I'm looking for quality information. PLEASE?!?!

[scott_moffat]

Hey, my name's Scott Moffat. I am 18 years old and have been taking pictures

consistently for the past four years of everything from action sports to

sleeping cats. I'm in my senior year of high school right now and the

curriculum at the school I am attending is a little more demanding than

others. To graduate I am required to complete a class called Senior Seminar,

in which I pick a topic, write a research paper on it, come up with and

complete a related project, create a portfolio, and at the end of the

semester, give a presentation to a board on all that I have gathered and

learned. The topic I chose was the comparing and contrasting of the qualities

of both 35mm and digital photography and at what point does the quality of a

digital photo surpass that of a photo taken by a 35mm camera. I was hoping

that you might be able to help me out with my senior project. If you have any

information related to this subject, personal preference, or related resources

that you could share with me, that would be great.

Thank you very much.

Scott.

[danscool]

I think one of the first things you have to decide is what sort of 35mm film you will be looking at. there are so many different varietys out there all designed for specific purposes. I think that if you can use a film in the right way the finished print is alot better than digital.

[Matt Laur]

What you really want to be researching are the differences between various types of <i>film</i> and various types of <i>sensors</i>. To a large degree, the camera body that each of those light-sensitive things is sitting in doesn't make that much of a difference. You'll also want to explore the differences between post-production digital processing (in software) vs. the work done in a traditional lab.

[bueh]

Okay, I bite. Digital photography is not about quality (yes, of course it is, I know, but hang in there), it's about convenience and speed of workflow. If quality was paramount, we all be still shooting on 8x10 glass plates, because, lets face it, everything else is a step backwards image quality-wise (this is so true, unfortunately). In a way, digital cameras are just another type of film with a built-in scanner -- full frame dSLRs are virtually the same as pro 35mm "analog" cameras (they even share the lenses and other add-ons).

 

Then again, I could get philosophical and ask, what is image quality -- resolution, dynamic range, contrast/sharpness, color fidelity, lack of grain, artistic value, etc? And it is a good question "at what point does the quality of a digital photo surpass that of a photo taken by a 35mm camera"... ask that one in the Leica forum for more detailed and helpful answers.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

You need to be careful you initial proposition isnt loaded from the onset - <i>"...the <u>qualities</u> of both 35mm and digital photography and at what point does the quality of a digital photo <u>surpass</u> that of a photo taken by a 35mm camera"</i>

<p>

You say you want to identify and address the qualities of the two media, however, you have already pre-presumed that digital surpasses film. If both media have identifiable <i>qualities</i> then one surpassing the other will be completely dependent on how those qualities are incorporated into any evaluation criteria.

<p>

Be aware that for your objectives most Internet commentary you'll find on the topic will either have an agenda or implicit assumptions associated with it. Define your areas of comparison and what you will evaluate, research with a tight focus on those specific areas and be able to remove information that confuses your point. Be objective and unemotional in your analysis and do not start your project with a preconceived outcome.

<p>

Be aware that if you can construct and develop a solid and logical argument to arrive at a conclusion you are not wrong regardless of what you conclude.

[beauh44]

You might also consider that the term "digital photography" is a bit broad. Of course a $30,000 digital back on a Hasselblad will completely nuke 35mm film. Will an 8mp DSLR? A 10mp point & shoot?

 

What ISO will you be shooting? Why? And conversely - what kind of film? Print? Slide? ISO Speed? Very important: What size prints will you make to evaluate? (It's difficult to make a great looking 13X19 inch print from 35mm film - not impossible but difficult)

 

In other words, I'd narrow the parameters quite a bit or it won't be very meaningful and it'll be tough, no matter what.

 

For example, A comparison of image quality between 35mm slide film at ISO 100 versus three digital cameras: An expensive digital SLR, a mid-low level DSLR and a digital P&S, all at ISO 100, evaluating 8X10" prints might point in a certain direction.

 

But even then, you'll likely be using different lenses which will skew results - but it's going to be difficult to put an SLR lens on a P&S camera to keep things consistent.

 

Perhaps sticking to SLRs will help but I think you'll arrive at the conclusion most people do: It's not too difficult to "beat" 35mm film above certain print sizes with modern, digital SLRs. It's still pretty tough for digital to beat an 8X10" contact print made with a view camera and a great photographer. And in the end, that's the most important variable - the photographer and not so much the gear. Good luck!

