Is film still superior than digital for clarity / depth of colour?

[patricklavoie]

<p>when you get the right answer, let me know if its better to use a Nikon or Canon to do the job... and when that is also in the pocket.. let me know if i should use a Mac or a PC... im in for some new gear and definitely want the best ; )</p>

 

[matt_needham]

<p>"...is there a good way to compare the characteristics of film to that of digital..."</p>

<p>Photo-geeks have a million ways. None of them are as good as healthy, human eyeballs. After you've looked at enough prints you'll see that the variations in process and technology are minor compared to the variations due to skill and experience of the person using the process and technology. If you haven't seen digital photos that look wonderful you just aren't getting out enough.</p>

<p> </p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>I used film back in the 1970's... I use digital now, but only started digital about 4 years ago...</p>

<p>Digital can do everything 35mm film can do as far as I am concerned, and the learning curve is substantially reduced since you can see the result immediately</p>

<p>There is still a 1/2 used roll of film in a camera packed away in the shed that never got finished once I went digital.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p> "I ran several raw files through several different raw processors--all had different sky colors, micro contrast etc--and certainly each sensor manufacturer also introduces some basic differences--even lenses of different manufacturers give different color results on the same camera with the same subject."</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"There are subtle differences in colours eg. between Nikon and Canon."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Only people who don't understand colour and the way digital image files are rendered say stuff like this nowadays. Just use an X-Rite Color Passport and automated camera profiles and all RAW digital files from all manufacturers render colours accurately and identically. A vast improvement over film!</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I just took a look at the last ten Photos of the Week. Seven of the ten, that I could find data on, were taken with digital cameras. They look fine to me. I'm sure that if I read all the responses I would not find a "This would have been better if you used film" post.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Just use an X-Rite Color Passport and</em><br /><em>automated camera profiles and all RAW digital files from all manufacturers</em><br /><em>render colours accurately and identically. A vast improvement over film!</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If that sort of equalization is what you want it is. And yes I use the ColorChecker Passport and camera profiling software. As well I use Adobe's free DNG profile editing software to also create customized camera profiles. That doesn't mean that interpretation is always he best one for a specific subject or photograph. </p>

[andylynn]

Are we still talking about this? Shoot whatever you want. It doesn't matter. If you can take a good shot, you can take a

good shot in digital or film. As I type I am waiting for my ride, with a DSLR and a film SLR in my bag next to me, I'll

use both all weekend but that's because of pretty subtle differences and my own idiosyncratisies.

 

A 400D is an adequate camera. If it's underperforming your film experience by that much, you probably need to work

on technique instead of thinking about equipment.

[terrypittman]

<p>Early digital days yes today no.</p>

[scott_ferris]

I agree Ellis,

 

My point was multifaceted. Firstly, if you start off with an accurte rendering then, as an artist ( which I am not), you

truly do have power over your interpretation and rendering of an image, you are not fighting a manufacturers idea of

how the scene should look, be it a film or digital manufacturer. Secondly, it is all well and good film aficionados

spouting the subtlety and tonality of a specific emulsion, but when I went out shooting with film my choices were

generally speed based. Yes I shot landscapes and flowers with a tripod and Velvia, and weddings with NPH or Portra,

but I didn't carry NPH and Portra and think ah the subtle coloring in this image would be rendered better with Portra

than NPH I need to rewind this roll and load another! Thirdly, as you rightly point out, the photographer can now be the

lab tech too, and generally is. Whist I might have been a decent BW wet printer I never wet printed colour worth a

dime and never in the same league as I can now print.

 

Generally, on a personal level, my vision of how I see a scene is immaterial, I shoot for clients that want their products,

from glazed orchid pots to houses ( this week) to be rendered accurately.

