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.

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?

When I say, "highest quality," I mean highest sharpness at the biggest size, clarity, detail. (So basically the highest

quality)

I am a photographic educator. The question i asked is the #1 question asked in the classroom. So, I thought I would

post it and let the students read the responses for themselves. I will make the question very explicit, if it isn't explicit

enough, then don't bother answering, it doesn't help anyone.

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.

Now, with that fact in mind, the question is: What will yield a higher quality print at the largest size? film or digital?

So in other words, according to the camera's primary function, what is better, film or digital?

Now I don't know how I can get anymore explicit than that.

So you're saying that a $30,000 digital camera will give a higher quality, and larger image, and a 16x20" negative like Mike Dixon

suggested?

I'll put it another way: Lets say I had to photograph something very important in another country and I only get one chance at it. And I

need the highest possible quality and the biggest picture ever. AND I ONLY HAD ONE CHANCE. What equipment should I use? (Film or

digital)

Now lets just assume that I have a photographic slave ( oops, assistant) who follows me around and makes sure that my film doesn't get

exposed to xrays, or visible light or whatever. Just assume that the negative/positive was (or will be) correctly exposed and developed.

<i><b>Moderator's note:</b> Since folks seem to want to play in the "digital vs. film" sandbox today, I'm not gonna fight the trend. This and a related thread, <a href="http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00Qd26" >If you want the look of film, use FILM!</a>, will remain open for three days, then will expire. To quote Miracle Max: "Have fun stormin' da castle!" -- Lex</i><p>

<i><b>Moderator's note (update 9/1/08):</b> These types of discussions are seldom productive and rarely relevant to the scope of the b&w forums, which emphasize techniques for traditional use of b&w film, processing and printing. "Film vs. digital" threads have raged for years without resolution. They are sometimes appropriate to the Casual Conversations or other forums, but not here. I made two exceptions for this and the related thread (see link). After 10 years of reading similar discussions I did not see a single new thought expressed in either thread. For that reason no further "film vs. digital" threads or related topics will be entertained on the b&w forums. Please refer to this and the related thread and read every line before deciding that you have some novel idea on the subject. -- Lex</i><br><br><br><p>

I did not ask these questions: what is easier, what is cheaper, what is more convenient?<p>

I am talking about quality only (out of the camera, not up-sampled in photoshop [because scanned film and be up-sampled in photoshop two, so that technology or advantage applies to both film and digital therefor I am excluding it in this post)<p>

What I am asking is, what has a higher quality? You can take the best of Film vs. the Best of digital. (in other words, in my limited experience, I might compare the 44MP frame to a 24x36" scanned negative [those are the two best I can

think of in one second both worlds have to offer)<p>

Please leave out the gigi-pixel project for two reasons: #1 it isn't on everyone dinner table #2 it uses film, apparently.)<p>

Also, I don't want to hear, "Well it isn't fair to compare a 44mp to a L-format film sheet..." Yes it is, one is digital, and one is film, plain and simple. If I had to choose between digital and film, and I wanted the absolutely biggest and best quality print, which one would provide it?<p>

How do I get the settings I use? Does it matter? The image is perfectly exposed and developed. Maybe I got a good

image cause I have been doing it for years. If you must know, it was a bracket between F4 @ 1/125 and F4 @ 1/60. Not

only was it completely overcast and raining, I was under a few tall trees so it makes it more like the F2.8 shady day rule.

F2.8 @ 1/400 = F4 @ 1/200 add one stop of light for filter and it is F4 @ 1/100. It just means I used a 250 EI. And the

Yellow #12 t filter is darker than a normal Yellow #8 so it may actually be a 1.33 filter stop change so I may have used 320

EI or if the filter is even darker than I exposed it at 400 EI.

Lex you probably have the only solution: one push stops. PX will probably go to 250iso no problem, and Foma 200 should easily go to 400

and Adox 100 says it has no problem going to 200iso. maybe I just have to lose the filter but I really like what the yellow #12 is doing to

skintones.

It was Foma 200, not Foma 100. I don't want more light, I am shooting in open shade with the F4 @ 1/iso rule, handholding

with a filter that gobbles one stop of light. I have absolutely no interest in shooting in direct sunlight. I don't have more film

and can't obtain more before they leave. Please don't give me choices I don't have. I already listed my available choices.

I have two developers to choose from: Rollei RHS or Ilford Ilfotec HC. These kids are going back home soon and I don't

have any 400 speed film left. I have: Tmax 100, Foma 200 or Kodak 125PX. thats it.

Here is a scan of Neopan 400. Scanner V700. Mamiya 645E. 35mm Lens 1:3.5. I just provided this picture as an example of neopan 400

developed in Rollei RHS. Technical information: F4 @ 1/60. Yellow #12 Tiffen filter.

Question: I am out of 400 speed film. Does Kodak 125iso PX push to 500 EI very well?<div></div>

I have a bachelor's in photography and I consider it pretty worthless. No one cares. All it is good for is getting into

graduate school. If you really want to get into the cookie-cutter world of commercial photography the best degree to get is

a business degree

I recently purchased the Suntec infrared filter I can't find information on it anywhere except where I bought it (which doesn't tell much and

the filter didn't come with an information pamphlet.):

http://tinyurl.com/5rfmar

It says it cuts off light at 750nm. I hold it up against light and I see nothing. I hold it up to the sun and I can see that.

I shot a roll of Rollei with it. I am barely pulling the slightest hint of an image at F4 @ 4" in direct sunlight using the Suntec IR filter. I

thought Rollei was 820nm? I use to read it was more like SFX but lately I am reading it is more like Efke 820c.

Also, I tested a few frames, of the same roll, with the rollei without a filter (320EI) and with a Red #29+ Cir. Pol. and those images came

out perfect on the same roll, so it isn't fogged, or unexposed, or exposed to heat or messed up somehow, the film is fine. The images I

shot with the Suntec 750nm cuttoff IR filter are the only ones barely coming out.

Anyone have an explanation for this? Is Rollei only a 740nm IR film like Ilford's SFX?