Can your camera do this? Would you want it to?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ah, yes - charisma!

(Sorry, Terry!)

Thanks
I always though film had something special about it...
I never guessed is was Charisma..............

 

[ancient_mariner]

It's an interesting comparison. At this stage let me say that I still love the smooth tones and wide latitude - especially the lack of blown highlights - of colour neg film, but would be reluctant to go back.

I agree with all Terry says above. In addition my recollection of consumer grade film processing from 25 years ago was that colour correction and tonal density was all over the place, just like using a modern digital camera in program mode with average metering across the whole frame. If you shot work to present to other people then it would have to go through a lab where each print was checked and corrected individually - as I recall at a cost of around £6-£7 per 120 roll 25 years ago.

I used to do my own D&P at one time, and it was wonderful to be able to control the image creation process instead of being stuck with whatever the lab produced. The ease of doing this now in digital would prevent me going back, never mind the cost (which was considerable) because taking the picture is only a small part of image creation, and no matter how 'right' you get things in camera, if you don't have control, or at least input into the rest of the process, then you won't get the result you want at the end.

Just a matter of opinion, but I think the results people get these days from phone cameras and compacts are generally much better than they ever got from the cheap or even expensive compacts before the digital revolution. 10 years ago I'd argue otherwise, but not now.

 

[AshleyC]

Even ISO 800 films have unacceptable grain structures compared to Digital noise as similar speeds.

But grain is a characteristic of the film, noise is the sensor not being able to handle things properly

 

[skysh4rk]

But grain is a characteristic of the film, noise is the sensor not being able to handle things properly

I also suspect that ISO 800 films have improved considerably with regard to grain since Terry last used them.

Even ISO 800 films have unacceptable grain structures compared to Digital noise as similar speeds.

Now, unfortunately, I don't use Portra 800 much, so I don't have many examples, but I don't think these show obtrusive or unacceptable grain by any stretch of the imagination. These were also rushed photos, so I didn't have time to meter for any of these and had to guess exposures:

 

[HoppyUK]

This battle was had for real when digital first emerged. The only thing that's changed is digital has got way better.

I've spent a lot more years shooting film than digital but there's no way I'm going back. I'm not sure the extra dynamic range and tolerance to over-exposure with neg film is such a big deal* anyway, and digital is improving all the time.

*and if it is, why did most enthusiasts shoot slides that have exactly the same exposure tolerance issues as digital?

 

[skysh4rk]

This battle was had for real when digital first emerged. The only thing that's changed is digital has got way better.

I've spent a lot more years shooting film than digital but there's no way I'm going back. I'm not sure the extra dynamic range and tolerance to over-exposure with neg film is such a big deal* anyway, and digital is improving all the time.

*and if it is, why did most enthusiasts shoot slides that have exactly the same exposure tolerance issues as digital?

This was never meant as a film versus digital thread, nor am I suggesting that folks give up digital. Between colour palette, highlight rolloff, latitude, or whatever else you might see in the chart in the original post, is there nothing there that warrants even occasional film use? What I see there looks impressive to my eyes and I prefer it to what I'm able to get from my D5100 (I'm not saying it's inherently better, just preferable), but I can't tell if I'm simply blinded by my preference for the look of film.

With regard to enthusiasts and slides, I'm not sure what the case was in the past, but I would say colour negative and B&W are far bigger than slide nowadays. Kodak has even released new colour negative emulsions over the last couple of years with far finer grain and even greater latitude that surpass what would have been available even a few years ago. I don't really see the point in shooting much slide film as it's too similar to digital for me, but I do use the odd roll now and again.

 

[StephenM]

I didn't think that this was a digital versus film battle. More a question of why people aren't told and/or don't care that negative films can handle a larger subject brightness range than digital. I think you've probably answered one half, by pointing out that "most enthusiats shoot slides", showing that for whatever reason they didn't care or didn't know (or had another reason for slides - there are a number).

