Is film still superior than digital for clarity / depth of colour?

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I've been reading Ken Rockwell's blog & he (+ others) rave about film cameras & the fantastic results that can be acheived from them. I also notice that many landscape photographers still like to use film - when talking about 35mm.</p>

<p>Maybe because its so old (or because I'm not that skilled), my 400d / xti does not produce the same color depth that I can achieve compared to a basic 35mm film camera, on film the color range seems significantly higher, on the 400d while the color is not bad, it looks a little fake / washed out in comparison...if that makes any sense.</p>

<p>Being 29 years old, film is something my old man used back in "the good old days", seems like a lot of work - not that I know anything about it, but is it superior to modern day digital in terms of color depth / dynamic range / clarity?</p>

<p>Landscape photographers who do use digital seem to use very high end (e.g. 57 MP hasselblad) equipment, is there a good way to compare the characteristics of film to that of digital when talking about color depth / dynamic range?</p>

<p>I know these are probably very stupid / basic questions, but I don't know anyone who is into photography to ask, nor do I have 2k to spend on a photography workshop.</p>

<p>Thanks! :-)</p>

 

<p>Let me pull up a chair and get some popcorn. This thread should be quite interesting; it contains most of the elements of what not to ask in a forum. :-) </p>

<p>There are a lot of ins and outs to it. A lots depends on how you scan your film (assuming you do).</p>

<p>As far as resolution is concerned, 35mm film probably doesn't have any advantage over a good digi camera. But medium format film does, and it's far more accessible than medium format digital. So in that sense, film beats digital for resolution.</p>

<p>As far as tone and colours are concerned, so much depends on the film you choose, the way you expose and process it, the way you scan it. But to summarise and generalise, yes, film does beat digital hands down.</p>

<p>There are exceptions to that depending on what you're trying to do - each tool has its place. Many digital cameras have better low ISO performance than film, unless you want grain (which you may well do). Digital of course has other advantages, esp. cost and immediacy.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=423056">Michael</a> - Don't mean to start WW3 here, what I meant by my question is the jury still out on this debate / is there are fairly global consensus one way or the other / is it completely subjective...</p>

<p>You will never have a global consensus on something like this.</p>

<p>However, a similar question came up on a (closed) forum for professional editorial photographers not so long ago. The overwhelming opinion (actually, I think it was pretty much unanimous among those that responded), was that digital is for work, personal work was done on film. All preferred using film. There are good reasons for that.</p>

<p>Of course, there will always be exceptions. I do some of my personal work on digital, but always for a reason. eg. it's the camera I have with me at the time. But I prefer to use film wherever I can.</p>

 

<p>John,</p>

<p>I think this is a topic that will always be debated. My personal results in the 35mm film vs. digital is that I am working hard to get results with film that I can get with 12MP APS size digital. I have a nice Nikon Coolscan V and am working systematically to get the best results. I have found as others have that it is not just resolution but the amount of resolution at higher contrast ratios that make a big difference in prints. Noise is another important aspect.</p>

<p>Medium format film can be another story. Again it is not just resolution. You can get wonderful tonal separation with medium format. One problem is deciding whether to stick with a purely film process or go film and scanning. It is unfortunate that the Nikon medium format scanners are so expensive. For most of us on a budget I think the pure film process is best.</p>

<p>I don't look at this as whether there is a global consensus or whether it is completely subjective. I think thank goodness we still have a choice to do whatever we want.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5586095">Simon</a> / @Marc - Thanks, very helpful answers, much appreciated.<br>

I guess this leads on to, what are the characteristics in a digital camera that should be considered when trying to chose one for its dynamic color & tonal range vs other available features?</p>

<p>I am slowly saving up for a 5D mark ii, because I like the rich colors in landscape photography I've seen others produce using it, among other reasons - but not sure if this is a result of the camera or the photographer, if its the camera then what makes the 5D produce such "richer" colors & tones than my xti / 400d?<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>if its the camera then what makes the 5D produce such "richer" colors & tones than my xti / 400d</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably mostly the photographer - and the post processing!</p>

<p>So are most mid-range DSLR's fairly similar in the raw tonal & color ranges they produce?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>what are the characteristics in a digital camera that should be considered when trying to chose one for its dynamic color & tonal range vs other available features? I am slowly saving up for a 5D mark ii</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dynamic range (ability to capture highlight and shadow detail in the RAW file), colour depth (eg. 14 bit RAW), high ISO capabilities.<br>

