Jump to content

Film vs Digital: How much cleaner is it ?


johnw63

Recommended Posts

<p>Sorry for the post not being directly about weddings, but since all of you probably have very picky clients, and you shoot a lot, and need to produce very clean shots in various lighting, I figured you would be a good group to ask.</p>

<p>I've not yet moved to digital. I shoot slides and prints, in 35mm. ( Sorry, not weddings. I'd rather leave that stuff up to the pro shooters. Too much drama. ) I have tried to make some sort of comparison between new camera bodies, trying to figure out how to compare the zoomed in noise levels from review web sites and what I understand about film grain and ISO settings. I guess I need a digital vs film comparison, not a THIS digital camera vs THAT digital camera contest.<br>

So, from your experience, how do the two compare ? What size enlargement are you comfortable making with your camera and what ISO ? 16 X 20 at ISO 800 ? Higher ? How much is this better than the film work you may have done ?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I'll generalise a wee bit. Digital imaging is superior to any film process I have ever used, from 35mm thru MF, (all varients to 6x17), to large format, digital triumphs in every conceivable circumstance.<br>

I'n addition, digital provides digital editing, copying, sharing, distributing etc., benefits that no-one even dreamed of 10-15 years ago.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Unfortunately, John, your question is very difficult to answer in general, without reference to particular digital bodies and particular films. For example, on the DSLR side, a full frame EOS 5DII will deliver vastly cleaner high ISO performance than a typical crop frame body. So perhaps you are going to have to specify which particular bodies and films you want to compare.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Digital is amazing, but you've heard all that before. What can anyone here say at this point? Rent a 35mm DSLR, make some large prints, and see what you think yourself. Remember that print quality isn't just about the camera. Processing skill and experience must be acquired for the best results, but you can get a feel for the potential. Almost all complaints I hear about digital print quality I attribute to poor processing. Folks want to blame the tools, but the weak link must be the photographer's skill set, as not all of us are having those problems.</p>

<p>I was a die hard, anti digital, film & darkroom geek working mostly with medium format and 4x5 when I reluctantly tried my first DSLR. It won me over pretty quickly. At this point I would choose a 35mm DSLR over any roll film (35mm & 120) at any ISOs for any sized print. At high ISOs (800+) I think it looks better than 4x5 film.</p>

<p>Recently I delivered a dozen large prints from digital to an art museum for an exhibition. As the curator checked in my prints she said "I think there's been a misunderstanding. I thought you were using all digital now?" She thought they looked like medium and large format film.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In film photography grain was often an interesting plus (many love TriX and use Rodinal to keep grain sharp), though some feared it (so prefer developers with sodium sulfite, to dissolve grain).</p>

<p>In digital photography, a plastic look ("clean") is often the ideal: some camera manufacturers (Canon) design with that in mind, even sacrificing detail resolution to it. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>With a semi-decent scanner and careful handling, I have always found iso 100 or below film to be more punchier and offering more contrast than my DSLR. However, others would disagree. It does tend to be a case of how much you could get out of your equipment, film or digital.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I like my film pics many of them more than my digital ones. I think some of it is just that I was having a great time and have some great memories on film. I also have some great memories on digital too but I started with film so maybe that has something to do with it.</p>

<p><a title="small_church_norway by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" small_church_norway src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4932782374_e96d15f4d5.jpg" alt="small_church_norway" width="330" height="500" /></a><br>

I shot this over tens years ago. I was a cruiseship photographer at the time.<br>

I was working on a small ship with my wife that was back just after we met.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with Robert and Mark. In general, digital has surpassed film, but different digital cameras will give you even more possibilities with print size and more forgiveness with ISO. Full frame bodies allow for larger prints (if comparing equivalent MP and processors) than crop bodies, and also better ISO performance, but crop bodies still outperform 35mm film. Crop and full frame each have their advantages and there is no clear cut "better" sensor to every situation. And as said a million times before, the lens has a huge impact on final image quality. The quality of light that reaches the sensor or film can dramatically impact the end result.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Stuart, Sorry I couldn't respond earlier. To address the OP's question, I don't think film images are nearly as "clean", but there's more to the equation than that, I think.</p>

<p>I did enlarge the area a lot on my screen, and it definitely shows grain/noise at very large magnifications. However, it would never be an issue at screen sizes, and at anything close to what I would make an exhibit print, which I believe is the real test- 12 by 18 inches is about the maximum for me. At that size or less, I don't find grain or noise to be objectionable from virtually any of my scanned film derived prints. And I am not very sophisticated with the various noise reduction software, etc., but I've successfully exhibited in a few galleries. Sure, I guess if you put your nose to the glass at that size, you <em>might</em> see some noise/grain, but I've literally only seen one person ever do that in many, many hours of gallery sitting- and he told me he was a digital photographer and printer.</p>

<p>I much prefer the "tonalities" or whatever the correct terminology is, of this image and many others over most every digital image I've seen, and have to admit, I was hoping others might agree (It was made on 400 speed film, processed minimally; sharpened with my pretty basic knowledge of this, but no grain reduction. Made with very low cost, but good quality, decades-old 35mm gear.)</p>

<p>I still haven't seen anything in digital capture results that I'd leave film for, unless perhaps very high iso performance was needed, which hasn't been the case for me so far, and I'm doing some photojournalism, including concerts. I'm really very taken with film, and perplexed at the lengthy discussions that I see here putting it down almost matter of factly. What's especially interesting to me, too, is all of the young people that I run into that are excited about film, and many are artists, or former or current art students; almost none talk about digital capture photography even though they use it for day to day tasks. But I know it's very capable and don't mean to put it down; every day the front page of the NY Times, and many other on-line newspapers are proof of its quality. But I don't need that immediacy for my weekly paper, or for my personal work, and prefer film overall.</p>

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...