For me, this ability is a big deal, and I wouldn't touch digital for things that I want to photograph. The total cost of ownership is far too high for me, until a larger than full frame sensor with a 15 stop dynamic range at £800 or less comes out (that has a 20 year guarantee). Then I might be tempted to look closely.

 

[Nod]

Just spent an afternoon shooting a roll of 200 ISO film. Hopefully Boots can extract enough from the resulting negs! Had I been shooting digital I would probably have been a few stops up the ISO ladder (and able to check the results instantly!) Quite odd shooting film again, especially negs. Fingers crossed!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But grain is a characteristic of the film, noise is the sensor not being able to handle things properly

The grain you see with film is more correctly graininess. which is the gaps between the grain in the film. the shape of these grains is as much to do with the type of development you use, as is the final graininess. Only very slow films are inherently fine grain.
noise is also inherent and is proportional to exposure. and can also be moderated by processing.
Both Noise and grain are inherent, and both are moderated by the size and density of the initial grain or pixel element and by the processing.
The actual physics and chemistry are totally different but parallel in their effect..
High ISO produces more noisy/Grainy results in both digital and film processes.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I didn't think that this was a digital versus film battle. More a question of why people aren't told and/or don't care that negative films can handle a larger subject brightness range than digital. I think you've probably answered one half, by pointing out that "most enthusiats shoot slides", showing that for whatever reason they didn't care or didn't know (or had another reason for slides - there are a number).

For me, this ability is a big deal, and I wouldn't touch digital for things that I want to photograph. The total cost of ownership is far too high for me, until a larger than full frame sensor with a 15 stop dynamic range at £800 or less comes out (that has a 20 year guarantee). Then I might be tempted to look closely.

I too used a Minolta Autocord as my last 6x6 TLR, But a rather later model to yours . I sold it to a Photo Student at college Just before I retired.
It was as equally good as a majority of my Rolleiflexes.

The last films I used were in 2006, so I doubt much has changed. But I never chose ISO 800 for serious work. Even the brides dress and dark suit in your shot are lacking in tonality.


Film users do know the latitude that is inherent in negative film. They have always known.
It had been the mainstay of wedding photography since the late 60's
That nooby digital photographers don't know, is less surprising as their cameras don't use it.
negative film was rarely used for commercial photography as the quality obtainable with transparent film was far superior for high quality reproduction.

A 15 stop range is a luxury few of us need, as neither the screens we see our results on, nor the prints we make, can anywhere near display that range.
the 11 or so stops most cameras achieve is enough for high quality results and is enough for just about any real life situation.
For the few occasions I need more I use exposure fusion.

 

[skysh4rk]

The last films I used were in 2006, so I doubt much has changed.

Sorry Terry, but the Kodak Portra line of films were completely updated in 2010 and 2011 and Kodak Ektar introduced in 2008, so things actually have changed.

While the still photography business might have gone primarily digital years ago, Kodak continued to spend considerable money improving their movie film offerings and these advances have filtered down into their still film products.

But I never chose ISO 800 for serious work. Even the brides dress and dark suit in your shot are lacking in tonality.

Again, new emulsions from what you would have used and there's nothing wrong with 800 speed film nowadays, especially in medium format. Obviously I would ordinarily use something slower in most instances, but Portra 800 works well when the light calls for it and it has a great colour palette.

Even if the dress and suit were lacking in tonality, which I'm not necessarily convinced of, it's probable that I underexposed that frame given that I had no meter, was working with a 50-year-old camera (so shutter speeds could have been off), and I was rushed (that was my own wedding). Given the situation, the film still performed quite admirably and I think that the colours still trump what I'm capable of achieving with my D5100.

Negative film was rarely used for commercial photography as the quality obtainable with transparent film was far superior for high quality reproduction.

I don't think it's fair to be talking about films of the past and how those films were used in the past. We're talking about using modern film emulsions right here in the present. Some of the colour negative emulsions have improved considerably in the past few years (Kodak Ektar has some seriously fine grain to rival slide films).

That said, photography is about more than sharpness, grain, and really big prints. I'm just not seeing the same colours that are very easily produced with colour negative film coming out of most folks' digital cameras. Many of the film photos I see also seem to have a bit more warmth to them.

