The Advantages of Film

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting on the "film and processing" forum.

 

I'm currently a digital photographer with a entire set-up in Nikon digital (SLR) gear. I feel a little nostalgic about shooting

film: which was something I did in the 90s as a kid (that's how I learned the basics as a beginner - I shot mostly B&W and

consumer C-41 films); and I feel that I can really have some fun shooting film again.

 

So now I got a question: From a technical (and to a lesser extent a practical) perspective, what are the obvious advantages

film has over digital? (I searched around and couldn't really find an answer for it)

 

Thanks

HA. flame war is coming.<p>Film has a better tolerance for overexposure. If you've every shot a sunset on program

auto mode with a digital you'll notice that the highlights blow out. Digital because of the linear sensitivity of

silicon has no "heel" or "toe" giving it better shadow detail but worse highlight performance. Unless you shoot

with a Nikon D3 with ADR, the highlights will bleach which destroys the colors. It's an ugly appearence. The way

around this is to underexpose a stop and half which looks like crap on the LCD and give it a curve in photshop. I

don't like that.<p>Slide film is the opposite of digital. It has much better highlight performance, whereby the

colors will "lighten" instead of "blow out" in the brighter areas of a scene. Color Print film doesn't really

care, and unless you're printing it in a home darkroom like me, it is recommended to shoot slide film. Color

print film is great for consumers in that it can be overexposed 3 or 4 or sometimes 5 stops and on a minilab

printer with contrast correction you can get perfectly good images. Underexposure is less forgiving.<p>

Personally I just like film. It has this feeling that cannot be replaced with digital at all. I shoot it because

I feel like a photographer (checking exposure before taking a picture) rather than a machine (where I go click

click click and adjust the settings based on the screen and go click click click again). I enjoy waiting for my

pictures. But I'm just that guy. Kinda weird for my generation I guess, but a few of my friends at my highschool

agree with me on

this philosophy. I also shoot super 8 if that makes a difference......

Viva Kodachrome!; but, alas, I'm not confident that Kodak will keep making it.

 

I love film, but it's no contest when I really want pictures to use, as opposed to shooting as a hobby with my

old camera collection. Film is the vinyl LP record, with its snaps,

crackles, and pops. Comes back from the processor with dirt specks pre-embedded in its surface. Color negatives

have enormous latitude in exposure, to be sure, but the pictures lack the grainless, crisp quality that made the

best slide films so spectacular at their best. I have something over a 100,000 slides, mostly Kodachrome, so I

speak as one who has been there.

 

Digital is the CD. Flawless, pure, and maybe a little soulless in some psychological sense.

 

My experience is quite different than Nicholas's. I find slide film to be very intolerant of overexposure,

whereas digital can be exposed for the highlights (monitoring it on the lcd for burnout) and post-processed for

the shadows to reveal detail in a tonal range that can only be got with slide films if they are exposed,

digitized, and treated in the same way (see "Ozone Method")--and then "spotted" to eliminate the dirt. Shooting

Digital RAW will allow much greater effective tonal range than is practicable with slide film.

-- "The Advantages of Film"

 

1) I can produce a set of slides at a very reasonable price. Copying digital images on slides is still quite costly.

 

2) I simply enjoy the occasonal use of a film SLR ... I love the different feel and the differnet noise.

To answer your question strictly "from a technical perspective", I'd have to agree with Nicholas' assessment of the highlight situation. I understand the concept of "ETTR" with digital, but it just looks too bright and don't want to have to adjust exposure in post processing.

 

I recently started a subscription to National Geographic after a very long time of not even buying it at a newsstand. I was surprised (& pleased) to see that the photos still have dark shadows, like slide film generally produces. I don't know what the score is at Nat Geo as far as features shot with digital or film, but the recent issues I've received look like they did 10 years ago.

Based on what I have seen there is no comparison between B&W prints made by contact printing sheet film and those made with a digital camera. It is true that my only digi is a P&S, but film is for when I want a good print, digi when shooting for the computer. Even comparing the latest Hass digi to the results from film contact prints, film is way ahead. If you enlarge the film, you lose many of it's advantages. It should also be mentioned that digital is better for the environment because it does not dump unpleasant chemicals into the plumbing and in places where water is scarce it has an obvious advantage, All things considered, I am happy that most people shoot digital and I will stick to film as long as it is made. If and when it is unavailable I will learn to coat glass plates.