You can't go far wrong with the likes of a 5DMk2, or a D700. Extremely capable cameras, of course. But their files are the starting point - a very good starting point. It is what you do with the camera, the light, and how you prepare the files, that matters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So are most mid-range DSLR's fairly similar in the raw tonal & color ranges they produce?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are subtle differences in colours eg. between Nikon and Canon. And lot depends also on the RAW converter you use. Nikon files put through CaptureNX can look different from the same files put through a third party converter.</p>

<p>You would expect most modern SLRs to capture a decent range of tones and dynamic range. Some are a bit more capable than others when it comes to eg. high ISO, and cameras like the 5DII are notoriously capable in this department.</p>

<p>But generally, since the RAW files are generally just starting points for interpretation (like a film negative), most of the colour interpretation is done by the photographer in processing. Most or all current DSLR's should provide a good starting point for this interpretative process.</p>

<p>Though of course, film is better... ;)</p>

Here is the ultimate absolute truth.

 

With film all you are doing is making the exposure, color, sharpness (which is different from focus), all the qualities

people extoll in different films, is handled by the film manufacturer and the people processing and printing.

 

With high quality digital (12mp and up, shooting raw) these image qualities are the responsibilities of the photographer

or possibly the person doing the processing. In other words you the photographer are not only the artist you are also

the craftsman doing at least part of the job of the film manufacturer and the entirety of the lab's job.

 

Creatively there is no question. Given that each frame of digital you shoot makes each shot progressively less

expensive and each frame of film increases your expense, digital offers you more opportunities to get the best shot.

 

Beyond this it is all subjective and is a matter of which you like best.

 

Rockwell has a very clear financial incentive to say what he says. I could care less how or where you spend your

money.

<blockquote>

<p>is handled by the film manufacturer and the people processing and printing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that's a tongue-in-cheek post rather than a serious observation, but...</p>

<p>with a digital camera, the look of the file, before manipulation, is determined by the camera manufacturer. If you want something that doesn't look plain vanilla, you have to manipulate it away from there in post. Most likely, you'll be trying, either consciously or subconsciously, to recreate a look that was brought to us by film. Because that largely determines viewers' cultural frame of reference.</p>

<p>With film, there are certain characteristics set out by the nature of the film. From there, the photographer makes certain choices. The first of these, is - which film to go for? From there, how to expose it (what ISO to rate it at, which part of the tone curve to expose at). Then how to process it - push/pull, use different chemistry, cross process, etc. All these decisions affect not only the colours, but also the grain - the texture of the photograph. Then how to scan it - radically different results can be achieved depending on how you do this - how you tweak the curves and levels, but even down to what light source you use in the scanner.</p>

<p>Or, if you prefer, you can decide not to scan it, but to make a print under an enlarger with chemistry.</p>

<p>Decisions, decisions, decisions.</p>

<p>You're then left with a file, that is a bit like a RAW file taken from a digital camera. You can even do the scan in RAW format if you want (.fff format). It's, if you want it to be, a starting point for interpretation, if you want it to be. Or if you prefer, it can be the end result. As a starting point however, it tends to be more interesting than the typical file out of a digi camera...</p>

<p>A look determined by the manufacturer of the film? Yes, perhaps - in the same way that the look of a Da Vinci painting was determined by the guy who manufactured the oil paint.</p>

Back in 2001 or so, when digital was still somewhat young, I'd regularly post up photos here on photonet.

Occasionally I'd get emails from other photographers asking what kind of film, developer, and camera I used. Followed by silence

when I emailed back with the info.

 

Here we are 10 years later with some still wondering about digital...

<p>It is interesting, but reading Ellis answer here I have to say that I was reminded yesterday how much is still in the hands of the manufacturers. I ran several raw files through several different raw processors--all had different sky colors, micro contrast etc--and certainly each sensor manufacturer also introduces some basic differences--even lenses of different manufacturers give different color results on the same camera with the same subject. Of course, you have more control over the final with digital and digital post than with most film, especially color, unless you also scan your film and finish it in digital post before output/printing.</p>

