Digital vs. Film

Hi all,

<br><br>

I have Nikon D70 and recently got Nikon N90s. I took both for testing

with the same lenses (Nikkor primes - 50 1.8 and 85 1.8) and shot

different kinds of pictures including portraits and landscapes. I

used few rolls (purchased in different stores) of Kodak Gold 100

following <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/film#Negative">the

suggestion on Photo.net</a>.

<br><br>

I expected that I will get much better results from the film, but the

results were very disappointing. Digital pics were very nice, while

film was grained with washed out colors and bad contrast.

<br><br>

What's wrong?

Underexposure? Poor lab printing? For the most stunning results, try a roll of Velvia 50 (rate at 32) for landscape, or Astia100F for portrait. Also, film scans would never be as grain-free as digital captures.

it's depend on the scanner, if you scan film on cheap flatbed, you will get horrible results, you only can best qaulity scan from film scanner and drum scanner.

 

please keep in mind that film looks better on prints not on screen, and digital looks great on screen but not in prints.

Most film developer these days develope the film, scan it to digital and then print it, the resolution they use is often lower than that of a digital camera, so it would look inferior, if you take the developed film and made some prints in the traditional way they would probably be better.

Thanks everybody!

 

I forgot to mention that I printed both JPEG files and negatives at the same store. Prints from digital went awsome, prints from film not.

>Prints from digital went awsome, prints from film not

try overexpose 1 stop on film, I can promise you will have better result, I have seen many people that complain prints from film look bad, and after looking their negative, it is underexposed 1-2 stops.

 

next time when you do testing digital with film, try shoot some backlight scene, people with skintone, and some very dark or some very light object, I can tell you digital will drive you nuts.

 

I have yet to see any digital prints that looks great without adding lot of contrast and saturation.

I assume you got low-res scans from the lab. In it's days, it took me only one roll to find out that the scan quality (even their "pro" option with about 6 megapixels) could easily be beaten, even with my first flatbed with filmadapter (Epson 1660 photo).<p>I have now a Scan Dual IV and could not be happier with it.<p>From prints, no one can tell the difference between my digital captures and film (both printed on a Fuji Frontier). <p>Try to find someone with a film scanner who knows what he is doing and I bet you will be surprised.

Also Gold 100 is a film optimized for exposure latitude and flashy colours so that :

 

- you can over/under expose quite a lot it and still get something printable : it can work even in the crappiest P&S, even if it is a fixed-focus one-use camera...

 

- the average P&S user gets nice flashy colours.

 

But it's got rather strange colours, personnally I don't like it at all, it tends to make blue sky like fluorescent cyan, and has other funky color saturation issues also. It's nice for night shots, though, because of that. Try Fuji Reala or Portra VC or Supra if you want nice, lush colours, but in a more realistic, pleasing way.

"I expected that I will get much better results from the film, but the results were very disappointing. Digital pics were very nice, while film was grained with washed out colors and bad contrast.

 

What's wrong?"

 

You pitted 35mm against a modern DSLR.

 

People can blame the lab or other factors all they want. The simple reality is that a modern 6-8 MP DSLR will spank 35mm color film in pretty much every respect except exposure latitude. Part of this is due to the nature of the digital sensor (extremely high MTF; very low noise; high color fidelity with AWB). And part of it is due to the nature of the digital reproduction chain. A Fuji Frontier can print every pixel of a digital image perfectly, but film must always go through an analog reproduction stage whether scanning or printing traditionally.

 

I'll agree that if you throw carefully shot Velvia on a good scanner and tweak the results, you'll get a good print. But it's a lot of work compared to what can be accomplished by simply putting your DSLR's CF card into a Frontier.

 

At its best (slow slide; good scanner and post processing) color 35mm pulls about even with a DSLR. Anything less and it gets beat up pretty bad.

 

"please keep in mind that film looks better on prints not on screen, and digital looks great on screen but not in prints."

 

LOL! Digital looks *great* in print.

Daniel, just recently I made few great 30-45cm prints (appr. 11-18 inch) from JPEGs I made with my D70. The entire store gathered around to take a look at what entry level DSLD is capable of.

 

So I don't get it either.

I say shoot what males you happy and what you like. This topic is discussed at nassiam and I appreciate that you actully tested and came up with a soulotion for you Anton and did not just try to start an argument like most threads like this. but for a true comparison you would have to opticly print the film and as mentioned most d-lab built in scanners only scan for 4x6 or 5x7 prints sizes so it is not using film to its full potential. I suport people using what they enjoy and works for me I prefer film and you prefer digital lets both agree thay work and take great pictures if we can only master them. Both sides of ths debate will always point to a print they have seen that looks great and is huge. Done properly both can achive this. Enjoy your camera and happy shooting. ,Grinder

Thank you for your answer.