[beeman458]

"The topic I chose was the comparing and contrasting of the qualities of both 35mm and digital photography and at what point does the quality of a digital photo surpass that of a photo taken by a 35mm camera."

 

Please, if you'd be so kind, define or explain what you mean by "qualities."

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualities

 

Qualities can be the method used in getting the print to paper, qualities can deal with image manipulation (preferability index) and then if you're writing of good or bad, as in "surpass," then one needs to define that which makes one good (what is good) over the other, which in turn, makes one bad; what is bad? Because good and bad, in truth, are bias'd value judgments which varies, depending upon the bias' of the person you're speaking to one needs to define what they mean when using this sort of arbitrary or subjective term.

[jordan2240]

Scott,

 

Perhaps you should restate your objective as something like "Comparing and Contrasting Color Digital SLR Photography and Color Analog SLR Photography", then compare such things as convenience, post processing, quality of prints (you should send your film and digital images to the same lab for this one - and it's still very subjective), etc. In practice, you would then shoot similar venues with both systems, then record your perceptions. For example, when shooting a sporting event, you might find that digital is easier to adjust as the light disappears, but you can shoot faster with your analog equipment. For portraits, you might like the convenience of the instant feedback, but your results on film might be preferred. Your systems would have to be of similar quality for your results to have any validity, I would think. Sounds like it could be an interesting project. The main thing you'll have to understand is that your results will be mostly subjective, but would also prove to be quite informative to the many shooters who question which system is "best." Good luck, and have fun.

 

Bill

[DickArnold]

Scott I agree with Bill. Narrow your subject matter. For instance rather than trying to do a quality measure you could construct a matrix on the differences between digital and film, do some well defined tests with limited objectives, make and defend your points, draw some conclusions and then maybe make some recommendations based upon intended use of each media. Good researchers identify their variables and state and defend their assumptions going in. I worked in R&D for several years. I could envision spending lots of money trying to do quality comparisons between the media. Maybe your conclusions could be centered on a few well defined uses, as Bill says, for both digital and film which you state up front as test objectives.

[KenPapai]

Quality is both subjective AND objective, by many measures.

 

I have bought and shot 35mm film rated from ISO 25 up to ISO 800.

 

So, should I compare my Canon 40D or 5D against which type of film, especially if I want to stack the odds in the favor of one or the other?

 

Here is what I would do if I were 18 again: shoot 5-6 rolls of Tri-X pan on a single theme and do the same in with a DSLR, post-process in B&W. Then print your best 6 images from each camera type and write your paper based on that -- both what you learned about B&W film vs. digital, the subject matter itself, and post processing in the chemical lab vs. Photoshop. Any H.S. Senior that can write a good 12-page paper on said subject should earn an A+ grade.

[tonybeach]

Check out this:

 

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

 

Most people I correspond with confirm the author's "AIQ" (apparent image quality) theory that noise or grain is roughly equal to spatial resolution in determining the potential to enlarge an image captured with either film or digital mediums.

 

If you were only shooting in B&W at resolution targets, it is possible to theoretically attain very high resolutions with fine grain film. In the real world though, support, subject motion, stopping down lenses to attain a reasonable DOF, and lens optics all subtract from what is theoretically possible. Nonetheless, there are no commercially available monochromatic DSLRs, so film is still a better choice for B&W photography. With color photography though, digital photography has a couple of significant advantages. In addition to having less noise, colors are more accurate and more easily controlled with digital photography than with film.

 

The medium (film versus digital) cannot be considered separately from the format (APS-C or DX versus 135 film versus 6x7 versus 4x5 versus 8x10). From a purely optical perspective, larger formats are better; however, smaller formats allow for practical advantages related to cost and weight. Attaining a wider FOV is always going to be better if you are using a larger format because of the optical limitations of shorter focal lengths. Due to light diffraction there are physical limits to how much resolution a digital sensor can have based on how small the photosites become. Unlike signal to noise considerations, no amount of technology can overcome the physical properties of light waves. Despite this limitation, it appears that the digital medium enjoys about a 1 format advantage over the film medium in terms of enlargement potential of color images (i.e., 35FF or FX format has the potential to match or exceed MF format film).

