Why are pro photographers...

Like Lee Mann, going digital? He's spouting off on his website of how

the qualities better from his 1Ds. and how his friend is the 17yr rep

for fuji of the pacific northwest and that HE is shooting digital.

 

Are they getting paid to switch? It's physically proven that digital

is no where near as good as film, and yet hes bragging about how he

can print 30x40in prints..

Mick,

I think it has to do with many factors. I've talked with many pro photographers, and in the faster-paced business end of pro photography, i.e. marketing, photojournalism, etc., it needs to be quickly developed, proofed, and out the door. I talk to other photographers that are still using film and it seems to me these are people that are not interested in the quick turnaround. Personally, I'm just a beginner. I don't know if I want all the technology packed into my camera. I like the idea of developing the film and printing it myself, even though at this point I am not doing that. I love my P&S digital olympus d-490 zoom, but I also love my Nikon fe-2. If you depend too much on the technology, it takes away from your knowledge of how photography works. In digital, you can always repair with Photoshop (to a certain extent) and that just seems so wrong.

Where is it 'physically' proven, and what web site written by an amatuer photographer with a grudge to bear are you reading? Most of the pros I associate with are admitting their LightJet enlargements from 6mp+ dSLR are providing better images than 35mm drum scans and prints. While 30x40 is not a common size to make commercial prints from, a Canon 1D will win that fight over 35mm film about nine times out of ten.

 

Try making a 30x40 print optically from a 35mm piece of film (like I have), and then do it from a digitally captured file from a LightJet, and ask a non partisian individual to be the judge.

Yet another Mick troll. Given his rate of posting today, I'd say he was home from school and mommy and daddy aren't around.

{ROFL}

 

Mommy and daddy probably shoot digital.

My mentor,Monte Zucker & half of the wedding/portrait industry have embraced digital for several years now.Im afraid not only has it caught on,but it has passed film on several levels.You may crawl back under your bridge now.

It's physically proven that, using total line pairs resolved at around 10% MTF as a criteria,

35mm outresolves digital. For B&W it's a huge difference. What use that is, other than

perhaps surveillance, is somewhat debatable. Move the criteria to a more meaningful total

line pairs at 50% MTF, and the race is a lot closer. Make it total line pairs at 100% MTF wth

a color image, and even a 6mp camera, used carefully with a first-rate prime, can beat

35mm film.

 

But resolution isn't the whole picture. Enlarging 35mm to 30 x 40, noise ("grain") is as big

an issue as resolution, more for some kinds of shots, like headshots.

 

Not only does digital have an inherent noise advantage vs. film, the (unheralded) really big

deal is that, unlike scanned film, the noise isn't aliased. The vast majority of digital noise

is precisely 1 pixel in size; Film grain varies wildly, not only from film to film, but from

grain to grain. This makes noise reduction on a digital camera file work much better than

noise reduction on a scan file.

 

Could I beat a 1Ds on all counts in a 30 x 40 print with 35mm? Sure, with Tech Pan and

my Voigtlander 12mm, or my friend's Leica 35/2.0 ASPH, and at least an 8000 dpi drum

scan. With color 35mm, no, I'd expect to lose.

 

All that said, it is plausible, if not particularily likely, that people are lying. Ten or so years

ago a famous graphic designer appeared in print ads for a software product. Claimed he'd

switched from the competitor. Well, I did some freelance for him, and I was on his

personal production machine a couple months after the first ads ran. The touted product

wasn't even installed; Files created by the competitors product were everywhere.

OK Rob Bernhard, Scott Eaton, and Steve Levine, I think you are the "trolls" as you like to call me.

 

Also, why does everyone talk about scanned film? Why would you scan film before you print it?

 

Next, digital is not even CLOSE to film yet. Not even Foveon technology is close, its closer than regular sensors, but not even close to film.

 

Example, http://home.comcast.net/~bernieswanson/my-little-chickadee.jpg you see that photo, 10D... see any detail? No, you know why, because you use an AA filter with digital work and by doing that you blend a small amount of the pixels together, you know what that does? Dissolves the MINUTE feathers of the birds body, into mush. even if you try to sharpen it, the details were lost. You can't sharpen a blend of streaks of colours. It's not possible. How can digital be farther ahead of film if it's not even sharp coming out of the camera? And you have to sharpen it...

 

This is a chart showing the megapixel equivalent of film.

 

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1149834

 

Pixels and Silver Grain, aren't what a photos all about. You could have a 60 megapixel image, and I wouldn't want it on my wall right now. Digital is too far away from acceptable imagery. I don't care HOW many pixels you got. It doesn't look the same.

 

It's much like foutain soda vs bottled soda, I prefer a nice cold fountain soda with nice cold ice. However, when I am in the car, or doing something, I prefer a lid, so I get the bottled type, that goes warm on you half the time, but it does have a lid I can close and open when I choose.

