digital versus analogue photography + digital "quality"

[stelios_steliou]

i am trying to understand the real relativeness between pixels and

silver grade (something like digital versus analogue photography).

A good start to get into this subject, is to know how many "silver

grades" exist in a 35 mm film exposure (i.e. 100 ISO, medium

quality).Then, when a digital camera has 6 million megapixels, what

exactly does it mean (and what is happening between an exposure of

100 ISO and another one of 1000 for instance) and which is the real

relationship with bytes.

In conclusion: 2 subjects

1st: How many silver grades are in the (24 X 36)mm film and what's

going with it in the digital exposure

2nd: What is the REAL relationship between megapixels and megabytes

and of course real quality, or real analysis if you prefer

 

I think that somewhere here is the truth about d.photo

[Jochen_S]

If you asked for gray scales in b&w Negs: Many!, more than the 256 of the digital picture can be achieved. Don't know what you get actually out in the print. It's said one could scan about 16mio pixel out of 35mm. But I myself am no friend of 100films in general, so I prefer bigger Negs. About the gray scales It depends on the product your aiming at. Let's say a offset duotone print of a great work of Ansel Adams is beautiful enough to be hanged on my wall. Due to offsetprinting it has only 256 gray scales per color. So that's no real problem. But maybe the original looks better to you?

Amount of data Per pixel 3x8 bits in raw format, jpg compresses. You don't loose details if you turn up the digitals ISO setting the sensitivity of the sensors will be ampilifed. At the end I'd say 35mm can be better with slow films and wetdarkroom prints. If we try Delta 3200 and similar for offsetprinted work digital might be better.

[david_walker1]

I'm an engineer and a photographer so I have thought about this for a while. I shoot film and digital (Nikon D100). Every quantitative analysis I have seen says that film has higher resolution than digital. Every comparison of images I have seen shows digital to be superior in APPRARENT sharpness (at least compared to 35mm at or below 11*14 or thereabouts.

 

My rationaliztion is that there is better inherent resolution in film, but the processes to reproduce prints fail to transfer the resolution without low pass filtering it. On the other hand, digital printers have very high resolution (higher than the image file) and sharpening algorithms create the illusion of sharpness when prints are viewed at normal distances.

 

The bottom line for me is that in most cases, digital allows me to give my customers better looking prints than film.

[Greg M]

In a perfect world, and if you find a lab that CONSISTENTLY processes and prints your film the same way print film is great. That's where film fails me many times. I find the only consistent place I can get print film processed and printed in a way I am happy with costs $30 a roll of 36 exp. and is not accessable for me during the work week. I can go out with my G5, shoot all day, download the images on my computer, burn only the ones I want to keep to CD, take them to Walmart, download only the ones I want printed, crop images on their machine myself in a way I want, and get better, consistently made 8x10 prints than 3 trips to the processor can get me. And all that "extra" time I spend doing all that? That's the fun part for me.

[Spearhead]

The questions you ask really have nothing to do with the results. The issue is that photography is an <i>end-to-end</i> process. We don't spend time showing people our negatives or slides under a loupe, almost all the time, it's prints or images printed in publications.<p>

 

As a result, you have to look at ways to get to the end. This includes film/minilab print, film/custom print, film/scanner/digital print, digital/digital print, and maybe even film/scanner/digital negative/analog print and digital/digital negative/analog print. You even have to look at what kind of results are desired - prints on watercolor paper look very different from prints on photographic paper or luster and glossy surface digital paper. The results are intended to look different and can't compare.<p>

 

In the end, it's the results that need to be compared. I find some of my prints on watercolor paper can be compared to alternative process printing in the darkroom. That's an interesting comparison, but only in terms of results, not a direct comparison of technical issues.

[david_kieltyka]

> Every quantitative analysis I have seen says that film has higher resolution than digital. Every comparison of images I have seen shows digital to be superior in APPRARENT sharpness (at least compared to 35mm at or below 11*14 or thereabouts). <

 

This is what I see too. My prints from Canon 10D photos have higher edge contrast, and thus a snappier appearance, than my prints from scanned 35mm film. I think this is due to the 10D's relative lack of noise/grain. The film holds more detail but the digital images are cleaner and have smoother tonality when scaled up to print size.

 

-Dave-