 

I'm a novice, my portfolio is poor and I don't have formal education.

 

However I didn't started shooting yesterday. I have made about 20K pictures, 80% of them shot A, 10% in S and 10% in M modes. I learned how to use the settings from B.Peterson's "Understanding Exposure". Therefore I think its not the settings, the results were way too disapointing.

"Therefore I think its not the settings, the results were way too disapointing."

 

This clearly says something is not right. Try to analyze your negatives and prints to determine what was wrong. You won't get a correct answer by just asking what is wrong. If your exposure was correct then it may be the processing that ruined your images. If processing was good then it may be the scanning that was poor.

 

If you are trying to convince yourself that film is inferior to digital you are wrong. Printing is the only step in shooting digital that is not controlled by yourself. But processing, scanning and printing are controlled by 3rd party person if you shoot films. That gives you a lot more chance for getting poor results in shooting film.

Firstly, you can't expect to shoot landscapes on print film and expect good results. Print film is mostly good for people photography, architecture etc. all sorts of general things but not nature. For nature photography using a film camera, try E100VS or one of the Velvias. (You'll need to learn to use the spot meter if you want to shoot slide film, read John Shaw's books.)

 

The lab is *everything* when you shoot print film. You need to use a professional or at least a good consumer lab to get nice results. It can take years to find a good C-41 lab but once you find it, the results will be consistently good.

 

I don't like Gold 100. Use 400UC as a general purpose print film and set the iso at 250. The N90s has a much more primitive matrix meter which is nowhere near as good as the one in the D70, so you need to watch it if you shoot in backlit situations so that you don't accidentally underexpose faces.

One question that nobody has asked yet: why did you use Gold 100? It's a cheap consumer film, and an old fashioned one at that. It has more grain than 400UC, and so few people shoot it anymore that most labs probably are inexperienced with it.

 

Buy a few rolls of Fuji Superia-Reala, and take it to a pro lab. That would be a much better comparison of your D70 vs. your N90s.

Many thanks.<br><br>

 

<i>One question that nobody has asked yet: why did you use Gold 100?</i><br><br>

 

I wrote in the question above, because of the suggestion I read here: http://www.photo.net/equipment/film#Negative.

Phil used medium format Gold 100 so the grain doesn't bother him there, and he probably used as good a lab as they get. But that article is about a decade old. Really, good negative films include 400UC, 200UC/100UC, Reala and a bunch of other films which I'm not currently up to date on.

 

Whatever you do, the lab crucial when you use C-41.

The most grainless films today are Fuji 160S and 160C (color negative) and Fuji Astia 100F (color slide). If you want contrast, use Fuji Velvia 100 or cross-processed slide film (EPP, E100G...). As various posters said, processing and scanning is everything with film, so try to use a pro lab next time. Consumer labs do an awful job scanning film and their results are hardly worth for archival use.<p>

However, your experiment shows that it is today much easier to get great pictures from digital cameras with state-of-the-art sensors, metering and AF that will result in superior prints from todays digital workflow when compared to a similar approach with an analog camera. So if you can afford a digital camera and don't want to print very large or B/W, a modern digital SLR is the way to go, I guess -- if it isn't important for you to have long-lasting, real-life backups of your photos.

I get very good results from film scanning when I do the following: use primes lenses, Fuji

Astia 100F cut into strips (no mounts), use a tripod, scan at 4000 dpi, and do a lot of

post-processing in Photoshop.

 

I get terrible results when I drop off a roll of junk film at Wal-Mart and have them process

it in an hr.

 

It's all a matter of work flow. Good film, technique, and post-processing. Having just said

that, I can't wait to get my hands on a Nikon D200 - the scanning work-flow can be very

tedious and time-consuming. However, I'll continue to use film and primes for wide-angle

stuff.

"I expected that I will get much better results from the film, but the results were very disappointing. Digital pics were very nice, while film was grained with washed out colors and bad contrast. "

 

As a film shooter, when I first started taking photograpy seriously I had similar results. I used a generic color print film, took pictures of a scene I thought was nice and then was disgusted by the results. It wasn't the film nor was it the lab but rather my poor use of light. A properly exposed film frame won't appear washed out with poor colors and bad contrast. When I do my job right and make a good exposure on film there is nothing that digital would do to improve the shot. Despite the opinions of those with 1000% crops of brick walls designed to show how one medium "spanks" another, a well done film shot holds its own with any shot taken on a DSLR costing the same as a small automobile.