Again, I'm not suggesting that everyone drop digital, but it just seems like film is often unfairly dismissed and treated as if it is past its sell-by-date.

 

[Nod]

Didn't APS have an effect on the development of finer grained higher ISO negative films too? The smaller format of APS (compared to 35mm and even more so MF) meant that grain even from ISO 400 film was quite noticeable on enprints (6x4") so something had to be done.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Warmth is an interesting word, though possibly not helpful. I'd suggest it's about the way the different medium handles dynamic range and contrast instead of colour temperature (which can be juiced in digital).

Film will only be a specialist medium from now on, and quite rightly so. Something to select in the same way one might carefully choose a special lens or a particular filter to create a certain look, rather than an everyday snap-shooting material. It's simply too inconvenient for casual snaps.

 

[PMN]

It's simply too inconvenient for casual snaps.

No it isn't, I use film for casual snaps all the time as do many others!

 

[Steve Smith]

No it isn't, I use film for casual snaps all the time as do many others!

And until about ten years ago, countless millions did it worldwide.

It's simply too inconvenient for casual snaps.

What was/is inconvenient about dropping off a roll of film and picking up your prints an hour or a day later?


Steve.

 

[AshleyC]

because we're in a society now that doesnt expect to wait for anything.

 

[Steve Smith]

because we're in a society now that doesnt expect to wait for anything.

Polaroid. Much less waiting around and faffing about than digital!


Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Polaroid. Much less waiting around and faffing about than digital!


Steve.

Still takes minutes to develop a polaroid The little darlings today couldn't possibly wait that long.

 

[Steve Smith]

Still takes minutes to develop a polaroid The little darlings today couldn't possibly wait that long.

That's true. Today you have to take a picture of your friends with a phone and turn it round to show them within two seconds!


Steve.

 

[Nod]

And until about ten years ago, countless millions did it worldwide.



What was/is inconvenient about dropping off a roll of film and picking up your prints an hour or a day later?


Steve.

Not only inconvenient but costly. A 36 exposure roll plus D&P is around a tenner for the 38 (being generous) 6x4 prints - 26.3p/print. Even using a dye sub printer (Canon Selphy), those 38 prints will cost me significantly less, especially since I don't need to print any bar the keepers. Using 7day as a supplier and buying packs of 108 prints (paper and ink) - 24.1p/print. That's not taking the ability to change ISO mid shoot into consideration. Possible with film but a PITA and wastes a few shots (yes, print film has significant latitude but it's not infinite.) Oh, to the cost of the D&P, throw in parking and fuel.

 

[Steve Smith]

Yes, but for the majority of non-professional and non-enthusiast users, dropping off a roll of film and picking up your prints was a much easier task than what the majority do today. i.e. download to computer, faff about a bit trying to make them look good, try to print one, throw it away and start again because the ink ran out, etc.

It was a trouble free and consistent process for the user.


Steve.

 

[PMN]

At the end of the day there's no distinct right or wrong with this thing of film and convenience because we all see it differently. I quite happily use film for random snapshots as well as more serious stuff, others think it's a pain in the backside using film and that's perfectly fair enough. The only thing it's wrong to do is say outright it can't be used for casual mucking about - it can, it just depends on the individual.

 

[inkiboo]

because we're in a society now that doesnt expect to wait for anything.

That is nonsense.

People will wait if there is a benefit, and for nearly everyone there is no benefit in waiting for film to be developed over the many other benefits of digital.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Yes, but for the majority of non-professional and non-enthusiast users, dropping off a roll of film and picking up your prints was a much easier task than what the majority do today. i.e. download to computer, faff about a bit trying to make them look good, try to print one, throw it away and start again because the ink ran out, etc.

Most non-enthusiast photographers do nothing to their pictures on their PCs. I use a fishing forum which has a photography section and the vast majority of photos posted there have nothing at all done to them. If they ever bother printing their pictures I reckon they either take them to one of those machines in a supermarket and use the very same files, or rattle them out on their all in one printer/scanner thing, and are perfectly happy with them.

