Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

digital cameras vs film cameras
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One area where digital still hasn't caught upto film is dynamic range, particularly in the way it handles highlights. Digital cameras clip highlights in a harsh way - like hitting a brick wall, whereas film has a smooth roll-off that looks a lot nicer. Fuji's sensors are somewhat better than most in this regard, but still can't match film.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Last week I saw an interview with the Magnum Agency photographer's Sebastiao Salgado at the Brazilian TV, where he says in 2008 is gave up film caused to restrictions in airports with X-ray use, etc.
The way his 500.000 archive is done is as fallows: he copies his digital raw files - each one - to a 4x5 negative sheet film. The 35mm is archived as film, of course. His work is 99,99% in B&W.

Renato


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think the film vs. digital debate is only about resolution. For me it's tones or the "look" of film that digital can't get close too. When looking at my photos, I much prefer the tones of scanned b&w film compared to digital conversions.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
In one century from now, all the films shot today will still be here in nearly perfect condition.
The digital files will all be gone, unless they get duplicated on at least two different supports at least once a year.

Also, with digital files becoming very old there is the risk that their format may not be readable anymore. Think
it's a remote risk? Well, think again. From what I could read, NASA is unable to read today some of the older probe files
they received 30-40 years ago, because they don't know how to read the format anymore.
And if an organization like NASA has this problem, do you think that we'll be immune from that in, say, 2113, when
someone will try to read our Raw files?


This is one of the most serious arguments I can think of in the film vs digital debate. We just simply don't know what the future may bring and how long-or-short sighted our descendents will be. Just look at past human history and the tragedies of the paroxysms that various cultures went through as they alternated between times of learning and times of book-burning and other means of thoroughly cleansing knowledge from the face of the Earth. Are our descendents really to be trusted with maintaining the fragile thread that is the digital capture of not just images, but all information? I really do firmly believe that there needs to be hardcopy and film or its equivalent (archival prints for example) to have any true chance of archives that will survive the truly long tests of time. You know, we should take a few lessons from the ancient cultures of the East -- the two contiguous cultures I can think of: the Indians and Chinese, and study the way they have managed to maintain archives that date back some 6,000 years. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, all other cultures are recovering their distant pasts through archeology to reach back that far, if their cultures are even that old. Which means at some point, they died out, and were likely rediscovered by someone besides themselves.

Regular CDs and DVDs have shelf lives that can be as short as a couple years. Believe it or don't. I already have a few that I burned a few years ago that are unreadable. Gold DVDs are supposed to be truly archival quality with estimates ranging out to 50 to 100 years. But they're called Gold for a reason. And they've become really expensive because of the price of gold. Still, the big problem I see with any digital format is the recollection of how to process it so that one can reveal the information in a recognizable form, as Orio mentions about the 30-40 year old NASA footage. That's a tragedy. Reminds me a lot of all the scrambing about folks had to do for Y2K. Suddenly people who used to code in Fortran and Cobol were in high demand and making the big bucks for a brief while because of the demand versus shortage equation. What will it be like, though, when even the books that taught one how to do the conversions are stored on the digital media, so that there is no hardcopy archival information? What then?

You know, an almost given concept in the computer world is backward compatibility. Or legacy compatibility. It's given a lot of lip service, but you know what? Eventually, it quietly disappears as one OS hegemonizes others. So even if we have the case where it is touted that there will always be backward compatibility for legacy systems so we can still call up their information files, I just don't think we can rely on that always being around. It might survive a couple of decades. But what about a couple of centuries? Millennia? Hah! I gotta laugh.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You know, I've been thinking about this a lot recently. And I'm aware of how there's a lot more to the film vs. digital debate than in terms of resolution alone. But I haven't been able to get the resolution issue out of my head. It all stems from a test I did a couple years back or so, where I used my lowly 10.1mp Canon DSLR to duplicate a photo I'd made back in 1989 with an image I'd taken on Fujichrome 100 slide film with a Canon F-1 and a Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 macro lens, a very sharp optic. Some over 20 years later, I was able to locate the exact same item photographed in the slide -- a Rolex knockoff wristwatch. So I set the watch approximately the same distance away from the camera, set up similar lighting, and took a few shots. The results weren't even close. The 10.1mp images just totally blew away the slide image. And back in the day when I was using the old Fujichrome 100 I liked it a lot because its grain was quite fine. Not as fine as Kodachrome, but close.