<p>But maybe even 6 years ago, I would have not even seen this as a viable debate. Most, and affordable, digital cameras just weren't really there yet. I couldn't justify moving to digital shooting and my clients all still wanted film--although I was starting to see some bending to the convenience of digital (larger agencies seemed to have wanted film while smaller ones were more open to digital--I preferred film). Digital didn't yield the color or the depth and substance of film--but it was certainly better than even a few years earlier--I was fooled by friends occasionally as to what shots were digital or film--although never side by side with the same shot. I did rent some digital cameras when the client insisted and the job didn't absolutely dictate the use of film. (I was scanning and working all my images digitally by then anyway-since 1998 or so, so I was familiar with post processing).</p>

<p>Today, I think there are still differences but the gap is very narrow. I shoot mostly digital now, even my personal work, and major artists are all shooting digital as well (not suggesting everything is shot digital, just all are doing serious personal work with it)--Misrach, Soth and even Gursky(he uses both and even mixes the two).</p>

<p>Currently, as I said above, I don't think digital is the same as film but that is both a good and bad thing. That is why I shoot mostly digital as I don't find the advantages of film, in most cases, to be more compelling than the advantages of digital--but I do still like shooting film from time to time. Sometimes one or the other is the only practical solution to a project--I don't think there is a good digital substitute for a LF view camera as yet for instance.- nor is there a film that can shoot at 1600 and 3200 iso that yields the quality or look I want (MF digital can't do that either). Also, 4x5 film looks great in a 50 inch print, but 35mm not so much unless you like your image chunky but a 35mm dslr can make a great 60 inch print.</p>

<p>Just as great film results took practice and learning, digital also needs the same and that includes one's abilities on the computer in post.</p>

<p>In some ways, I hope the debate really never is over as I think there is great work to be done with both mediums--just take your pick and be sure you master it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you have more control over the final with digital and digital post than with most film, especially color, unless you also scan your film and finish it in digital post before output/printing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd have thought that most film photographers would finish the scanned file in post - and very many would scan it themselves too. Some might have some input into the rating and processing. A film photographer who didn't have input into this whole process somewhere is the equivalent of the (amateur) that drops unprepared out-of-camera files for printing at Walmart, or the professional that hands unprepared RAW files over to the Ad agency for someone else to deal with.</p>

<p>Both of which may be legitimate things to do, but you have to compare like with like. If we assume that we are talking about the kind of photographers who would manipulate a RAW file onwards, then we can probably assume that the equivalent film photographer would have some input into at least the scan/file preparation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>major artists are all shooting digital as well (not suggesting everything is shot digital, just all are doing serious personal work with it)--Misrach, Soth</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure (almost) all photographers must use digital for personal work at times one way or another, no doubt Soth too, but Soth's best known work was mainly done on an 8 x 10 camera - I presume it must be film. Have you heard somewhere that he stopped doing this recently?</p>

<p>Ellis's answer isn't tongue in cheek. "Film" is an overly broad category, just as is "digital" to begin with. Photographers looked for extreme levels of consistency in manufacture and repeatability in processing. "Pros" would/will buy refrigerated film, keep jobs within the same manufacturing lot, and control every aspect of handling, etc., and others agonize over mismatches of film and paper, of perceived shortfalls of Kodachrome or the use of Astia and Superia on the "wrong" subject matter. </p>

<p>Put film or digital in the hands or eyes of the masses and not the relative handful of technicians or artists who are way out on the flats of the bell curve and any performance differences aren't going to come from the base recording medium.</p>

<p>You seem to be saying that digital is more predictable than film. The digital starting point is more in the hands of the manufacturers.</p>

<p>Which yes, fine, that's true. There's less scope for input from chance (inconsistency) and less scope for input from the photographer at the taking/developing/scanning stage. All of that is true.</p>

<p>Whether or not the consistency and predictability and lack of photographer input before it reaches the computer is a good thing is up to the photographer, depending on what he/she is looking for.</p>

 

<p>I'm hardly a pro or anything close, but I like shooting B&W film (Primarily MF, but also some 35mm). I develop and print or scan it myself. I find the entire process enjoyable, and with the expense of having MF film developed at a lab, it's more economical to do it at home, without the week wait that my local lab needs (+$15/roll, which makes 12 exposures $20+, without prints...3x3 prints of each shot would add yet another $12). However, I shoot digital for color, because I want the control of all that tweaking of the raw file. I could do that with scanned film negatives, I suppose, but I don't have the interest to develop color film, so that would add to the expense. I don't have any reputation hanging on it, so I'd rather go with what works for me, and that's digital for color.</p>

