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

[nealcurrie]

Ultra-large-format-film trumps any single capture of a digital system.

[tim gray]

"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."

 

I've been in situations where my Stylus Epic or crappy digital P&S have gotten a picture where a DSLR or large format

camera wouldn't have gotten a picture even if I had them on me.

 

You're right; a camera's primary function is to get the shot. Resolution does not necessarily factor in - getting the shot

does. The above mentioned 16x20 might not get the shot. Who cares what the quality might have been? I'd rather

have an all mechanical film camera on an expedition away from power than a digital camera, even if the quality as you

define it is less.

[jason_mekeel2]

Remember: I am not asking for my own sake, I am asking because my students keep asking me and they get tired of my answer so I

thought you all could answer.. So basically you're calling my students dumb. Thats real nice.

[Lou_Meluso]

Jason: Tim has it. The largest possible, slowest speed film sheet or plate, shot with the highest quality APO lens at the ideal diffaction limited aperture and well shielded from flare, locked onto a massive support, using the fastest possible shutter speed, or better, high speed open strobe, scanned, by an expert scanner tech, on the best drum scanner at the highest possible resolution.

 

That will give you such a massive file that the output device will be the limiting factor and realize that photoshop has file size limitations. Depending on the size of the print, viewing distance must come into the equation. Anyway, for the truly massive image, muliple prints, shot as detail sections, can be optimized for the widest possible output device and pieced together.

[lex_jenkins]

<del>I'm closing this thread because I can't babysit it all day. I might re-open it later when I have time to keep an eye on it. Meanwhile, let's organize our thoughts and stick to technical issues.</del><p>

 

Thread re-opened. Have fun.

[Member69643]

You can't have it all. If you have a camera that is too big, too complex, it won't let you get the picture you want in every situation. If your criterion is a static landscape, then your argument that the camera is only to take a picture - not be user friendly - is fine, but if you're shooting lions chasing zebras on the Serengeti, you won't have ANY images if the camera can't take the picture. In that case, your perfect camera, whatever it might be, fails to capture an image, and thus, isn't a camera at all. It's a big box. Perhaps you can use it to carry papayas.

[mark_mankey]

I doubt this is what you're looking for but I'll say:

 

Whatever tools or techniques that get YOU "the absolutely biggest and best quality print" is the right answer. I guess this is meant to be a pie in the sky kind of question, but really down here on earth the user makes a difference and whatever they can do the best with is where you will find the biggest and best quality print.

 

Beyond that I don't know anyone using all of the crazy high quality equipment out there and doing comparisons.

[robert lee]

Per equivalent unit area, digital is better.

[link]

Jason,

 

OK, so you think it would be more fun to solicit answers on the internet than come up with your own answer. Fine.

 

Why don't you ask the students to design a comparative test? It will teach them a lot about photography such as how to expose film vs. digital

and to discover the trade offs of each capture method. Sharpness vs. detail, noise vs. grain, film color vs. digital color. It will also teach them

about eliminating variables from the test such as different lenses and printing methods. And when they're done in a few weeks you can post the

results and their opinions here where can have an enjoyable discussion about it.

 

Whadya think?

[rivi]

Ahemm B G, please take notice that, for whatever reason, the original poster has deactivated his account. He is hence not very likely to respond.

[steve_swinehart]

"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."

 

I don't think that's a fact - and don't agree with the statement as it does not take into account working conditions.

 

Here's a fact: you can't use a 20x24 view camera for underwater photography, but you can use a Nikonos or any digital camera that has an underwater housing for underwater photography.

 

The point being, it's a poorly framed question because it attempts to deal in a self-defined absolute statement that in-and-of itself is false.

 

Cameras are tools. In concept, you would always like to use the largest format possible for the shooting situation, but there is no universal answer as to the correct tool - that's driven by the subject and shooting conditions.

[iliafarniev]

I would think they both are just about same as far as mentioned quoity is coserned. Maybe 35 mm digital is better in some corners, the medium format probably is 50/50 and the large is some better on film but in general these are the imaging techniques designed to achieve essentially same result - an impressive looking picture in print sizes from A5 to A3 for the ammount of money currently carouseling in professional circles.

[lex_jenkins]

<i><b>Moderator's note:</b> Well done, folks, well done. I changed my mind. I'm not going to delete this thread. Instead, it'll be preserved as an example of why these debates are seldom constructive. That way I won't have to keep explaining why these threads are usually deleted. When it's all done I'll highlight the unique or insightful quotes. Both of 'em.</i>

[alan_rockwood]

Thomas, did he deactivate his account himself, or was the account deactivated some other way? I certainly do not know the answer... probably he did it himself, but who knows?