I didn't try to convince myself that digital is better. I asked what I did wrong with the film. Apparently I should make another try with better films and better lab. I will also try to set the exposure more carefully.

<I>Buy a few rolls of Fuji Superia-Reala, and take it to a pro lab. That would be a much better comparison of your D70 vs. your N90s.</i><P>Actually it won't make much difference. While Reala or UC 400 will yield better images than Gold 100 with modern digital mini-labs, the bottle-neck here is the scanning stage on the typical digital mini-lab, which is weak at best. You can use any 35mm film you want and expose it however you want, but it won't make much difference and the D70 will still win easily with this same reproduction route.<P>I've optically printed tens of thousands of frames of Gold 100 up to and beyond 20x30, and while I have a lot of respect for this classic film, it does only excel when *optically* printed (Kodak paper please), and good luck finding a lab that does that well. <P>Talking purely theoretical and irrelevant nonsense, the slow speed 100 speed slide films, if properly scanned with a decent desktop scanner and digitally printed, will hold their own against 6mp dSLR capture in some areas.<P>Otherwise, I suggest reading this thread closely and looking at the replies you are getting. What Daniel and I are both telling you is that getting optimum results from 100 speed color films involves radically more screwing and spending more money around shooting straight digital SLR, so what's the point? You want to screw shooting resolution targets with film, or produce nice pictures?

<I>a well done film shot holds its own with any shot taken on a DSLR costing the same as a small automobile.</i><P>

Do you have some examples of your film shots holding up against dSLR capture? You talk big, so lets see the pics.<P>

 

Next, the price of a commercial E-6 or C-41 processor plus desktop scanner (lets not bother bringing drum scanners into this) costs well in excess of the top of the line Canon dSLR. Your <b>idiot</b> math must assume the following: <P>(1) Desktop scanners are given out for free <P>(2) Commercial labs will always be conveniently available to process C-41 and E-6 film for you. They will also do so at perfect quality control levels and never hire idiots who will trash your film and not mix chems right.<P>

 

(3) You are willing to put a smelly E-6/C-41 lab in your basement.<P>

 

(4) You drive a 1987 Chevy Chevette

OK I'll ignore the "idiot" comment since it didn't take long for me to realize you are incapable of anything else.

???????? Why would I need to purchase a commercial lab to get good results from film. I mostly shoot B+W and do the processing/printing myself but the prints I make from slides are done by a local lab and they do a fine job. Scot I would have to say you are blowing it way out of proportion to suggest I would have to spend $8000+ (Canon's top of the line DSLR) to get consistently high quality results from film. Furthermore for that price I could buy several good MF systems, all of which which would at least match a 1DMark II. Now lets face it, any higher resolution and you would have to make an insane enlargement before the human eye could perceive a difference. If you love the convience of digital than fine, but to think you need to go digital before you can get high quality images is insane. I also just started doing my own E-6 and my basement "lab" consists of 6 bottles and a stainless steel tank. Not exactly the big smelly mess you mention. At any rate, in the poster's original question, the problems he had with his film shots seemed to be more related to use of light not the inferiority of film versus digital.

 

"Do you have some examples of your film shots holding up against dSLR capture? You talk big, so lets see the pics."

 

Yes Scott I have plenty of pics in B+W and in color that I would never exchange in favor of a digital version. What's your point? Funny, I always thought style and technique determined the success of an image not the medium used. I didn't throw away all my 35mm negs once I started using MF because I have some images I like very much and the lower resolution doesn't make or break the success of the shot. You know Scott, you are beginning to sound more and more like those supposed "film snobs" you rant and rave about.

Well, as Mr. Taylor once again claims to know how much better pictures from a consumer DSLR look than those from film, let's take a look at what film is capable of, o.k.?

 

(I won't comment on Mr. Eaton, as he obviously has a serious amount of growing up left to do.)

 

The attached picture was taken very recently on a hiking trip, handheld, on Fuji Superia X-TRA 400. No slow film, no slide film, no tripod, I'm afraid... The negative was scanned at 4000 dpi on a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000, sharpened for a print of 40 cm width on an Epson inkjet and then resized to 500 dpi for this posting (sharpened slightly again to recover the loss of sharpness from the downsampling).