<p>Film is a lot more expensive per shot, so wasting it bothers me, which makes it harder to experiment with color film. B&W is more reasonable, so that doesn't bother me as much. With digital, I can take several shots, experimenting with each, and then can look at them when I get home and see what worked and what didn't. I also don't have to keep notes about my settings, because it's embedded in the file itself. I could take 12 shots of the same subject and not be upset that there's only one that I like...but with film, that'd be a whole roll of 120. As I said, doing my own developing makes that not so bad for B&W, but color would become prohibitively expensive very quickly.</p>

<p>I'm using digital too every day, for similar reasons, and other reasons, for work especially. Digital is a miraculous thing. I'm not anti-digital, I'm pro-digital. I'm just even more pro-film.</p>

 

<p>I shoot mostly film but I found that digital color is more realistic although it may not be as pretty as film sometimes.</p>

<p>Realism is a subjective thing. Unprocessed digital is roughly trying to emulate a medium saturation slide film. That's roughly what we have become used to as being 'normal', perhaps because it was the standard for magazine reproduction for a long time.</p>

 

"with a digital camera, the look of the file, before manipulation, is determined by the camera manufacturer."

 

Before processing the look of the file is long strings of zeroes and ones -- there is no set look to it. As others have

pointed out the raw data needs to processed into a visible image. A camera maker attaches a file of suggestions -

meta-data , meaning information about data -- about how the visual form the data should take of you process it in their

proprietary raw processors whether the process is built into the camera for converting the raw data into a jpeg or a

program used on a separate computer , but once you use a second party process like Adobe Camera Raw or Bibble,

Capture One, Irident's Raw Developer, etc.

Much of that metadata is ignored because the camera makers don't always publicly document where they put that bit

of code while adhering to commonly agreed upon standards for other types of metadata (imagine trying to find your

way in a new city using a map with only certain streets and addresses marked).

 

You can of course bias those in camera produced results but only within a limited set of parameters.

 

There are certain fixed points to what a camera can capture: how little light is needed for a picture site (pixel) to record

the least amount of tonal information above no information, and on the opposite end, the last brightest value it can

capture where there is a difference between that tone and pure white. Individual pixels only record intensity of light.

Each pixel is capped with either a red, blue, or green filter. A camera manufacturer can spec the dyes used in those

filters which has an effect on the wavelengths that are passed to the pixel underneath it. Through the mathematics of

The Bayer algorithm this will affect how the color is interpolated by the raw processing program for each individual x/y

coordinate on the sensor. And a manufacturer can adjust the gain and signal to noise ratio for each pixel.

 

But once you start processing your own raw files , yes you are taking on a healthy chunk of the job a film manufacturer

does when designing the color response of a film.

 

As to the processing side. I spent the first few years of my career processing E-6 and C-41 (as well ad black and

white film. I also got a tour of a lab that processed Kodachrome. Depending on who was doing the processing and

what chemistry they were using you could and still can get strikingly different results using the same film from the

same manufacturing batch shot identically but processed by different labs - and that is before you take into account

deliberate manipulations of the process.

 

Post-processing, more accurately post raw processing processing, adds an entire other quantum level of possibility for shaping the image in the manner you desire. I have been working with Photoshop steadily since 2001 and maybe I am a slow learner but the past few months study, practice and work have really allowed me to feel like I am gaining some mastery of my post-processing. Katrin Eismann, John Paul Caponigro, Mac Holbert, and Lee Varis have been my guides in this. What I've learned from them has been available to me ( or you) all along but it has only been very recently that I've let myself open up to let myself let go of some old biases -and I think my photography is the better for it.

Simon is right: realism is a subjective thing. All art is a subjective abstraction of reality processed through our individual imaginations, and realism is just a form of abstraction that at least two of us agree more or less closely mirrors our experience of something that might mirror our perception of reality.

<blockquote>

<p>"...I've been reading Ken Rockwell's blog.."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you guys talking about Ken Rockwell? He's a big fella, goes about 7'10", 590 lbs. He's an infinitely recursive Ken Rockwell with multiple Ken Rockwells inside other Ken Rockwells. He'll eat a homeless person if you dare him. He sheds his skin once a year. His poop is considered currency on the internet! He shoots the lowest resolution JPEGs at ISO 12800 and doesn't need noise reduction because noise is afraid of him.<br /><br /><br>

The thing a lot of folks misunderstand about Rockwell is<a rel="nofollow" href="http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/canklecat/Shoops/HypnoKen.jpg" target="_blank"><strong>ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOKEN</strong> </a> .</p>