Non-photographer camera users don't have the same values as people who use photography forums.

 

[skysh4rk]

I want to steer this away from discussions about the relative costs or benefits of film versus digital, which has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere.

No one has even yet to directly address some of the questions posed in my original post:

Now, do people agree that a digital camera that could offer performance similar to the films below (with regard to latitude, overexposure tolerance, colour palette, etc.) would be successful or in demand?

If yes, then why wouldn't more people consider using film to get that performance, if even only occasionally?

It just seems like every single advancement in digital is hailed, but the recent developments in the film industry over the past ten years are completely ignored and folks are evaluating film only on what it was 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. Can we not get more relevant, honest, up-to-date comparisons and discussion, putting aside our past experiences and biases?

That is nonsense.

People will wait if there is a benefit, and for nearly everyone there is no benefit in waiting for film to be developed over the many other benefits of digital.

My D5100 wins for high ISO, high FPS, and instant gratification, but I can't get the colours or highlights to look like film and the lenses aren't as sharp as my medium format equipment. Obviously for some folks, the high ISO, FPS, etc. will keep folks only in the digital sphere, and that's fine, but there also seem to be folks interested in colour, controlling highlights, etc. that still seem to stay exclusively in the digital camp when some of the advances in the latest colour films might suit them. If it's not convenience or instant gratification, then why aren't more people dabbling with film (and I'm not interested in hearing about costs, because I own both film and digital and they ultimately work out about the same for most users over the long haul)?

 

[Ed Sutton]

No one has even yet to directly address some of the questions posed in my original post:

Now, do people agree that a digital camera that could offer performance similar to the films below (with regard to latitude, overexposure tolerance, colour palette, etc.) would be successful or in demand?

If yes, then why wouldn't more people consider using film to get that performance, if even only occasionally?

Sure I'd like the latitude of film in digital - although this is increasing. But the rest? Overexposure tolerance is only of use to me compensate for cock-ups. Being able to change the ISO of digital at the twirl of a knob is more use. Colour palette is subjective - I'm happy with digital.

If I wanted the look of film, I'd shoot film, but frankly I don't care enough. Now if I wanted the look of medium format...

 

[skysh4rk]

Sure I'd like the latitude of film in digital - although this is increasing. But the rest? Overexposure tolerance is only of use to me compensate for cock-ups. Being able to change the ISO of digital at the twirl of a knob is more use. Colour palette is subjective - I'm happy with digital.

If I wanted the look of film, I'd shoot film, but frankly I don't care enough. Now if I wanted the look of medium format...

Fair enough, although the latitude of film demonstrates that you aren't really restricted to a single ISO.

I think the skin tones are another benefit of the current films, which I forgot to mention previously. This combined with the subtle texture of the grain really makes skin look far more pleasing than anything I've ever seen produced digitally (in my subjective opinion anyway).

Now if I wanted the look of medium format...

Which is a very good reason to shoot film as it's basically unaffordable for most folks in the digital realm and even then it's with cropped sensors. If I were restricted to 35mm, I wouldn't find film as compelling. For me, medium format combined with the current properties of film produces is capable of producing some amazing images.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I think the skin tones are another benefit of the current films, which I forgot to mention previously. This combined with the subtle texture of the grain really makes skin look far more pleasing than anything I've ever seen produced digitally (in my subjective opinion anyway).

I'm happy enough with FF digital for skin tones - but find some others appalling. Although it's not a major concern for me.

Which is a very good reason to shoot film as it's basically unaffordable for most folks in the digital realm and even then it's with cropped sensors. If I were restricted to 35mm, I wouldn't find film as compelling. For me, medium format combined with the current properties of film produces is capable of producing some amazing images.

I wonder if it's the look of medium format you are liking rather than film per se? I have considered it myself, but I don't have anything in mind to use it for!

 

[Steve Smith]

IIf yes, then why wouldn't more people consider using film to get that performance, if even only occasionally?