Film has different response characteristics, and in the hands of someone like John Sexton, it can yield amazing range and tonality. To accomplish similar things digitally may require multiple exposures. And for less than $2000, you can get a Hasselblad Xpan, and shoot panoramic photos in real time. I'm not aware of any digital equivalent for less than the price of a fancy new car.

I wouldn't expect a flame war because film and digital are simply two different mediums with different uses. I've been shooting about 90% of my personal work with film lately.

 

I had two revelations recently with some images I took with Nikon digital system and my Leicas. On a landscape, I shot it with my Nikon digital. It lacked something. No matter what I did with the image, I wasn't getting the tonal range I needed to reproduce the image. I had to go back and shoot it again with my film cameras, and I liked the results, hence this image from my Leica (I have it on the w/nw thread too)...<div></div>

I loved the grain structure and the tones I got. The shot with the D700 couldn't hold the subtlety of tone and the latitude of the image (I had never really considered the notion of latitude when it came to digital). So I started shooting most of my work with film cameras of some sort. Then I had another shot I wanted to capture. I shot it with the same Leica. Realizing after processing it that I just didn't like grain at all, it was not giving me the bright colors and sharpness that I envisioned, so I had to go back and shoot it again with my D200. I guess the lesson I learned was you have to shoot with the right equipment for the job...<div></div>

Too many variables to draw a definitive conclusion. Some photogs can wring the best out of film while some have a

knack for digital results too. How do you compare and take into account the levels of understanding and abilities of

either the same photographer or different ones when comparing results of film vs. digital of say, the same exact

subject matter? Photog #1 may be a creative genious with a camera, able to bring out the best in film, while Photog

#2 ,the digital one, may be less of a camera guy, but better than anyone else when using computers.

 

My experience shooting sunsets with my Olympus E-410 is quite different. I just took a series of 10 shots using

the "sunset" mode and I swear after examining them (in camera and on a computer screen) there's no adjustments

needed. What I saw in person is exactly what I got. I still don't believe it! Now, trying to duplicate that finished

product on various printers is what still drives me nuts about digital.

I guess Michael and I are saying the same thing in a bit of a different way. I totally agree with the above post. I think many people say "wow" when they see a digital print with punched-up colors, and may also say "wow" to a film print with fine detail and tonal range. Different subjects certainly may need different equipment and processing.

You always have a hard copy to go back to. Properly exposed film shot has much tastier and appealing "buket" as vine lovers might say. It can be scanned and edited to suite sertain aesthetics which are not possible on digital. Bassically films has different imaging capasity and bearings in compare with digital, changing films in same camera you can get very different kind og images with unique feel while digital camera will produce essentially same quolity material every time.

I'm only talking about B&W here... I think the biggest advantage is the low cost of high quality images - medium

& large format systems are very cheap these days, and will allow you to create quite large prints for

considerably less money that is necessary to produce a digital print of similar quality, unless you use the

stitching route - which I don't know much about.

Here are some technical advantages:

 

1) Able to capture a large scene brightness range. This was discussed above with respect to not blowing out highlights, exposure latitude, etc. Color negative film can record somewhere around 10 to 12 stops. B&W is even better. Digital is more like slide film....except when digital is shot in RAW. It is my understanding from the digital forum that some DSLR when shot in RAW can record almost as many stops as color negative film. The high-end digital backs for medium format are, as is my understanding, superb.

 

2) Light can hit film obliquely. This is important to rangefiner camera users. When they use a wide angle lens, the rear element is close to the film and light hits parts of the film obliquely. This can be a problem for digital sensors.

 

3) Scales easily. A 4 by 5 film camera doesn't cost much more than a high-end 35mm camera, but the "sensor" is huge!

 

But with film, one needs to work harder to get the image, unless one can find a good lab to produce prints. I use SilverFast, and have gained experience using the nega-fix tool of SilverFast in conjunction with shooting a stepped grey card. This, I found, gives excellent color reproduction. I upload my files to Adoramapix and print on Kodak Lustre paper. I believe this workflow gives me results that are better than most DSLR results. Plus, I now get to try out the new Kodak Ektar 100 film!!

 

For professionals, I see the many advantages of digital. But there are still some technical advantages to film. And if you don't need a fast turnaround time, why not try film? If you really get back into 35mm film, I would suggest the Nikon film scanner and SilverFast.

I do like to use film every so often. It does offer a certain look. Fewer and fewer people are interested or willing to pay

for that look.

