What is better, Film or DIgital? (Loctite #STFU applied.)

<i><b>Moderator's note:</b> Since folks seem to want to play in the "digital vs. film" sandbox today, I'm not gonna fight the trend. This and a related thread, <a href="http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00Qd26" >If you want the look of film, use FILM!</a>, will remain open for three days, then will expire. To quote Miracle Max: "Have fun stormin' da castle!" -- Lex</i><p>

 

<i><b>Moderator's note (update 9/1/08):</b> These types of discussions are seldom productive and rarely relevant to the scope of the b&w forums, which emphasize techniques for traditional use of b&w film, processing and printing. "Film vs. digital" threads have raged for years without resolution. They are sometimes appropriate to the Casual Conversations or other forums, but not here. I made two exceptions for this and the related thread (see link). After 10 years of reading similar discussions I did not see a single new thought expressed in either thread. For that reason no further "film vs. digital" threads or related topics will be entertained on the b&w forums. Please refer to this and the related thread and read every line before deciding that you have some novel idea on the subject. -- Lex</i><br><br><br><p>

 

I did not ask these questions: what is easier, what is cheaper, what is more convenient?<p>

 

I am talking about quality only (out of the camera, not up-sampled in photoshop [because scanned film and be up-sampled in photoshop two, so that technology or advantage applies to both film and digital therefor I am excluding it in this post)<p>

 

What I am asking is, what has a higher quality? You can take the best of Film vs. the Best of digital. (in other words, in my limited experience, I might compare the 44MP frame to a 24x36" scanned negative [those are the two best I can

think of in one second both worlds have to offer)<p>

 

Please leave out the gigi-pixel project for two reasons: #1 it isn't on everyone dinner table #2 it uses film, apparently.)<p>

 

Also, I don't want to hear, "Well it isn't fair to compare a 44mp to a L-format film sheet..." Yes it is, one is digital, and one is film, plain and simple. If I had to choose between digital and film, and I wanted the absolutely biggest and best quality print, which one would provide it?<p>

I'll put it another way: Lets say I had to photograph something very important in another country and I only get one chance at it. And I

need the highest possible quality and the biggest picture ever. AND I ONLY HAD ONE CHANCE. What equipment should I use? (Film or

digital)

 

Now lets just assume that I have a photographic slave ( oops, assistant) who follows me around and makes sure that my film doesn't get

exposed to xrays, or visible light or whatever. Just assume that the negative/positive was (or will be) correctly exposed and developed.

If the biggest, best enlargement is your key criterion, you should shoot ultra-large-format film. An 11x14-inch camera should be sufficient.

No, strike that. You want a 16x20-inch camera and film. Make sure your assistant is very strong.

Nooo, not again...

I'll bite. Depends on the camera, digital and film. I'd say medium format digital probably kills 35mm film (resolution

wise) but 8x10 film kills medium format digital. haha.

 

Resolution of 35mm and 'normal' DSLRs are in the same ballpark. Whichever one might have the lead in normal use is

probably destroyed by the fact that the user isn't using a tripod. So in my mind, its not worth arguing about. The full

frame DSLRs are a notch above, resolution wise and price wise - for $5k, you should be able to beat a $30 Olympus

stylus epic and a $3 roll of film. Medium format film seems to me to retain more resolution, depending on the format

(645 or 6x7? big difference), than 35mm based DSLRs (to me). I've not seen much from medium format digital -

presumably its on par or a bit better than medium format film. The Betterlight scanning backs for 4x5 have very high

resolution, but so does 4x5 film. In film, the sky is the limit: 8x10, 11x14, 20x24. Try beating that resolution with digital.

 

Of course, there are concerns other than resolution - dynamic range, exposure latitude, grain/noise, color/b&w, comfort

with a format, comfort with a camera system, the ability to do alt processes, wet printing, etc. I like 35mm film even

though resolution wise it can be beat. But when you're shooting at 1/15s handheld, resolution isn't a primary concern...

 

I have a very nice 18"x24" print made from one of the first scans I did with my scanner off of handheld Tri-X - by no

means the sharpest combination. To be honest, I'm not sure what else you'd want from a larger print - viewing distance

goes up as print size goes up, so from anywhere a normal person might stand looking at the print to actually enjoy it, its

looks sharp sharp sharp.

say I wanted a photographic mural out of it.