Mainly because people like shiny new toys and they believe the marketing nonsense they herar from manufacturers.


Steve.

 

[inkiboo]

(and I'm not interested in hearing about costs, because I own both film and digital and they ultimately work out about the same for most users over the long haul)?

That is simply not true. By all means talk about the pros of film but saying it costs the same as digital is madness.

 

[Nod]

It was a trouble free and consistent process for the user.


Steve.

Sorry but that's shoe repairers! Especially these days when D&P places are few and far between, particularly 1 hour labs. I think there are only 2 places in town that offer a 1 hour service and both are in the city centre, requiring a trip to town, parking etc, possibly twice. Plenty of troubles and inconsistencies too. I've had films lost, come back with footprints on, badly cropped, horrendous colours, fading prints, creased negs, need I go on?

 

[skysh4rk]

I wonder if it's the look of medium format you are liking rather than film per se? I have considered it myself, but I don't have anything in mind to use it for!

Well, no, I definitely like the look of film, as I'm currently completely unconvinced by the look of digital at present, all other things being equal.

Putting the light recording medium to the side for a moment though, medium format does produce its own unique look and I struggle to use anything else. In fact, I've used medium format cameras exclusively for the past 18 months, save for a few polaroids.

You should give it a go, the cameras are so much fun to use and produce great images!

That is simply not true. By all means talk about the pros of film but saying it costs the same as digital is madness.

That discussion has been done to death on many forums. The costs ultimately even out for most users unless you are just shooting indiscriminately at everything you see. It's not a pro or con for film or digital in the long run.

The costs are spread out and pay as you go with film without requiring much ever in the way of camera upgrades. It's upfront costs with upgrades every few years with digital , but no ongoing costs in between those dates.

My medium format cameras cost me £115 each and I bought my last Nikon 35mm camera for £5. How much is a full frame DSLR, which still only has a sensor 1/4 the size of a 6x6cm medium format film frame? I could shoot a lot of film with the money saved in the difference in price.

Anyhow, this is taking us way off track and not the purpose of this discussion. People could afford to buy a cheap film camera off of eBay and develop a few rolls if they can manage to buy the latest filters, lenses, etc.

 

[Phil V]

I want to steer this away from discussions about the relative costs or benefits of film versus digital, which has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere.

No one has even yet to directly address some of the questions posed in my original post:

Now, do people agree that a digital camera that could offer performance similar to the films below (with regard to latitude, overexposure tolerance, colour palette, etc.) would be successful or in demand?

If yes, then why wouldn't more people consider using film to get that performance, if even only occasionally?

It just seems like every single advancement in digital is hailed, but the recent developments in the film industry over the past ten years are completely ignored and folks are evaluating film only on what it was 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. Can we not get more relevant, honest, up-to-date comparisons and discussion, putting aside our past experiences and biases?

My D5100 wins for high ISO, high FPS, and instant gratification, but I can't get the colours or highlights to look like film and the lenses aren't as sharp as my medium format equipment. Obviously for some folks, the high ISO, FPS, etc. will keep folks only in the digital sphere, and that's fine, but there also seem to be folks interested in colour, controlling highlights, etc. that still seem to stay exclusively in the digital camp when some of the advances in the latest colour films might suit them. If it's not convenience or instant gratification, then why aren't more people dabbling with film (and I'm not interested in hearing about costs, because I own both film and digital and they ultimately work out about the same for most users over the long haul)?

Because. As has been pointed out, whilst the latitude of film is laudable, that test shot is skewed to make film look better than it really is.

We all would like a wider latitude than we currently get with digital, but the small (smaller than this test shows) advantage gained from colour print film isn't a good enough win to offset the losses.

And that's the crux, whilst you can spend all day saying 'it's not a film vs digital question' it just is!

The small advantage in film latitude is more than lost against variable ISO, instant feedback, control over output, etc etc.

I understand why some people feel the need to shoot film, or manual focus, or large format. But for what most people do, the picture and it's convenience override any judgement of the means of capture.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Well, no, I definitely like the look of film, as I'm currently completely unconvinced by the look of digital at present, all other things being equal.

