Film vs Digital: How much cleaner is it ?

[Brad_]

And in the end it makes no difference. You either have something interesting to say with compelling

photos. Or you don't. Everything else is mice nuts...

[johnw63]

<p>True, to a point.</p>

<p>I would just hate to run into the camera's limits and have a really good shot not be able to be used, due to not knowing how noisy a setting would turn out to be. Part of getting a compelling shot worth sharing is knowing your gear, right ?</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The D2h was my upgrade for the D1x. While the resolution is somewhat less, the color, performance and battery life (!) is greatly improved. I have an extensive portfolio I printed at 8x12 inches without resampling. I've gone as large as 16x20 inches with a lot of fussing, noise removal and sharpening, to make a poster. The text and graphics carry the day, since they are always as sharp as the printer can manage (using Adobe Illustrator).</p>

<p>The D2x is much quieter and has 3x the resolution of the D2h. I use ISO 400 regularly, but 800 is as high as I dare go, and only for small publication inserts. The D3 is a different animal altogether. ISO 3200 is about the same level as ISO 400 in the D2x.</p>

<p>Here is an example at ISO 800, cropped to D2h size for comparison, taken with a 28-70/2.8 at 70mm. The noise is sharp and tight, much like Tri-X in Rodinal, and not blocky like in the D2h example. You could probably get a good 12x18 even out of this cropped image, were it not for the little buggers that wouldn't stay still, even at 1/1000 (hand held). There's a good mix of background and details for pixel-peeping.</p>

<p>While we complain about noise at high ISO in a DSLR, try to remember how bad ISO 400 film looks, even in an 8x10, from 35mm.</p><div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Doug,</p>

<p>That's the entire image, converted to a level 10 JPEG to save a little space. No pixels were lost in the process - the D2h is just a little challenged in the MP department.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>And ... how much does having a really good lens, like that 17-35mm f2.8 factor in?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, lens quality works exactly as it does in film photography. Some lenses are sharper than others. If you look closely enough you can see the difference whether you're shooting film or digital capture.</p>

<p>Lens quality has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON NOISE, however, just as it has absolutely no effect on FILM GRAIN.</p>

 

[johnw63]

<p>Edward,</p>

<p>So, the D3 is about 3 stops better, on the ISO scale, than the D2h was. Now, I would expect that the D7000 or even D300 would not be quite as good as the D3, given the full frame vs crop frame stuff, so ... perhaps 2 stops better ? If So, would the quality I saw in that night scene, at ISO 200 be achievable at maybe 800 on a D7000 ?</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>What ISO could I use to get that level of noise, on a current camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I snapped this photo while walking down the street one night. I shot it handheld at ISO 3200. The camera was a Canon 5D Mark II. Do you see any noise?</p>

<p>There's a larger version on my website; email me for details.</p>

<div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>But when the 24 TP camera comes there will be plenty trying to justify the upgrade rom their 12 TP camera.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>That is pretty good for ISO 3200. How does the Full frame Canon compare to a DX sensor body ? I'll check out the larger version, too. The 5 X 7 on my computer screen looks good. How big could you enlarge this ?</p>

<p> </p>

[johnw63]

<p>I checked out your galleries on your web site. The shots that are the type that I think would be the most prone are the night shots of well lit buildings, like the museum with the Darwin banners, at similar. Is the high contrast or wide brightness range something that can be a problem ?</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

John, I can't help you with crop sensor camera specs as I don't own any of the later models. I'm certain that you'll find

comparisons somewhere if you search.

 

I would feel comfortable enlarging the 'Dogs Welcome' photo to 24x36 inches for close inspection, although it could go

much larger if I knew that the viewers would be standing back a bit.

 

Most of the pics of buildings at night were shot from tripods at the camera's base ISO where noise performance is at it's

best. You might be more interested in the interior shots of Kings College Chapel which were taken hand held with a D700

at ISO 3200.

 

High contrast is always a challenge. I expose for what I feel is most important and let the chips fall where they may. I

also use graduated ND filters when necessary. Digital sensors give me a lot more exposure latitude than the slide film that

I used for years and years, so I won't complain. If you want to see more detail in the shadows, you can learn how to do

HDR. Personally, I don't care for HDR. I like the effect of having some shadows in the photo. It looks more realistic to

my eyes.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Digital does not tolerate overexposure. In that respect, the exposure strategy is similar to that for reversal film - expose so that hightlights that need detail don't go more than 2 stops over the neutral exposure.</p>

<p>Unlike reversal film, digital has a long range on the shadow side. In this respect it surpasses negative color film by a couple of stops. (Negative film gets most of its dynamic range through tolerance to overexposure. However, you get color shifts at either end of the exposure scale. Digital capture does not exhibit reciprocity failure nor color shifts with exposure level or time.)</p>

<p>The only problem with night shots of well-lit buildings is measuring the exposure. If you don't have a spot meter, trial and error works well, in conjunction with "blinkies" and the histogram display.</p>