I knew I had posted the results here. It took me a while to find the link, but I did. Here's a link to the thread where I posted a comparision between the Fujichrome 100 slide, taken with a good macro lens, and a 10.1mp DSLR image, taken with a good macro lens. Scroll about halfway down to see the comparision:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=35395&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=3ec62fbfb85df13deb2120d1a6e62b54

So it's bugged me why digital is so much sharper than film, especially when you can run a set of calculations that indicate that a very fine grained film emulsion is capable of storing the equivalent of 35mp or more on a single 35mm frame.

And then it dawned on me. It's the way the information is stored. Digital information is stored in exact, discrete bits. There's either something there or there isn't. More bits for the color of the image, etc. While film is dealing with grain, and its inherent randomness. You would need a fairly sized arrangement of grain, seems to me, to be able to store anything meaningful, image wise. So it has occurred to me that, in order for film to compare with digital it must have a significantly greater resolution capability than digital does, to be able to bring together the randomness into discrete quanta of information that will approximate what may only occupy a few pixels with a digital sensor. Does this make sense to you?

What intrigues me the most about this is my becoming aware of this new ADOX film that will resolve 400 lpmm. It seems to me that images taken with ADOX can prove my point -- or prove me a fool, one of the two. An image captured with ADOX should have enough surplus resolution so that it should be able to match most anything a hi-res digital sensor can throw at it. Because of film's inherent randomness with grain structure -- despite there having been much work done with various grain shapes over the years, ultimately it's random the way they are deposited on the substrate -- the more there is of it, the more likely chance there will be that it will capture the detail sufficient to rival, and perhaps even surpass digital. And let's face it -- if we ever want to see a true and lasting resurgence of film, it's gonna take something like this to occur. Digital has things won hands down with its simplicity factor. So film needs the edge somewhere else that is still easily quantifiable and much less open to empty dispute.

Last edited by cooltouch on Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:54 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent points Michael but the film industry is based on profit not charity and that's the problem...although maybe governments would coerce some film suppliers to make film for archival reasons or whatever.
Probably a good reason for communism\socialism as a state run film industry could continue making\developing film... even at a loss Wink


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As a committed film user, I have to recognise the fact that digital has overtaken my preferred medium for sharpness and detail recording, and I realise that at some stage soon I will have to invest in a decent quality digital camera. When you pixel-peep film shots, the grain becomes apparent compared to high resolution digital. My solution for this is not to pixel-peep: I tend to view my photos at their intended image size. Film shots have a certain character that I like, plus, with a fixed number of shots on a roll, more thought goes into my composition and exposure settings - when the result turns out well, I get a lot of satisfaction.

Having said that, I reluctantly admit that some of my most successful shots have been produced with digital cameras. I just hate the fact that the digital process panders to our "disposable" life style.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
skida wrote:
As a committed film user, I have to recognise the fact that digital has overtaken my preferred medium for sharpness and detail recording, and I realise that at some stage soon I will have to invest in a decent quality digital camera. When you pixel-peep film shots, the grain becomes apparent compared to high resolution digital. My solution for this is not to pixel-peep: I tend to view my photos at their intended image size. Film shots have a certain character that I like, plus, with a fixed number of shots on a roll, more thought goes into my composition and exposure settings - when the result turns out well, I get a lot of satisfaction.

Having said that, I reluctantly admit that some of my most successful shots have been produced with digital cameras. I just hate the fact that the digital process panders to our "disposable" life style.


Well you have to use medium format and with a decent home scanner can start to match 35mm digital cameras...but the problem is all the bother of sending the film away for dev (well unless you live near a handy lab), as ATM Asda will do a 35mm film in about 30-40mins and scanned to a CD...while you shop.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:


P.S. How many of your CDs or DVDs made 10 years ago are still readable today? About half of mine are gone.

Really? I have never ever encountered a problem when trying to read one of the CDs I recorded years ago.


Orio wrote:
..., when someone will try to read our Raw files?