Putting the light recording medium to the side for a moment though, medium format does produce its own unique look and I struggle to use anything else. In fact, I've used medium format cameras exclusively for the past 18 months, save for a few polaroids.

You should give it a go, the cameras are so much fun to use and produce great images!

I thought I liked the look of black and white film - until I gave it a go (after a break of 30 years or so) and realised what I liked was the look the 35mm frame gives. Digital or film doesn't matter to me.

I've been trying to like using mirrorless because the cameras are fun to use. But I can't bring myself to like the pictures I make with them. As far as MF goes if I had something in mind which it would benefit I'd give it a go. But using it for the fun of using it is doesn't appeal. We're all different, I suppose.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sorry Terry, but the Kodak Portra line of films were completely updated in 2010 and 2011 and Kodak Ektar introduced in 2008, so things actually have changed.

While the still photography business might have gone primarily digital years ago, Kodak continued to spend considerable money improving their movie film offerings and these advances have filtered down into their still film products.



Again, new emulsions from what you would have used and there's nothing wrong with 800 speed film nowadays, especially in medium format. Obviously I would ordinarily use something slower in most instances, but Portra 800 works well when the light calls for it and it has a great colour palette.

Even if the dress and suit were lacking in tonality, which I'm not necessarily convinced of, it's probable that I underexposed that frame given that I had no meter, was working with a 50-year-old camera (so shutter speeds could have been off), and I was rushed (that was my own wedding). Given the situation, the film still performed quite admirably and I think that the colours still trump what I'm capable of achieving with my D5100.



I don't think it's fair to be talking about films of the past and how those films were used in the past. We're talking about using modern film emulsions right here in the present. Some of the colour negative emulsions have improved considerably in the past few years (Kodak Ektar has some seriously fine grain to rival slide films).

That said, photography is about more than sharpness, grain, and really big prints. I'm just not seeing the same colours that are very easily produced with colour negative film coming out of most folks' digital cameras. Many of the film photos I see also seem to have a bit more warmth to them.

Again, I'm not suggesting that everyone drop digital, but it just seems like film is often unfairly dismissed and treated as if it is past its sell-by-date.

You see film with the eyes of a lover.

The remaining rump of kodak has very recently signed a contract to provide Cine film to Hollywood for the next 5 years, They are the last reming manufacturer of cine film and had proposed to cease making it next year. I can not see kodak providing still film any longer than that. The use of Kodak movie film has fallen from 12.4 billion feet a year to a decreasing still 44.9 million feet per year.

Production of still negative film had already converged on that of the movie Film technology. (the advances you had noticed)

As long as it is available film will always produce a particular "Film Look"
Just as Graded Bromide and chloro-bromide Papers Available in the 60's produced a distinctive quality with tones and maximum blacks far superior to todays offerings. However the Silver content then, was far higher than would be affordable today.

Black and white film will probably remain in production, by minor players, as long as the coating machinery remains operable. However sourcing chemical free backing paper is already problematic. The infrastructure of supporting suppliers to the industry no longer exists.

 

[HoppyUK]

Because. As has been pointed out, whilst the latitude of film is laudable, that test shot is skewed to make film look better than it really is.

We all would like a wider latitude than we currently get with digital, but the small (smaller than this test shows) advantage gained from colour print film isn't a good enough win to offset the losses.

And that's the crux, whilst you can spend all day saying 'it's not a film vs digital question' it just is!

The small advantage in film latitude is more than lost against variable ISO, instant feedback, control over output, etc etc.

I understand why some people feel the need to shoot film, or manual focus, or large format. But for what most people do, the picture and it's convenience override any judgement of the means of capture.

Yes. You can't cherry-pick one aspect and ignore everything else that goes with it.

And the OP is also comparing 120 roll film to APS-C digital and despite what he says, that must be skewing things. Format size just makes a huge difference to all aspects of image quality. While APS-C digital has replaced 35mm film, it is full-frame digital that has replaced 120 roll film as the enthusiast's choice and the professional's workhorse.