[lex_jenkins]

Yes, the account was deactivated at the request of the initiator of this thread because I had temporarily locked the thread while I was away from the computer earlier today.

[mjferron]

My 2 cents. Digital slr's from 6-10 mp's pretty much match, and sometimes exceed the resolution of 35 mm film. Cleaner at about any given ISO as well. So why do I shoot B&W film? Jeez even though I'm old enough to be "keepin' the faith" with film the fact is I learned on digital and gravitated to B&W film. It's esoteric. Alchemy even. It's about precision, discipline and timing. And there's the look. The plus-x and tri-x I shoot have a look that i don't get with digital. Plus I can print in the darkroom for smoothness and tonality I can't seem to duplicate with my Epson 2400. Digital now often equals "look what I made" on the computer. HDR, combined exposures and objects added to the scene somehow equate to being a skilled photographer in some camps. Digital or film I've developed a liking for simple documentary and trying to capture that special moment in time. The fake stuff turns me off.

[DB_Gallery]

First of all, thank you Lex for re-opening the thread. As I understand, the only place to discuss the film / digital debate

without it getting deleted is in "Casual Conversations" so this is appreciated.

 

Lets face the fact that if people want to talk about it, then it is no different or any less important than any other topic that

might arise. There should be no judgements, no prejudice of any kind, it is a worthy topic. It is also a topic that will never

get old as technology is always changing. I spend most of my time out photographing life for various outlets and needs.

Three questions are always asked of me by curious onlookers or enthusiasts:

 

1. Do I shoot for a living?

2. What is the best digital camera brand now?

3. Which is better, film or digital?

 

The third is the most popular, especially among younger folks who are pretty tired of doing everything on a computer and

want more out of life.

 

But to answer Jason's two questions, I have two answers, one is pretty simple, the other is more complex.

 

1. Jason asked what gives the very highest image quality when going really big.

2. Jason asked what would be the best gear to bring if he had only one shot at a lifetime image.

 

Number two is easy, you bring what you trust and you bring enough of it as backup.

 

But number one is not as easy....

 

Photographer Simon Norfolk had an assignment to photograph the Mayan temples in grand scale for the National

Geographic. He could have chose a 39MP hasselblad then stitched it together. But instead, he chose 8x10 transparency

film.

 

One of the reasons why is predictable and tremendous clarity of optical path and color fidelity. Some of the shots took

days to light with thousands of watt seconds of power packs in every nook and cranny of the temple grounds, truly a

production of unprecedented proportions. And that would be the other reason, lots of lights to sync, stitching would be

risky and 39MP not enough on it's own.

 

But the bottom line was Simon knew exactly what he wanted in his effect and how to get it. He did not need anyone to

tell him what was best, he knew he was right:

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/08/maya-rise-fall/norfolk-garrett-photography

 

The problem with the arrival of the digital age is that it is giving off the wrong impression of what photography should be

about and what actually makes up true "Image Quality".

 

The most powerful images of out time were not chosen to be as such because of a measurable or scientific assessment

of image quality, but the quality of the experience in viewing the image or the quality of how well the moment was

interpreted. This is not to say that the gear or materials chosen are not important to the outcome, they very much are.

But this incessant measurement of pixels or grain is not what you frame on your wall or what makes the cover of a

magazine.

 

The image quality that is most important in a meaningful image is the sum of the creative energy of what you put into the

chosen materials. You get out of it what you put into it, digital or film.

 

In 1994, I helped Kodak, Nikon and AP get the NC2000 to the NC2000e, a bulky 1.3 MP DSLR with a N90s on top.

When the battery ran out, the camera had to be plugged in. It cost the paper over $14,000 at the time. I mostly helped

figure out the nasty overexposure with the flash.

 

I remember distinctly while photographing Bob Dole on his campaign trail having this happen at the worst possible time.

Mary Ellen Mark saw my reaction and felt bad. She had an assistant with a 400B on a monopod helping her light images

shot with a 500 C/M.

 

It would take some 9 years of using staff and pool equipment before I would actually feel that digital was worth the effort

when I switched to Canon full frame and got my own gear.

 

Now I have three digital bodies and 8 film rigs. When I saw Mary this year, she remembered the Bob Dole battery

incident. She looked surprised when I told her that digital was being phased back to part time in my career. In the

coming years, I hope to only have one or two digital cameras and use them no more than 20% of the time.