 

Film would be the Foutain Soda, and Digital is the Bottled soda, Digital is great for newpapers, magazines, other things. However it cannot right now, make the quality prints that a 35mm slide of Fuji Velvia can... I am sorry. Even if it matches the megapixel equivelant, you know how much more acceptable circular "grain" would be to me than jagged edges and boxes... digital "grain" is much different. Far worse, not only that there is not lee way with digital. All in all, digital isn't up to par with film quality. It is great, but not of both worlds yet.

Look at this, http://www.digital-nature-photography.com/nature/voegel/nuthatch-photos.php these images are AWESOME, great contrast, color, even sharpness. BUT, the birds don't have any feathers, instead they have these sheets of colours and tones that blend together, you show me ONE digital photo, of a nuthatch (they have really soft feathers) that is sharp and shows the details of the birds minute feathers... taken by a digital camera, no film scanned. If you can do that, I will buy a MkII, instead of the new Elan 7N that's coming out, if not, I will stick to film till next year.

 

Really, if you find a photo, and I have looked btw, that I feel is complete, I will shut up, and start arguing for your side, you have enough points to use already, but I feel film is still winning the debate.

 

If you notice, most people here and on photosig and other online phtoo critique sites are 1-2 year newb digital photographers, who have only used P&S cameras, they give 3TU to unsharp images and scream EXCELLENT IMAGE PABLO! GREAT PHOTO, GOOD SHARPNESS AND CONTRAST, WISH I COULD TAKE PHOTO LIKE YOU! 3TU, PLEASE RATE MY PHOTOS. and don't realize what film is capable of. The standard for them was set by digital...

Mick - Unless you have personal experience with both digital and film that you can cite (no web images please), I think a more appropriate reaction to the fact that many pro's are turning to digital would be to assume that they know what they're doing and that they are able to assess what works best for them, and then explore their reasons for switching, and then apply those reasons to a decision about what would best meet your own needs.

 

It's perfectly fine to question arguments, but I haven't seen in anything you've said the proof of 35mm film's superiority over high-end digital capture. Even then, some of the very strong statements you've made don't seem to be supported by the evidence presented, certainly not to the degree to which you dismiss digital. If your concern is the ultimate in detail, shoot 8x10 (ok, hard to do wildlife that way), but for the moment you need to accept that some (not all, to be fair) of the people around here know what they're talking about from experience.

P.S. The largely ignorant, mass market reactions of many folks (not all) on photo.net, photosig, photopoints, or any other online forum shouldn't be taken as proof of anything except forum behavior. It's also a result of the fact that web display at 600x400 is kind of the lowest common denominator way to view an image. It cannot contain more detail than 600x400, so assuming that the file work is equal, the difference in detail largely goes away. Many of the top-rated images on some online sites win those "contests" but couldn't print to 16x20 at "film quality" because they weren't taken with good equipment, but that still doesn't prove anything in the general case (logic gap).

I would like to add to this thread, but first I like to know what type of lab or technique

you are using to come to your conclusions regarding film/digital print quality

 

Have you ever had a high quality print made from either medium? or just spreading

opinions of others to confirm you buying decision or preconceived notion

 

I ask only because I have been doing some research on this very subject, thinking of a

DSLR to add or replace my 35mm and your finding are in stark contrast to mine

Above question for "MICK"?

<B>Mick, you say:</B> <I>If you notice, most people here and on photosig and other online phtoo critique sites are 1-2 year newb digital photographers, who have only used P&S cameras, they give 3TU to unsharp images and scream EXCELLENT IMAGE PABLO! GREAT PHOTO, GOOD SHARPNESS AND CONTRAST, WISH I COULD TAKE PHOTO LIKE YOU! 3TU, PLEASE RATE MY PHOTOS. and don't realize what film is capable of. The standard for them was set by digital...</I> <p>Come on man, are you for real? What was that whole thing about soda? I find your posts to be insulting, repetitive, and time consuming. You ask for opinions and then you insult and piss off all who try to participate in try to carry on a normal discussion. If you believe that film is better, great, <B>obviously</B> no one here can convince you otherwise. You seem to follow the theory "dont confuse me with the facts". Try to chill just a little and take advice from people who have been behind a camera longer than you have been alive. If you shut up and listen for 2 seconds you might actually learn something.<P> You have only been shooting for a short time and a lot of your arguments are statements, graphs or other persons opinions from the internet. Absolutely no real world experience. Trust me, deep down I am sure you can be a normal guy, you just need to relax and respect the people trying to help you. <B>Please dont send me any personal emails.</B> If you want to continue a civilized discussion, do it here. AJM

<I> It's physically proven that digital is no where near as good as film, and yet hes

bragging about how he can print 30x40in prints..</I><P>Having shot with the 1Ds

and the Kodak 14n , as well as a couple of the "medium format" digital backs, and

having extensive experience with film, the

truth of the matter is that you are just flat wrong. I advise you rent a 1ds or 14N and

take it for a test spin, shoot RAW (not JPEG) and then report back.