 

However, for my business I'm 100% digital. One of my options is to offer a wedding day selection (usually 75-100)

photos that everyone attending can look at the reception. I can do a fair amount of creative things during the process

stage as well as a number of options for the viewing of the photograph.

 

One of my associate photographers used to make a living at retouching negatives and prints for professional portrait

photographers throughout the state of Minnesota and in other areas of the U.S. That has pretty much gone away. She

also used to print beautiful B&W prints then hand color them, another tough area to earn money.

 

If you're into images made with film then go for it by all means. For business I find that digital is the preferred road to

take now.

I wonder how long it will be before this thread gets shut down... Also, how is it that these over-posted, eventually boring topics get so many responses (including, I suppose, mine...)?

Digital is evolving, every shortcoming you can think of is gradually being overcome.

Conventional film gives a bench mark to compare to and provides a means to an end before you can afford digital equipment for a similar application. Since digital equipment keeps dropping in price and new capability is frequently introduced eventually film will be pointless except for the nostalgia of the process.

 

For example, I occasionally shoot stereo shots usually on Kodachrome on a 50s Kodak stereo camera. I know that a couple DSLRs can be mounted next to each other on a bracket to do the same thing. (I know a European dedicated Digital camera is also available for $$$) But for now I can't justify the expense when I have something that works.

 

I've used 4x5 but my enlarger only handles 120.. I usually shoot 35mm as I've heavily invested in classic (non-auto focus) Minolta cameras and would be happy to hear of a digital body that would accept those lenses. In the meantime I shoot film.

Terence, I feel it should be acknowledged, though, that film and digital have a different look from each other.

The former can take a few steps in the direction of the latter, through post-capture manipulation, but

photographs tend to still have a different texture. This isn't to hint that film looks "better" than digital;

just to state that it looks "different." If that difference is significant, and to a significant number of

photographers, digital shouldn't be on an inevitable path to removing film from the arena.

>> "It is my understanding from the digital forum that some DSLR when shot in RAW can record almost as many stops as color negative film."

 

I think you're talking about HDR, which's something I barely have any experience with.

 

>> "I wonder how long it will be before this thread gets shut down... Also, how is it that these over-posted, eventually boring topics get so many responses (including, I suppose, mine...)?"

 

I searched for answers around and on photo.net. Obviously all I ran into were those "all out digital vs. film war" type senarios that are "minimally useful".

 

So far you guy gave me some good answers...thanks.

Advantages of film? Easy -

 

scalability...so many people seem to believe film was only made in 35mm; whereas for a modest sum one can use

medium or large format. My Mamiya 7 is around 4 times the film area of a 35mm frame. Cannot be done in digital

for 'mere mortal' sums.

 

super quality original - remember how that shiny 5D or D200 got all those rave reviews for image quality?

Yesterday's DSLR cameras are not held is such high esteem nowadays, eh? Sensor quality is improving each year,

but a well-exposed transparency will continue to look wonderful and serve as the basis of great images, given a

modicum of care. Just as it has for decades.

 

scalable print quality and print size - not happy with your desktop scans? get a drum scan and top lab print.

Even at low ppi scan resolution, medium format prints so large that one would need a scan back to compete at the

same IQ.

 

range of output appearances - like creamy soft highlights with sharpness with endless dynamic range? NC160; like

startling contrast saturation and deep shadows? RVP50; like accurate colours with photorealism? Astia 100F;

perhaps sir would like traditional Cartier Bresson style *real* black and white? Tri-X.

 

battery independence - most film cameras do use batteries, but for example, a Mamiya 7 uses tiny button-like

batteries to power the meter and shutter only - these last many months or years. A D200 carries a heavy EN-EL3e

battery that is exhausted after 200 NEF shots!

 

wilderness friendly shooting - anyone who gets away from it all for a week or more is going to have to have a

war-room strategy to cope with digital's achilles heel: battery life and function in sub zero weather. Not a

concern for most, but I know my film gear will be just fine, with minimal nursing, and it will keep going, keep

delivering.

 

toughness - DSLRs are heavy, intricate, laden with electronics and sensitive to hostile conditions. Jeep travel

in rough country, trekking, etc. really require the user to be extra careful. Film cameras will handle a hiding

and come back for more.

 

simplicity - film cameras only require good exposure and focusing, and ideally a tripod and cable release. Set up

is quick and easy. For serious output, DSLRs have a plethora of menus, WB settings, need to be shot in RAW, need

mirror lock-up, an electronic cable release (yuk), post shot review/reshoot; plus battery chargers, cables, a

download strategy that works, on and on, ad nauseum.