 

I have been shooting digital professionally for over 14 years, while it is a fantastic medium that has come a long way, I

still see so much uncharted territory on film it excites me to no end.

 

So which is better, film or digital? Neither and both. They accomplish the same task, but do it differently. And they do it

with qualities that are unique to each medium when in the right hands.

 

And this will never change...... film will always be a better medium than digital for some as color will be a better medium

than black and white for others.

 

The hype party for digital is just about over and as it turns out, digital is not the film killing revolution that many made it

out to be. It is just a different way of making and showing photographs.

[archie_alcantara1]

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?

 

Middle of Africa ------ get a 4x5 camera that will not need any batteries.

[jussi_vakkala1]

"2. What is the best digital camera brand now? 3. Which is better, film or digital? "

 

Very important questions, at least to pattern bold, middle-aged, technology oriented and cubicle working male gear heads. And while boys at their computers are debating, over and over again, some younger lady is taking _the pictures_ with D200 or old film SLR and couldn't care less.

[silverscape]

I really think Daniel had the best answer, on both of these threads.

[terry_m7]

This is a delicate topic as you can tell by the Moderator's Note. I personally do not like censorship on Internet discourse, and a 3 day limit is censorship. This is contrary to democratic principles.

 

Jason, using your Africa trip example, 200 ISO NEGATIVE Film would be your safest best choice. You could also choose 100 ISO. With Digital you would have to worry about the loss of battery power. The Link below provides a Photography Article I've written which explains in detail the differences between Film and Digital.

 

Photography Article - http://www.geocities.com/filmanddigitalinfo/ARTICLE_PHOTO.html

 

Mr. Terry Mester ----- Film Info Website - - http://www.geocities.com/filmanddigitalinfo

[lex_jenkins]

Terry, photo.net is not a democracy. That's usenet you're thinking of, which is a perfect example of the problem with mob rule. The Greek ideal seems wonderful in theory but fails abysmally in practice.

 

Forums are closer to the classical ideal of the Roman style governmental paradigm, with representation and moderation. We also tend to show preference toward citizens, i.e., subscriber members.

 

Not relevant to this discussion, but this discussion is not relevant to b&w film darkroom work either.

[DB_Gallery]

While Photo.net is not a democracy, it is the total sum of the members and their photographs who happen to often pay to

be here. So with that in mind, the site should make a clear and easy to find distinction of where exactly *is* the right forum

for the often intense discussion of film versus digital?

 

I was told "Casual Conversations", is this right?

[swilson]

There is a whole lot left out of the OP post that is really needed to answer the question.

 

Is the subject being photographed moving, and if so how fast? How much light is there and are very long exposures ok?

 

There is a huge difference between photographing say a lion going for a kill vs. photographing a landscape shot.

 

The OP seems to be looking mainly at resolution, if the scene is somewhat static then stitched images win, but few people really need a 5 to 10 giga-pixel image. At 5 Giga pixels you would be able to make a 16 x 24 foot print at 300 ppi, not a lot of call for that.

 

Not too far behind this is the Giga-Pixel project, they claim they are close to 4 Giga pixels, I am not sure if I would go this far but the images are impressive and would be more then enough resolution for most people.

 

Typical LF is good for around 100 Mega-pixels. One might think that 8x10 LF would have a lot more resolution then 4x5, but at 8x10 the lenses are normally stop down to something like f/64, and this limits the resolution due to diffraction.

 

MF 6x9 if done really well might be good for 70 mega-pixels, typical would be closer to 30-40 mega-pixels.

 

Which of these possible solutions is best depends a lot on the detail that the OP has not told us.

[DB_Gallery]

Few people may *need* a 5-10 GP image, but like ISO 6400, it you make it available, then the intrepid thinker's wheels

may start turning. I never turn my nose up at or question what technology can do for me, I just let my imagination run

wild.

 

I had a client call me up looking for an enormous file size of a popular mountain scene. They needed it as close to 15

feet wide at 300 dpi as they could get it. The biggest file they found was at Getty and it was 100MB. They were desperate and willing to pay many thousands of dollars for the right image but were running out of time. Well I went I has

just installed 16GB of ram in my Mac and thought I would give it a go. I hiked up to the location, shot over 48 panels on

my 12MP DLSR and stitched them together. Luckily there was no motion and no clouds.

 

For three hours of work, I pulled in over 5 figures. I would have preferred to have done this stitch with medium format film

scans, but time was the seller here.

 

There is a time and place for everything.