Even with the greatest optimism, I doubt that anybody will like to read my RAW files in 2113. Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In this (IMHO pointless) discussion whether film or digital provide more information, the best analogy is the comparison of vinyl and CD.
Pretty much the same. It's not better or worse, it's different.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
..but you are forgetting newbies that might learn something, and anyway if you have spare time what's the problem as we can't talk about Helios lenses or the weather for ever Wink


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
In this (IMHO pointless) discussion whether film or digital provide more information, the best analogy is the comparison of vinyl and CD.
Pretty much the same. It's not better or worse, it's different.


I disagree. First of all, to me, this isn't a pointless discussion. I realize some people just want to see it go away, but I want to understand it. And to do that it means that I need to ask questions, to investigate, in hopes of arriving at the whys and wherefores. As I mentioned in an earlier post -- I get it how digital has it all over film from a convenience standpoint. It's made a huge difference from amateur to pro alike, totally changing the way imaging is processed and distributed. But that doesn't mean that film should be abandoned, or thought of as using it only for hard-to-explain aesthetic reasons. No, I see film as having a lasting and important future, albeit as a more time consuming, more permanent alternative, but nevertheless a worthwhile one.

Secondly, the difference between vinyl and CD is the difference between analog and digital audio signals, which is worlds away from comparing emulsion-based vs. digital imaging system.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Excellent points Michael but the film industry is based on profit not charity and that's the problem...although maybe governments would coerce some film suppliers to make film for archival reasons or whatever.
Probably a good reason for communism\socialism as a state run film industry could continue making\developing film... even at a loss Wink


Archival needs encompass museums, galleries, private collectors, MF and LF users in the hole world, I would be glad to have just this in my customers list.
Last month Ilford opened a new store in California due to increasing demand for paper, film and professional developing services.

[]s,

Renato


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's good news, Renato. I'm a bit surprised it's CA, which is not a business friendly state. Guess there's a big enough customer base there that makes locating there worthwhile.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
skida wrote:
When you pixel-peep film shots, the grain becomes apparent compared to high resolution digital. My solution for this is not to pixel-peep: I tend to view my photos at their intended image size.


Very good point here, I think.
What bothers me in this digital era of photography is that photos, being seen mostly on the computer screen, loose their real dimensions.
As in painting, any photo should have (and had before digital) "real" dimensions and "real" presence. A miniature is intended for and should be seen at it's dimensions and not at the size of a monumental fresco and vice-versa. Somehow, viewing photos on a computer screen instead of seeing them on paper is like viewing a painting album instead of looking at the real paintings, at their real physical dimensions and in their real presence. A much poorest, virtual experience. And unfortunately, in my case at least, most of my digital photos remain on a disks and should be seen on a monitor. Only few of them had become real things, printed on paper.
Pixel-peeping and the need for greater and greater resolution doesn't make sense if you don't intend to print really large.
But on the computer screen, being so easy to zoom-in, one is tempted to pixel-peep all the time. And this is, of course, what camera makers want us to do in order to sell us cameras and lenses with endless increasing resolution.

Like skida said, I try to imagine my photos as they should look printed on paper, at their intended real size, even in the moment of triggering the camera. And this way the importance of the resolution handicap of film vs digital fades out.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
That's good news, Renato. I'm a bit surprised it's CA, which is not a business friendly state. Guess there's a big enough customer base there that makes locating there worthwhile.


Yes, good news indeed,

HARMAN Director of Marketing and North American Sales, Steven Brierley, explained, “It has become more and more difficult for black and white film users to have their films processed and printed to a high quality on real black and white paper. Our Lab based at the HARMAN factory in England has provided a continuous quality service to UK photographers for many years, and we are seeing an increased number of enquiries from overseas, including North America. We are excited to announce that built on that success we can now offer the same service from a base in California.”