<p>There is little incentive to use high ISO settings if you use a tripod. I used ISO 200 in the Navy Pier shot because that's as low as the D2h will go. My D1x would produce "sparkles" (hot pixels) for any exposure longer than about 10 seconds. A D2x can go for 30 minutes without adverse effects (other than draining the battery).</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>John have you checked out the sample galleries over at dpreview. There are sample images there from almost every DSLR that has been made and most of the galleries contain full size images shot at almost every ISO the camera is capable of. You could spend a weekend checking and printing the images from the cameras you could be interested in buying. Both my digital cameras are old, a D80 and a D1h. I would buy a D90 over a D80 today. I doubt many people would even buy a D1h today.<br>

This shot is 645 medium format scanned with a V500. The old oprical prints I made from this 15 years ago are great. I have not made a print from the scan but I don't doubt a 8x10 will be easy.</p><div></div>

[mirkal]

Robert have no idea what he is talking about: "Digital imaging is superior to any film process I have ever used, from 35mm

thru MF, (all varients to 6x17), to large format, digital triumphs in every conceivable circumstance." You can't be serious

about it or you never used MF and large format in your life. John's question was answered many times on this forum, he

could just search in archive and there were many "overheated" discussions between digital fanatics and film fanatics. Why

you just can't admit both has it merits. I would like to see what a top masters of photography like Jack Dykinga (who is

shooting large format BTW) think about your statement. I agree with Steve - you just give your opinion, nothing else.

Judging the original question content, base for all this discussion, my recommendation would be: go for digital John, it

would satisfy your needs.

[bobcossar]

<p>Miroslav....it is one thing to disagree, but to suggest that I am lying to you exceeds good manners.</p>

<p>I have made my career in photography for over 40 years now and I have done so without lying about my experience level or anything else.</p>

<p>I think that, even without your rude comments, that John has read enough here to have made up his mind.</p>

[sam_chapman1]

<p>I don't want to put a 'damper' on things, but how good you (or the Lab) are at printing the images, plays a far greater part in the end result than some would like to admit. At the end of the day, only by seeing prints produced by yourself, or the Lab you use, from the cameras you feel 'fit the bill' will you know how good they actually are. Exposure accuracy is probably marginally less critical on digital than it is on slides, whilst negatives film has slightly less exposure latitude than Digital, BUT, because one has no idea from a negative, what the original colours were like, your skill at determining the correct colours, is even more important.<br /><br />I have lost count of the number of times I have seen images from high quality digital cameras compromised because of what the image has been subjected to, in the image-editing and printing stages.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>whilst negatives film has slightly less exposure latitude than Digital</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is generally considered that negative film has more latitude, not less.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>As some one above mentioned, I probably do have enough to go by. Noise levels at the ISOs I commonly use, are not much of an issue, on current DSLRs. It was great to see some real examples, instead of very zoomed in shots. I still don't think I could look at one of those tests and be able to say, " That's not so good. " or " Wow. They really improved the noise on THAT camera. " because I don't have a mental history of LOOKING that close on various cameras.</p>

<p>I'll probably still shoots slides, from time to time, because I like the way they look on the light table and I know , if I do my job, I can blow them up to a decent size. It's the next step, the shop I send them to get enlarged or my own flat bed scanner that will let me down, I'm sure.</p>

<p> </p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>Depends what you have to do. Getting into digital is not an immediate passage. You need to get proficient with digital editing software (could take about six months to a year to get decent results) and you need to have a good computer, scanner, printer (unless you get all your prints done by a lab, at high costs according to the printing technique and quality used). Not mentioning how expensive a full-frame camera + lens can be; considering everything, we are talking about at least 10k here to get started. If you need to shoot a lot and process a lot and you have the possibility to make money, I would say make the investment. Otherwise, if you shoot for yourself (like I do), don't even bother. Digital photography is not even close to film photography as far as involvement and creativity (IMO); it is a different media (computerized sensor that elaborate numbers instead of silver halide crystals reacting to light). We are talking about artificial vs nature and nature always wins ;-). Many will crucify me for saying such "blasphemies" but that's the way it is.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>I won't cry BLASPHEMY, but I will debate the dollar figure.</p>

<p>I can build a really NICE computer for well under $1000. I have a Dell UltraSharp screen, about a week old. I can get Photoshop, should I want the full featured version, Student and Teacher edition for $199. As much as I would LIKE a full frame camera, I know I wouldn't use it enough to justify the price. D700 is about $2300, the D7000 is $1200. Still a lot for me. I have halfway decent lenses , that I should be able to use on a crop sensor camera, with the exception of a new wide end lens, like an 18-xxmm lens. Probably about $200-$300 for that.</p>

<p>So, I'm looking at $1000 ( max ) + $200 + $1200 + $300 = $2800 to be rolling.</p>

<p>Now, if I have to spend a long time learning PS just to be able to make my photos work, then I've done something wrong when I pressed the shutter. If the state of digital photography is such that you can't have good results withOUT being a Photoshop wizard, then it's a big farce, in my view.</p>