 

The portability of gear and its ease of use in the field cannot be underestimated in determining its practicality in attaining an optimal image. No digital camera has yet matched film cameras in combining responsiveness and discreet size; which makes some film cameras ideal for street photography. Likewise, if you are only going to get one exposure of a landscape, a 4x5 view camera would be the best choice IMHO. An excellent article on this can be read here: http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/digi.view.html

 

On the other hand, digital photography has the capacity to allow for cost-free, rapid fire shooting without frequent film reloading to slow you down. With careful technique and a tripod, multiple images can be captured and later combined to make images with extreme amounts of detail even using smaller format DSLRs. There are other advantages as well such as having unlimited DOF combined with extreme image magnification using specialized software -- examples can be seen here: http://www.heliconsoft.com/focus_samples.html Similar techniques and software also allow for gaining unlimited dynamic range, with the only limitation now being the inks and paper used to print such images.

 

In the developed world we have already passed the watershed when film was more convenient to work with than digital files for most users. For all of its advantages for some users, film has become increasingly difficult to develop or even to purchase. Technology for digital photography is advancing as rapidly as can be reasonably imagined possible. Time consuming set ups and techniques, expensive software and computer hardware will all become integrated into future digital cameras which will themselves become less bulky. Film is increasingly becoming something from the past and digital imagery is clearly the future. Is the past better than the future; or vice versa? At the bottom of all of this, that may be the ultimate question, and I don't think it has a definitive answer.

[stp]

Scott, something that I've been doing for a while is to take a picture with a digital camera

(Canon 5D and then take the same image with the same settings with a film camera (Pentax

645 with Velvia). The difference between the Canon sensor (even after processing a RAW

image) and film (admittedly Velvia is not middle-of-the-road) is striking.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6525458

[beeman458]

Not trying to be argumentative but with a bit of adjustment in post using a Velvia action, you can easily create the Velvia look.

 

The next question, again, not trying to be argumentative, which image best represents what a viewer by your side would have seen? In truth, in your example, one needs to discuss accuracy of rendition vs what Velvia intentionally does to an image via color shifts and saturation changes.

 

Not trying to get in a natural vs enhanced photo debate in my above.

[DickArnold]

I have two pictures in my gallery of Portland head light. One was Velvia on a Bronica ETRSi in 1994 and just recently scanned and the other with an XTi. Given that they were taken in a little different light there is not much color difference and I could make them match in about 20 secs on CS3. As I said earlier the problem with these kinds of comparisons is that I have not accounted for the variables which include time of day, biases in scanning the Velvia, unrecorded variances in my RAW corrections, differences in lenses(Bronica lenses are quite sharp) etc. I have not identified or defended my assumptions. So my comparison is interesting but doesn't prove anything. However, I just recently found these transparancies and am delighted with the quality of the scanned images. There is also a Velvia scan of St. Basels on Red Square in my PN portfolio taken also in 1994 in my gallery that has made a simply wonderful 13x19. That also proves nothing except that I want my Bronica back. Another variable is that I did not do the scans, thery were professionally done and I have no idea how the scanner was set up. All I am saying is that after being Deputy Director of the Research and Developmnet Service in a large organization that good science is difficult and my previous advice to Scott is to pick a small piece of the comparison of film and digital, set some limits, I would pick something like taking my SD550 point and shoot ELPH digital against a similar priced popular film camera that was recently pre-digital and make some tests in similar environments, describe your work, make some conclusions about convenience, quality, costs, control, and maybe try and predict some future trends. We had quite a research budget and I could see where the broad study of film versus digital could suck up a lot of money and time.

[beeman458]

"We had quite a research budget and I could see where the broad study of film versus digital could suck up a lot of money and time."

 

And that folks, is what's called an understatement. :) LOL

[tonybeach]

Stephen, please excuse me for invoking this clause of the rules: "Within the photo.net community, it is acceptable for Reader A to download Reader B's photo, edit or mark it up, and repost it to the Site." I sincerely hope you do not take it as a slight or trespass.

 

Looking at the image you cited as the difference between Velvia and the 5D I could not help noticing that I personally would have made different post processing choices for the 5D image. It is a crude rendition, but I think it conveys a little more of the potential that is inside a digital image file.