a small camera [this

excludes view cameras], then digital is years away from

competing with film for resolution; don't even talk about the ability

to handle contrast differences and illumination differences.

<p>

Just my experience.

<p>

Art

<p><i>"If you are going to display the results on screen, it

makes no difference if you use a lower resolution digital, a high

resolution digital, an M6 or a throw-away camera; they all come out

pretty much the same."</i></p>

<p>So, I guess my question is Can you see the

difference on my site? I can but is it because I know

which camera was used? </p>

Well, Fergus:

<p>

With your two links, I got one 404 and one that would only half

load. I guess I can't answer your question.

<p>

Art

I don't think it's possible to tell the difference at 72 dpi from

where I sit. Some of your snaps aren't bad.

<p>

BTW, I think the Nikon D1 is a great inducement to photograph with a

Leica. It's got to be the heaviest half-frame still camera ever

constructed.

<p>

Still hankering for a IIIc,

<p>

John

1. I think I can recognize the Summicron 'bokeh' on some of your B&W

shots but cannot make any calls based on resolution or color.

<p>

2. 70% of what you see on TV is still shot on film, even though

videotape has been around for 40 years - because it's higher quality,

and because you can get video from film, but it's very difficult to

get film from video (and impossible to get film quality from video.)

So for 'repurposing', film originals travel further than electronic

originals.

<p>

But digital technology is probably the most powerful adjunct to

photography to come along since - well, since Barnack invented the

Leica, I suppose.

<p>

And "Me 'hat's off to Adobe!" for PhotoShop and PostScript and

Hoeffler Text and the .pdf, etc. etc. I would never have been able to

convert my work entirely to color without the digital darkroom to make

prints - neither time nor money nor space for 'old-timey' color slide

printing.

<p>

3. The only drawback to the D1 (or E-10, G1, etc.) is that they can't

take Leica lenses! ;->

<p>

Thanks

Ok, I looked at the pictures again...the new ones accessed through the

Dingoboy logo.

<p>

Out of the top two rows, I'm guesing the following are digital: 6

people in hats, interior two people with bright window (top right),

woman in lawn chair, puppy love, both side views of rowers. The rest

are film.

<p>

(Freebie: The picture where the cute kid is holding the D1 was NOT - I

bet - taken with a D1)

<p>

How'd I do?

Test:

<p>

<img src="http://www.leica-gallery.net/jbf/image-27935.html".