[mark_poseley]

<p>If film still mattered in the photographic community it would not be going the way of the Dodo... Don't get me wrong; film still occupies a niche market and there are some things digital cannot do - yet...</p>

<p>But in the future, film will die (I have no idea when though); except for the occasional avant garde artist who finds a following.</p>

<p>Artistic interpretation really doesn't require any kind of set media; innovators will innovate. :)</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I've been reading *** ********'s blog & he (+ others) rave about film cameras & the fantastic results that can be acheived from them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do any of those bloggers actually SHOW you these "fantastic results," or do they just "rave about" them? And would you believe someone who doesn't post their "fantastic" results for all to see?</p>

<p><strong>Full disclosure</strong>: I <em>use</em> film sometimes, and I <em>display</em> my work. [<em>See below for the film, bro!</em>] </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I also notice that many landscape photographers still like to use film - when talking about 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would think that larger formats would be more likely.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe because its so old (or because I'm not that skilled), my 400d / xti does not produce the same color depth that I can achieve compared to a basic 35mm film camera, on film the color range seems significantly higher, on the 400d while the color is not bad, it looks a little fake / washed out in comparison...if that makes any sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It might be your skillz, man. Sorry. Or it might be the light that you're shooting in. Lots o' folks shoot digital and make it look pretty darned good!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Being 29 years old, film is something my old man used back in "the good old days", seems like a lot of work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, are you saying that you're not willing to work for results?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> - not that I know anything about it, but is it superior to modern day digital in terms of color depth / dynamic range / clarity?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Superior? No. Different? Yes. Is watercolor superior to oil paint? No, just different. Is electric guitar superior to acoustic guitar? No, just different.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Landscape photographers who do use digital seem to use very high end (e.g. 57 MP hasselblad) equipment, is there a good way to compare the characteristics of film to that of digital when talking about color depth / dynamic range?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's this thing called Google.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I know these are probably very stupid / basic questions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not stupid, just not very original. Search!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Just use an X-Rite Color Passport and automated camera profiles and all RAW digital files from all manufacturers render colours accurately and identically. A vast improvement over film!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's one way to look at it, but one of the joys of film is that each film has its own color palette. If you choose a film that matches your subject material well and if you manage color shifts skillfully, the results can work out very nicely.</p>

 

[john_gleeson2]

<p>@Dan South - have a good rant? How did anything you just vomited onto this thread contribute one bit to the discussion. If I found reliable answers in Google that clarified my questions I'd hardly be here would I.</p>

<p>@Everyone else - thanks so much, I've learned a huge amount here just reading through your contributions and I hope this helps other newbies like me, was genuinely not sure what the state of play was re film vs digital at the 35mm level. Much appreciated!</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

" is there a good way to compare the characteristics of film to that of digital when talking about color depth / dynamic

range?"

 

Yes there are ways but they are fairly technical in both description and language. And ultimately they tell you about

capacities in the abstract. One way to visualize and compare the quantities is to shoot the same range or targets with some different films and digital cameras and processes and then compare the results using ColorThink 2.0 software from http://www.Chromix.com - but that will require scanning the film.

[dan_south]

<p>FYI - Typing in "film versus digital" yields 28,100,000 results.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Though I don't like the A versus D debates anymore, I've just read a statement from Kodak. Very interesting what they say about the capabilities of film and the short life cycles of digital standards.</p>

<p><a href="http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/HUB/V3/igoodyear.htm">http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/HUB/V3/igoodyear.htm</a></p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>plain vanilla</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Vanilla is not 'plain' and should not be associated with plainness.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Are we still talking about this? Shoot whatever you want. It doesn't matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't? Next thing you know, light metering methods won't matter either.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>FYI - Typing in "film versus digital" yields 28,100,000 results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the problem. Too much to trawl through! I'd rather ask a person.</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I could care less how or where you spend your money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Couldn't</strong> care less.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Vanilla is not 'plain' and should not be associated with plainness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. Vanilla is a wonderfull flavour (and smell) and is many miles away from plain.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Finally, I notice something of interest to me here.</p>

<p>Perhaps more of you can discuss your preferences in ice cream flavors (or whether the word should be spelled "flavours"). But it's a matter of personal preference, isn't it; and who would ask simply what ice-cream flavor is "best"?</p>