<p>And I STILL may shoot slide, when I really want a keeper.</p>

<p> </p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>John</strong><br>

I think the full-frame is what really makes the difference in digital SLR. I own a Canon 40d, good sensor, but even with the sharpest lens, I can't even get close to a full-frame. Now, if I go with used stuff I can probably get a 5D for less than a thousand but it will be obsolete in a year or two (it almost already is). Good lens, even used and not extraordinary, are still between 600 and a thousand and I would need at least four for my type of photography: a wide-angle, a 28, a 50 and 85. Would probably need to get a telephoto as well but it is not primarily necessary for me. I like to print my photos at home and a Canon Pixma PRO9500MkII goes for almost a thousand bucks. Same with scanner. It depends on personal needs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now, if I have to spend a long time learning PS just to be able to make my photos work, then I've done something wrong when I pressed the shutter. If the state of digital photography is such that you can't have good results withOUT being a Photoshop wizard, then it's a big farce, in my view.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm with you on that, I use PS merely for small exposure adjustments on my rare digital takes but, again, it depends on what your goals are. I have taken many cool shots with an old compact camera (Nikon Coolpix 5200, see them <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=972172">here</a>) but when I needed to grow and change my perspective, it wasn't enough anymore. If you do digital landscape photography, there is no way you cannot be more than proficient with PS, if you want to compete with what's out there. For street photography, you don't need to be a PS magician... Portraits? You better be equipped with a hell lot of lighting gear and at least a medium format and practice PS as much as you can (I'm saying "you" in a more general way). If you take pictures just for the fun of it, anything goes.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p><em>"Now, if I have to spend a long time learning PS just to be able to make my photos work, then I've done something wrong when I pressed the shutter."</em></p>

<p>Millions of people use digital cameras and are happy with the results right out of the camera. However, even the best lit and composed shots can benefit from tweaking, if only to resize them for proper display, tweak the brightness and colors for your printer, etc. I daresay that very very few photos by serious photographers are now presented publicly without going through PS. </p>

<p>If you are half-way serious about photography, the bar has been greatly raised in the last decade because now, many people DO know how to use PS (or equivalent), so that if you want to compete with them either commercially, in photo club competitions, or even informally by showing pix in internet forums such as this, you will be at a serious disadvantage if you can't tweak your own images (or hire someone to do it for you). It's entirely your call what level you aspire to.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>Tom</strong><br>

You probably dealt with film a great deal before digital, right? I agree with you, it's up to us to decide which level we aspire to. There was a point that I thought about taking photography seriously and try to turn it into a profession. I got brochures from some of the best schools in the US and Italy (Brooks, IED) and started to envision my future as an independent photographer. I even had the right connections to get everything going as smoothly as possible.<br>

I started to get serious with PS about three years ago and got to be quite good. I realized I was starting to work "by memory" even on complicated editing processes and then I fell in love with film. I realized that somehow the digital camera would not allow me to reach the same levels of involvement as film and I decided to abandon my learning process in PS in order to focus more on film and darkroom work. It was then that I realized I would never want to become a pro even though I love the feeling of a camera in my hands all day long. Becoming a pro would mean having to deal with work, clients, deadlines, advertisement and stuff and that would jeopardize my true love for the craft. Now, photography is for me a way to explore my inner self. Like music (my profession), it teaches me to see my limits and my potential and it represents the gate to deeper awareness and knowledge of the world. That's why I cannot deal with digital anymore; it is too immediate for me.<br>

This is turning into a Philosophy of Photography forum :-)</p>

[johnw63]

<p>I'm never going to be a pro, nor do I expect to ever have clients. While it wold be COOL to get a shot in a magazine, or some photo contest on the web, I know I won't be making money with anything I do, ( Unless I am a VERY late bloomer. )</p>

<p>So, my editing will probably be something along the lines of making the shot look like a remembered it, when I took it.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>John, rest assured that most digital cameras come boxed with some easy to use software that will let you view and print your photos, make simple edits (lighten, darken, crop, etc), and save the results in a variety of file formats and sizes. Photoshop is not necessary to make digital photos.</p>

<p>However, sooner or later you'll encounter a situation where more powerful editing tools will mean the differences between a good photo and a discarded attempt. That's when Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop, and about a million other programs and plug-ins can help. You can't just fire up these advanced programs, tweak a few sliders and expect miracles to happen. Advanced tools require experience and knowledge, just as advanced film darkroom techniques do. This isn't a weakness of digital. In fact, it's easier to do most things in Photoshop or Lightroom (my preferred post-processing program, by the way) than it is in the traditional darkroom. You can store your settings and revise them later without starting from scratch. You can process a number of similar photos in a batch, i.e. applying the same adjustments to each photo.</p>

<p>But if you don't want to deal with any of this, set the camera to store the photos as JPEG files, and you'll only need to use your computer as a storage device. However, if you elect to work this way you are throwing away 95 percent of the power of your digital camera. Despite the fact that there's a learning curve to access some or all of that other 95 percent, most of us find that it's worth putting some effort into learning how to do some amount of digital post-processing.</p>