Digital vs. Analog

[screeny]

Not to be cynical or to disagree but a honestly question concerning the more then once made statement that both film and digital have different aims and usages. I gave this a thought but for what wkind of images wouyld digital be could for that film would be a lesser choice and vice versa? In other words what kind of images/photo's would suit which tool?

 

regards,

 

Marc

[ilkka_nissila]

Photography with very long exposures (e.g. 1-60 s, frequently needed for night city scenes, fireworks etc.) work out much better on slide film than digital.

 

Basically for black and white film has a wider dynamic range and much better detail (ok, maybe FF DSLR is ok but 10 MP small-sensor digital converted to black and white is pathetic compared with good fine-grained black and white film).

 

Any situation where you need overexposure latitude or ability to handle a wide contrast range in the scene gracefully lends itself well to negative film.

 

Landscape photography - you simply get more detail with large format or even 6x7 film than any affordable digital capture system. $30000 is not "affordable".

 

Wide angle photography also gives better results on film, at least compared to digital with any wide angles I've been able to use. There is nothing like Mamiya 7 with a wide angle lens in the digital world (again assuming budget not in the 5 figures), in terms of distortion or ability render detail.

 

Film can have a variety of spectral sensititivities, while by using a digital camera you are tied to the Bayer filter array in front of the sensor, and replacing it with a different one is generally beyond the means of an individual. With film, there are products such as infrared ektachrome which produces false color images based on the visual spectrum of light extended in the NIR, this is something that you'd need a completely different camera for.

 

If you want a projected image, digital projectors have a fraction of the resolution that analog slide projectors have. There is a book written about what consequences moving to <1 MP Powerpoint presentations has had on the quality of presentations where previously slide film was used. Yes, convenient, but very little information fits in one PP slide.

 

Also, to a more subjective note, if you like the look of traditional photography, this is harder to reproduce with a purely digital path than with a hybrid (scanned film) or purely traditional path (although I feel hybrid gives better results in prints than purely traditional photography).

 

Believe me, I could go on and on. I used to think that affordable digital SLR would be heaven because of the ability to control white balance in the camera and better color accuracy of digital capture but after using digital SLRs (though not Canon so far) for some time I've grown to prefer film and resent digital capture for many applications, some of which are listed above.

 

This is like a man or machine debate - I'm sure everyone admits that machines are efficient, but without the "man" part what would be the point? Film to me, gives a degree of uncertainty and liveliness to photography. Digital looks perfect - and utterly boring in many cases. Call me sentimental if you like, but that's not what this is about. Many movie directors feel the same way, although the cost benefits in digital movie making would be much greater than with still images, because of the copies that need to be delivered to theatres.

 

I do take about 10000 digital images per year (which is more than I shoot film) and get good results e.g. in nature and architectural photography - basically tele side of these applications. I wouldn't want to be without digital capture - but to say that film has no place in modern photography is utterly ignorant.

[fourfa]

Ilkka, what problems do you encounter with 60 second exposures on digital? Can't say I've experienced any, unless you don't have time for the dark frame subtraction.

 

If you were to say 6 hour exposures instead of 60 second, I'd agree with you.

[digitmstr]

>>all formats up to 8x10 are possible and not unreasonably expensive for still photography,<<

 

You kidding? Have you priced a GOOD 8x10 view camera & lenses? That's what I do call expensive. Not mention the film, etc...

[bill_thorlin]

Did not say film is "The Future" merely that it had one.

[andrew robertson]

Pretty much most DSLRs other than Canon's have noise problems with long exposures. One

person I know sold her D100 because she could not get satisfactory images of the aurora

borealis with it because of the noise.

[berg_na]

Interesting... Do you have any examples of what she's able to capture now? The most popular collections of images are actually taken with the D100: <a href="http://www.photon-echoes.com/sunspot486.htm" target=blank>http://www.photon-echoes.com/sunspot486.htm</a><p>

<center><img src="http://www.photon-echoes.com/images/aurora-meteor/103003-13w.JPG" width=720><br><i> Lauri A. Kangas, D100 w/ 28mm lens, 20-sec exposure</i></center>

[KenPapai]

<i>"but to say that film has no place in modern photography is utterly ignorant."</i>

<p>

I agree, who said that? Film has a place in about 1% or less of the SLR world, no more though. You are right, it will never disappear. So what? I too still shoot film and know what I am doing but anyone who thinks even any part (5% is an official part) of the future is 35mm film then you are delusional (or justifying something you own for some odd reason).

<p>

I have done all the darkroom work you can do and more: black and white film and prints; color film and color prints; color slides; B&W prints from color negs; and finally, 8mm movie film in my own lab. It's lucky I am alive with so much direct chemical exposure.

<p>

Film *is* dead (as long as you remember where you are, the EOS context, same goes for Nikon; so don't get defensive and all straw-man and stuff).

[dan_shoe]

I generally like digital better. But I'd think that a film camera will hold up better in harsh environments. dusty, hot, cold, rainy, etc. I may go on a 9 day hike in the arctic this summer and am inclined to take the film camera.

[lovcom_photo]

When you buy a DSLR body, it comes with up to "6,944 rolls of 36 exposure rolls of film", which would cost you more then $97,000 to buy and process, assuming just 4x6 prints.

 

Do the math:

 

For example, a Canon 1D Mark II has a shutter rated for 250,000 actuations, so 250000 / 36 = 6,944 rolls of film, and the cost to buy a roll of 36 exposure film on average is say $4, and to process with 4x6 prints another $10 for a total of $14 per roll, which comes out to $97,000!

 

And so I compare digital with film because the latest DSLR's will often meet or exceed film in most areas except for DR.

[dariusz calkowski]

I agree with Dan. Even my 20D for 1000gbp have bult in 1888 rols of film what means few times more then the price of the film alone without the cost of prints.

[andrew robertson]

That's nice, Berg, but she was shooting 5+ minute exposures and couldn't get anything

decent.

[bill_thorlin]

Maths fine - premise flawed.

 

Starting out new today and wanting to produce 6x4 prints using film. Cost of really good full frame film body $350 ( ignore lenses as common to both ) and want to shoot a roll a week with a cost of $8 per roll. Total annual cost $766 and the film camera will carry on for ages.

 

I want to do the same thing on digital. Cost of full frame camera second hand if you can get one and would trust one - you tell me. Will need a computer, programmes, printer, ink cartridges, paper all of good quality - cost - again you tell me.

 

My VW Passat Estate is reckoned easily good for 200,000 miles but I am not going to set out to deliberately prove it.

 

You compare apples and pears and you get lemons.

[photog630]

Caspar:

To me, both film cameras and digital cameras can make beautiful pictures. (I now use both) Digital is alway faster, but using film has it's rewards, too. There is still nothing like a finely-printed, silver-based b+w photograph. Actually seems therapeutic to print this way. And shooting with my old Rolleiflex...! Don't get me started.:)

 

Anyway, the results I'm getting from my new 5D are making me glad I bought this thing.

 

Regards,

Dan<div></div>

[peter_wang6]

<p>Cutest puppy picture EVER. *GRIN*</p>