<p>I personally really like pistachio, but it is hard to find in my current area.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"How did anything you just vomited onto this thread contribute one bit to the discussion."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That reminds me, does anyone else who gets migraines also feel nauseous? Especially when reading "versus" type threads?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Vanilla is a wonderfull flavour..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking of vanilla, I'd forgotten how tasty real vanilla flavoring can be. I'd cheaped out for the past couplafew years and used artificial vanilla flavoring in my baking. But this year I've gone back to the good stuff and, wow, does it make a difference in my chocolate chip and pecan cookies.</p>

<p>Also, Walgreen's premium vanilla ice cream is excellent and a great valuALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOKEN! </p>

[andrew_andrews1]

<p>When I first started photography film was the only option, then I went fully digital, and now I use a combination of both. Digital for paid work, and film for personal.<br>

Part of the reason I did this was because my digital kit got so big and heavy I never took it anywhere, I looked at the options and any good, small digital cameras with decent manual controls, or an entry level SLR were too expensive.<br>

So, I picked up a couple of old film cameras, one an SLR and a compact and used them, I fell instantly back in love with film. The aesthetic is different, neither is better, just different. The process of creating photos is also different, and there is some magic in not instantly seeing your shots.<br>

I now develop my own black and white film and I believe there are looks you can get with BW film that you can't get with digital, here are some examples:<br>

<a title="Street Photography by 36exp.co.uk, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36exp/5785915340/"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3555/5785915340_8343175106.jpg" alt="Street Photography" width="256" height="308" /></a><br>

<br /><a title="Chain by 36exp.co.uk, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36exp/5785921956/"></a><br>

<br /><a title="Chain by 36exp.co.uk, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36exp/5785921956/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5785921956_8f66ab7245.jpg" alt="Chain" width="500" height="375" /></a><br>

</p>

<p>It does take longer to create images with film, and it does cost more, although the cameras are cheaper.<br>

Neither is better, just different, and this argument will never be won either way.<br>

I'd suggest picking up a cheap film SLR from ebay and giving it a go, you may be able to use your existying lenses with it.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>JDM, Lex, you make me hungry. First time the lovely film versus digital debate made me hungry. Cool. Must be another one of Ken's side-effects.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Chocolate chip, please, and no Ken Rockwell.</p>

[simon_crofts]

"Post-processing, more accurately post raw processing processing, adds an entire other quantum level of possibility for

shaping the image in the manner you desire"

 

Generally, I don't disagree with what Ellis is saying, but coming at it from a different perspective. Digital post

processing, RAW format, has offered tremendous flexibility and new possibilities.

 

The only thing, is that the playing field for film has also totally changed since "film days", for photographers who are

able to take advantage of it. So comapring purely digital workflow to a purely traditional film workflow is simply an out of date way of thinking.

 

I would think of photographing with slide film as a bit like shooting JPEG in digital. Yes, the look of the slide

image is heavily determined by the manufacturer, and while you can tweak in post, the possibilities for doing so are

limited. Colour negative however, like RAW in digital, is a whole different ball game. The dynamic range and colour

depth caught by high quality modern negative film is enormous. The look is much less determined by the manufacturer than a digital RAW file is.

 

If you get a standard lab scan of a negative, then you are only getting a very small proportion of the information available. It's a bit like getting someone else to do a straight conversion of your digital camera RAW file. Most if the RAW information would be ditched The scope for scanning the negative different ways, with different colour balances perhaps, different scans to capture highlight and shadows etc., a bit like you might do with a digital RAW file, are enormous. Yes, it is harder to register these scans on top of one another since film stretches etc., so

there is a bit more work than with digital RAW in extracting all this information, but there are ways round it. For

example, a good scanner will scan a negative in RAW format, creating a RAW file that you can then interpret using

RAW processing software much the same as you would for a digital RAW file. My Nikon 9000 will create a NEF file,

Imacon scanners create .fff RAW format scans. Expect file sizes around 300MB+ per picture. The negative typically

has even greater dynamic range than the most capable digital camera. Add to that the texture of film, and you are onto

a winner.

 

So paradoxically, the digital age has opened the capabilities of film up in ways that has never been the case before.

 

So this idea of comparing digital with the way that film used to be processed and printed is way behind the curve.

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>So comapring purely digital workflow to a purely traditional film workflow is simply an out of date way of thinking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not for those of us who optically print.</p>