 

weight - DSLRs are absolute boat anchors. The latest Nikons (ex the D3) are closing on one kilo (2.2 pounds) -

too much, just as heavy as a Mamiya 7 or many other MF rangefinders. And the lenses that work best also drag the

pack down.

 

I realise few of you shoot in my chosen environments and will have a very different take, but believe me, shot

setup, carry-ability, maintenance, and durability are no-contest wins for film cameras. I shoot both and like

both, but the big film images also quicken the pulse much more readily than the NEFs do.

 

 

Such debates and discussions need not be over-heated; sharing of knowledge and opinion is the hallmark of a

civilised society. The goalposts are forever changing, and people enter the enthusiast end of the market, and

opinions change - these are some reasons for the perpetuation of such threads. Enjoy the exchange, unless of

course your mind is closed.

Most importantly to me: film is a physical object. If I do my job correctly before pressing the shutter, the results on the slide will be exactly as I wished, no "post-processing" needed.

Wow, that is the most comprehensive answer I have ever seen about film advantages. Kudos, Philip. Very little can

be added to this excellent list; so let me add that last bit.

 

The immense advantage of film is that you can increase the information content in an image by going to larger

film sizes at a faster rate than the rate of reduction in information content because of lens resolution drop off

with respect to coverage.

 

Put differently, what information content you lose because of lens resolution decreasing (as its coverage increases)

is less than the gain in information content made by increasing the film area.

 

You can thus increase information content indefinitely with film; digital is inherently limited in this regard by

the mere facts that power and price (because of silicon yield) scale exponentially with sensor size, thereby

placing some finite upper limit on the maximum resolution possible for a given technology.

Paul, no offense, but that sounds to me a bit nuts. Film or digital, part of the photography process is what happens after the shutter has been fired. Even if you're using transparencies, your work isn't finished as soon as you've made your capture.

 

Philip, I disagree with some of the points on your list (as well, it makes no mention of digital's advantages over film, though I guess that's because the topic of this thread doesn't accommodate that exploration):

 

I agree that, with film, you can increase resolution more easily than you can with digital: At the moment, it's a hell of a lot more practical to get 8"X10"-negative results from film than it is to from digital.

 

Digital technology evolves, but so does film. Yesterday's Tri-X is not to-day's. As well, while negatives get worse with age, a digital file remains as it is forever (assuming the software is around to understand whatever format it's saved in, your image will never deteriorate).

 

Of course, you simply don't have to scan digital files to get them into digital format...

 

To get various results using analogue, one switches media (B&W, speed, color rendition, etc.). To do so with digital, one uses the "digital darkroom." Different way of accomplishing the same goal — in some ways, far more convenient (carry around one body rather than several, each loaded with a different type of film).

 

Greatly agreed about the batteries. Several film cameras continue to run without any batteries, only losing a few features.

 

This point is pretty much the same as the former.

 

Arguable, but, again, not too removed from the previous agendum. As well, this doesn't talk much about the results of either option.

 

Digital is not, by any reasonable analysis, much more "complicated" than film. If simplicity is what one is after, set to "auto" and use a USB cable. Digital shooters address white-balance settings, but that's important with analogue, too; you don't have to shoot in RAW to get good images, but using the mode doesn't make things very much more painful; mirror–lock-up is not unique to digital; the electronic, as opposed to manual, cable-release thing is similar to your point about batteries (also, some film cameras use electronic ones); seeing what you've shot can be a good thing, and isn't mandatory; again with the batteries...

 

Yes, D.S.L.R.s are big, but so is an F5. As well, this, too, doesn't really have anything to do with results.

One more point...archival. It is true that digital can be archival if one takes care in making backups, reading from long term storage to RAM and writing back to long term storage to "exercise" the error correction algorithms, and also translating from current format to the new and latest great format when available. But I suspect very few people are so diligent. On ther other hand, its easy with negatives and slides, as long as there are no floods or fires. A few months ago I finished scanning Kodachrome of my family dating back to the 1950's. The prints looked great!! I suspect that vast majority of non-professionals will be unable to view their images 30 years from now, let alone 50 years!

>> "it makes no mention of digital's advantages over film"

 

Well most people who are used to digital probably know.

 

I just feel that film's advantages over digital could be obvious but not well known, that's why the question was even asked.