Mick,my lab uses a Noritsu digital printer similar to a Frontier.The output I have seen(up to 16X)taken with Canon DSLR's is so sharp it is scary!I have also seen drum scan produced digital files,printed to 50x60 from medium format chromes,that blow away anything I have ever seen!This can only get better in the future too.Its a brave new world!BTW ,Im a film shooter,but this stuff has gotten my attention!

Digital images SEEM sharp, but they actually lack fine detail, because of the anti-aliasing. There is no way sensors can be made as fine as film grains, which are probably 1/10,000 as large.

 

There is no comparison whatasoever: film TROUNCES digital.

 

Of course, I mean Kodachrome and B&W, which is all I shoot.

Marshall Goff , feb 10, 2004; 05:37 p.m.

"Mick - Unless you have personal experience with both digital and film that you can cite (no web images please), I think a more appropriate reaction to the fact that many pro's are turning to digital would be to assume that they know what they're doing and that they are able to assess what works best for them, and then explore their reasons for switching, and then apply those reasons to a decision about what would best meet your own needs.

 

It's perfectly fine to question arguments, but I haven't seen in anything you've said the proof of 35mm film's superiority over high-end digital capture. Even then, some of the very strong statements you've made don't seem to be supported by the evidence presented, certainly not to the degree to which you dismiss digital. If your concern is the ultimate in detail, shoot 8x10 (ok, hard to do wildlife that way), but for the moment you need to accept that some (not all, to be fair) of the people around here know what they're talking about from experience."

 

Hardly. Pros are interested in making money and in convenience. That is all, NOT in the very best image quality.

I've been going through all the replies to this posting and noticed one major factor

that hasn't been addressed.

 

If the "pro photographer" you are referring to is a commercial or stock photographer,

then the quality of the print is a worthless goal. These images will be turned into

halftones anyway. Here is where digital is much better than scanning. No grain, no

loss of detail due to generational factors.

 

Obviously, if the pro is a wedding or pro photographer, then the print quality can be

issue. However, most people I've come across haven't done a detailed test shoot with

both media. Although I am a film user (primarily) the detail of the work of some of my

colleagues is incredible.

 

Also, if anyone is trying to print a 30x40 print from 35mm film or from a 1Ds, they

have to accept a definite loss in quality. I've seen work done with a Cantare and a

Betterlight that absolutely screams, but they have a much larger sensor/input

capability.

<i> Why are pro photographers... Like Lee Mann, going digital? He's spouting off on his

website of how the qualities better from his 1Ds. and how his friend is the 17yr rep for fuji

of the pacific northwest and that HE is shooting digital. Are they getting paid to switch?

</i><p>

 

Yes, it's a big conspiracy. The Illuminati and Freemasons are involved. Also Area 51 and

Reptoid Aliens from Beyond. It can't possibly be that pros, who depend on levels of quality

and speed actually mean what they say. They've been co-opted by Conservative Business

interests in league with the Liberal Media. Shh. Don't tell anyone.

You're asking this question in an online forum. The answers you get are going to be a little skewed in favour of digital, since every digital user must have a computer, unlike film. Just a thought...

This is an interesting thread to read as my dry mount press warms up. Does digital have any equivalent to the selenium toned fiber based B&W print yet?

 

I could see possibly embracing digital when I can go from "Giga pixel" files directly to traditional print materials such as above B&W or Cibachrome or Fuji Crystal Archive, and then proceed to process in liquids. But then again, I just love processing the negative/transparency too.

 

I tried digital. Ink jet prints and digital master files on DVD just don't do it for me.

 

BUT... I am not a pro photographer. I completely understand why they are digital now.

Mick,

 

Your question is a two part one. Philosophers have been trying for millenia to answer "Why?" without success. As to whether Pro photographers are switching to digital, the answer is "Yes."

"He's spouting off on his website of how the qualities better from his 1Ds"

 

It's good business to claim that whatever you're using is better than what other people are using (or as good as, as the case may be). I don't think you're going to see any pros with websites that say "I use second-rate equipment because I can't afford any better." But even if the digital transition were based on economics, rather than just quality, you'd probably see the guys using it claiming it was better.

Hans Beckert wrote: <i>There is no comparison whatasoever: film TROUNCES digital. Of course, I mean Kodachrome and B&W, which is all I shoot.</i>

<p>

The original poster quoted an example of a bird. While I use Kodachrome for certain subjects, wildlife isn't one of them, and I've never heard of anyone using it for that. And, while your German birds might look OK in black and white, I'd be using colour for the parrots and waterbirds in the wildlife refuge behind my house here in Oz.

<p>

Of course, practicality makes ultimate image quality moot. I am not currently equipped for it, but surely the axe of choice for long-lens bird photography is a half-frame digital - extra reach on the lens, and shoot as many frames as you like.

<p>

35mm was always a sad compromise for birds anyway. 6x7 beats it in image quality, but you just can't get the shot. Nothing has changed. What is interesting is bird behaviour, and that means shooting hundreds and hundreds of frames. Just my opinion as a dilettante in this area of photography.