And with respect, the OP also seems to think he's telling us something new. Most members here are plenty old enough to have used tons of film, are well aware of the exposure advantages of neg film, and while recent film advances might have improved things (very slightly) digital is improving at a much faster rate and will continue to do so.

 

[skysh4rk]

Because. As has been pointed out, whilst the latitude of film is laudable, that test shot is skewed to make film look better than it really is.

We all would like a wider latitude than we currently get with digital, but the small (smaller than this test shows) advantage gained from colour print film isn't a good enough win to offset the losses.

Pointed out by whom? Terry? We already established that his knowledge of and experience with colour negative is outdated, as colour negative has continued to move on. The latitude is certainly better than Terry suggests, as I use ISO 400 film at f/2.8 outdoors and I don't have a problem even though the fastest shutter speed on any of my cameras is 1/500.

Even if Terry were right though, the outdoor conditions and lighting in the UK often match what's in those examples, so they're still very relevant (or at least there's not often sunshine and very contrasty conditions in Scotland anyway).

I don't want to get hung up exclusively on latitude though, as I think other advantages of film are demonstrated in that chart such as colour palette, skin tones, and straight-from-the-camera results (obviously the lab has to do some interpretation, but no more input required from the photographer).

In my own experiences, digital has not been as convenient when it comes to getting the images that I want. Perhaps this isn't just simply to do with capture media, but also intertwined with my preference for medium format and my dislike of the 3:2 format.

You see film with the eyes of a lover.

I definitely do, but most folks are seeing this discussion through their own biased eyes, but from the digital side of the camp.

I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I'm just interested in exploring the ground between these two sides, because it ultimately shouldn't be an either/or prospect.

 

[skysh4rk]

Yes. You can't cherry-pick one aspect and ignore everything else that goes with it.

And the OP is also comparing 120 roll film to APS-C digital and despite what he says, that must be skewing things. Format size just makes a huge difference to all aspects of image quality. While APS-C digital has replaced 35mm film, it is full-frame digital that has replaced 120 roll film as the enthusiast's choice and the professional's workhorse.

And with respect, the OP also seems to think he's telling us something new. Most members here are plenty old enough to have used tons of film, are well aware of the exposure advantages of neg film, and while recent film advances might have improved things (very slightly) digital is improving at a much faster rate and will continue to do so.

Okay, fair enough. The mixture of formats could be skewing things. I'm also sure that there are many on the forum who are aware of negative film, but, at the same time, there are likely many who are not.

Putting aside formats, convenience, costs, lenses, and everything else; I like what I see in those film photos and I think that others do too.

The point that I was trying to make was that if people were interested in that sort of performance in their digital camera (and I think people would buy a digital camera capable of that), is it really that big a leap to occasionally use film to get that performance?

 

[Phil V]

I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I'm just interested in exploring the ground between these two sides, because it ultimately shouldn't be an either/or prospect.

I'm afraid you're not in the slightest interested in exploring the ground between the two, in a myriad of posts all you've done is argue the case for film, and told anyone who disputed the 'evidence' that they're wrong.

If you're so convinced that Terry's assessment is flawed, redo the 'test' with a subject with greater dynamic range. That way you can 'prove' he's wrong rather than just asserting it.

 

[HoppyUK]

<snip>

The point that I was trying to make was that if people were interested in that sort of performance in their digital camera (and I think people would buy a digital camera capable of that), is it really that big a leap to occasionally use film to get that performance?

No. Because I'm not seeing the same value to those benefits as you. I really don't get this 'film look' business, and if these characteristics were so valuable (colour, exposure latitude, highlights roll-off etc) I don't see why digital wouldn't be capable of that, and more, if sensor technology was developed in that direction. Market demand is the key.

Film is just not viable for me any more, or for most people, and I still have 35mm and 120 film cameras. There isn't a film camera and lens system (past, present, future) at any price, that comes near the capability of a full-frame DSLR.