Sources:

http://petapixel.com/2013/08/29/ilford-opens-up-photo-lab-in-california-will-process-your-film-by-mail/

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=171

Renato


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good point about the size and pixel peeping. Too often ,too many forget that a picture has to be seen from a certain distance to get the whole . Imagine how would be to look at the Leonardo's "Last Supper" from one meter?! Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
yinyangbt wrote:
Good point about the size and pixel peeping. Too often ,too many forget that a picture has to be seen from a certain distance to get the whole . Imagine how would be to look at the Leonardo's "Last Supper" from one meter?! Laughing


Well that's true...but you have to get a 35mm shot right because of the usual low scan (drum scanning is expensive), as if you don't, and want a large crop, the results are not very good...and you can't expect a person to view your A4 print at 5ft away. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
yinyangbt wrote:
Good point about the size and pixel peeping. Too often ,too many forget that a picture has to be seen from a certain distance to get the whole . Imagine how would be to look at the Leonardo's "Last Supper" from one meter?! Laughing


Well that's true...but you have to get a 35mm shot right because of the usual low scan (drum scanning is expensive), as if you don't, and want a large crop, the results are not very good...and you can't expect a person to view your A4 print at 5ft away. Wink

Of course , the scanning process is one of those limiting in quality if it's not properly done.And yes the 35 mm shot has to be done right , no much cropping allowed. When using film many tend to be more careful before pressing the button .


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well my son has left his Canon 400d at my place a few months ago on permanent loan (he uses his mobile now)...well I've ordered a M42\ef adapter from big-is for £2.40 to see how M42 lenses perform... so I thought I'd better play with the camera to see how it works and the battery is flat (h'mm mechanical film cameras don't have that problem)....Anyway it should give me some experience on digital vers film, although I'm not sure if it has a focus lock as the keyhole viewfinder can't compare with a SLR...all fun Wink


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RSalles wrote:
Last week I saw an interview with the Magnum Agency photographer's Sebastiao Salgado at the Brazilian TV, where he says in 2008 is gave up film caused to restrictions in airports with X-ray use, etc.
The way his 500.000 archive is done is as fallows: he copies his digital raw files - each one - to a 4x5 negative sheet film. The 35mm is archived as film, of course. His work is 99,99% in B&W.

Renato


Bingo! That's exactly what I've been saying for years. Pick a few really important digital pics every year and make a real film copy of them (I wasn't thinking of 4x5 at the time) or print them out on high quality archival ink and paper and store them in good condtions.
The cost is marginal and your descendants will have at least some idea of your life and who you were/what you looked like. Rather that, than some collection of rotting data files they can't read or don't even see or know about.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Orio wrote:


P.S. How many of your CDs or DVDs made 10 years ago are still readable today? About half of mine are gone.

Really? I have never ever encountered a problem when trying to read one of the CDs I recorded years ago.


When I've had stuff to keep for as long as possible I've burned it on Kodak Gold and (this is crucial) written it at slow speed - like 4x, instead of 32x, 48x.
Never had a Gold CD fail yet and some of them are over ten years old. Some of the others I wasn't careful about burning speed have failed, and also, they weren't just any old rubbish cheap CD/DVD, but selected to have a decent lifespan. Slow-burned ones, even of the non-Gold variety have lasted ok.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
In this (IMHO pointless) discussion whether film or digital provide more information, the best analogy is the comparison of vinyl and CD.
Pretty much the same. It's not better or worse, it's different.


I disagree. First of all, to me, this isn't a pointless discussion. I realize some people just want to see it go away, but I want to understand it. And to do that it means that I need to ask questions, to investigate, in hopes of arriving at the whys and wherefores. As I mentioned in an earlier post -- I get it how digital has it all over film from a convenience standpoint. It's made a huge difference from amateur to pro alike, totally changing the way imaging is processed and distributed. But that doesn't mean that film should be abandoned, or thought of as using it only for hard-to-explain aesthetic reasons. No, I see film as having a lasting and important future, albeit as a more time consuming, more permanent alternative, but nevertheless a worthwhile one.

Secondly, the difference between vinyl and CD is the difference between analog and digital audio signals, which is worlds away from comparing emulsion-based vs. digital imaging system.


No offence meant!

But as far as the vinyl/CD analogy is conerned, I stick to my point.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

No offence meant!

But as far as the vinyl/CD analogy is conerned, I stick to my point.


No offense taken! And as an analogy, it is adequate for making a point. But like many, if not most, analogies, close examination reveals the flaws. I stick to my point, as well.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The point about film and X-rays:- In hand luggage (not checked in luggage) and going thru' x-ray scanners. Well I'm sure I've read that Kodak have tested western airport ones and film up to 400 ISO can take 16 scans and over 400 ISO less.
note: X-rays are accumulative.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3