Medium or large format film unless you have $30k to spend on MF digital.

So you're saying that a $30,000 digital camera will give a higher quality, and larger image, and a 16x20" negative like Mike Dixon

suggested?

Respectfully, everyone please remember: I didn't ask for the two best options, I asked for the single best option.

@ Jason:

I don't think anyone said at $30k digital will give a better image quality than 16x20" film.

 

As far as I know, the best res solution for digital is a scanning back like the Betterlight systems. I'm sure there are other

companies that make similar products.

 

However, I can't imagine that would beat something like 16x20 or 20x24. I don't know how you make enlargements of

formats that big though - I assume you can.

 

Think of it this way. Even a crummy 300 dpi scan of 20x24 will give you an image 6000x7200 pixels. Drum scanners

can operate in the 1000's of dpi, like 8000. Again, I don't know what your scanning options are at that size film, but

certainly 8x10 film is much easier to handle. I think you'd be hard pressed to beat 8x10 and either dark room

enlargements or scans from an Epson v750 with an all digital system. You'd do it for a lot cheaper too. It might be more

'hassle' though depending on your outlook.

You just say "quality". But that's many things, and different ones to each one. Once you have given this a thought and properly defined for yourself what you, personally, mean by quality, you'll have your personal answer.

Large Format film. If you don't have experience with large format cameras, then it's digital

Forget about having one strong assistant, have you ever seen a 16x20 camera? It's ridiculously big. You'd need several assistants plus a

vehicle to move that thing.

Thomas I considered my question pretty narrow.

You need more image, not a finer sampling of a small image; therefore, large format film because it can be made just about

whatever size you need. Better still would be glass plates for flatness. There are many other issues...

He did ask for the best quality and not "what is easier, what is cheaper, what is more convenient?"

 

It sounds like you got your answer. Film. As large as humanly possible.

I am a photographic educator. The question i asked is the #1 question asked in the classroom. So, I thought I would

post it and let the students read the responses for themselves. I will make the question very explicit, if it isn't explicit

enough, then don't bother answering, it doesn't help anyone.

 

Fact: A camera's primary function is to take a picture. Its primary function is not to be cheap, not to be convenient, not

to be easy to use.

 

Now, with that fact in mind, the question is: What will yield a higher quality print at the largest size? film or digital?

 

So in other words, according to the camera's primary function, what is better, film or digital?

 

Now I don't know how I can get anymore explicit than that.

When I say, "highest quality," I mean highest sharpness at the biggest size, clarity, detail. (So basically the highest

quality)

If you are after the highest detail captured then a stitched digital is the best you can do.

 

Scott

Interesting question. But first, which is better -- apples or concrete blocks?

Jason, since you already have a college degree in photography, and have digital to large format photographs in your photo.net

portfolio, I don't think you're really looking for an answer. You already have one.

 

So ok, what is it? What's the answer?

 

It's kind of a dumb question, unless you have some cleaver and entertaining answer.

Well if you notice BG, I haven't answered the question nor do I intend to.

My point was not that your question was not specific enough, my point was that a single answer does not exist.

 

You give two prints, and ask what the higher quality is. You would not really expect to get the same answer from everyone. You will get the same set of numbers from optical measurement equipment, but it is still a decision to make about how to transalte those numbers to terms of "quality". If you give the numbers instead of the image, you still would not get the same answers. Is it sharpness? Resolution (which is not the same as sharpness)? Colours, precisely as perceived? Or rather precisely as measured by a pysical instrument in vivo? Intensity range mapped? The DOF behaviour of a LF is widely different from other cameras. This would be considered a handicap for some projects, an asset for others. Is this part of "quality"?

 

Your asking for "quality" frankly reminds me of those posts requiring photography to be an "unaltered image of te truth".

 

As a university professor in astronomy I understand very well that it is a problem for educational purpose that no single answer exists, but we should be honest to our students and make them think theirselves instead of handing out recipes. Actually, the understanding that there might not be a single answer is a huge step towards mastering the subject (any subject, not restricted to photograpy). Can't be said early enough IMHO.

How is it a dumb question? because you don't like the common answer? If I am in the middle of, say, Africa, and I will

never return, what is the best equipment I should use? and that is a dumb question?