Film v Digital

LOL. It'll come as no surprise to many of us here who still love using film. ;)
 
The dynamic range of film still beats digital in any way. Especially when you've got a lot of range, and different colour tones. Digital just throws a hissy fit and tries to 'normalise' it all whereas film just bloody takes the picture. I've got some old film shots that I did on a PnS camera that I will treasure till the day I die.
 
joxby said:
tut tut tut...:nono:

you're gonna have to be more diplomatic than that.....:lol:
Click to expand...


erm well I've been taking shots with film since about 1952 and my camera gear is:-
Nikon N2000, L35ad & EM, Canon AV1, T70 & T90, Minolta X-700, SRT101b and AFZ, Pentax S3, Fuji STX-2 (not working), Practica MTL3, Konica Autoreflex TC, FT-1 & C35, Yashica T5D, Olympus Om10 & 20, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony DSC-P92
.........past gear Tele Rollieflex and Rollei SL66.
Loads of lenses but nothing extra special.

So I'm not a traitor yet.
 
... and?
 
excalibur2 said:
So I'm not a traitor yet.
Click to expand...


I know what you mean..

most filmy's will admit, digital has its advantages.....that's as close to "sensible" and "many ways" I'm ever likely to get...:)


can we do a deal involving my right arm and the SL66 btw..
 
Yup. True, but not where it matters eh? Texture, warmth, resolution (yes, I know but it's true regardles of what the bloody Gadget show did), mood and general feel - all things not available with digital.
 
trencheel303 said:
The dynamic range of film still beats digital in any way. Especially when you've got a lot of range, and different colour tones. Digital just throws a hissy fit and tries to 'normalise' it all whereas film just bloody takes the picture. I've got some old film shots that I did on a PnS camera that I will treasure till the day I die.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the first sentence of this just isn't true.

Are you saying that the 4-5 stops of Velvia 100F, or 5-6 stops of Provia 100F (for examples) has a higher dynamic range than the 11-12 stops (give or take) of my D700? I think not. Granted, most B&W and colour neg has a huge DR, but much more than 12 stops? Ok, sure you can pull when developing, but still.

Please understand, I am playing devils advocate here, as I enjoy shooting both film and digital.
 
Thing is, a digital system is always going to be finite by definition, the analogue system has more room for variation.

Mind you, you don't have to crawl around the kitchen floor looking for the bloody ball bearing that fell out of your developing tank spiral with digital I suppose :(


Arthur
 
Ambermile said:
Yup. True, but not where it matters eh? Texture, warmth, resolution (yes, I know but it's true regardles of what the bloody Gadget show did), mood and general feel - all things not available with digital.
Click to expand...

Well you have to get a shot in the first place and for me, I am not happy using film in low light conditions with no IS and flash. So I got the shots at the altar in the wedding ceremony and my grandson in the nativity play....well yes, but a bit blurred even using Fuji 800 & 1600 asa and I just know some DSLRs would give a better result.
 
You lost me there... I see lots of film shots from years ago with crappy emulsions that were taken in the dark and still look good. As with anything it's a matter of technique is all. And experience.
 
joxby said:
can we do a deal involving my right arm and the SL66 btw..
Click to expand...

LOL Sold about 10 years ago as I was using the Bronica ETRS and RB67 more. erm with prices today I should have sold the Bronica or RB67 and kept the SL66 for investment.
 
Ambermile said:
You lost me there... I see lots of film shots from years ago with crappy emulsions that were taken in the dark and still look good. As with anything it's a matter of technique is all. And experience.
Click to expand...

Without a tripod?

..and if you are using 135mm to 200mm lenses in poor light you have more problems.
 
Yeah, some without tripods. Film gets pushed even today, as do digital images... that's why people like RAW.

Digital does suit the times it has to be said, but does not replace film at all... they complement each other in my book. Use the right tools for the job, pick the right job for the tools.


Arthur
 
Ambermile said:
Yeah, some without tripods. Film gets pushed even today, as do digital images... that's why people like RAW.

Digital does suit the times it has to be said, but does not replace film at all... they complement each other in my book. Use the right tools for the job, pick the right job for the tools.


Arthur
Click to expand...


Well I would be surprised if any film user didn't say to himself at one moment, one take, one job, or whatever......"I wish I had a DSLR at this very moment", and as a film user I was just giving you an example when I would have found a DSLR helpful.
 
... only if they forgot their light meter :D but I take your point. As I said, it suits the times and it's an easy/fast option.
 
Why are the arguments about quality only ever conducted on digital's home turf of pixels, dynamic range and other things that only geeks ever get a stiffy about?
 
gingerjon said:
Why are the arguments about quality only ever conducted on digital's home turf of pixels, dynamic range and other things that only geeks ever get a stiffy about?
Click to expand...

Probably because they're quantifiable - it's easier to count the no of rows and columns of a image than to assess some arbitary "Feel".

FWIW, I like shooting film, I like shooting digital, I enjoy Home Dev'ing my film, I even enjoy working up pictures in CS4. I guess it comes down to the simple fact that I enjoy photography. I enjoy capturing a moment and making an image of it that (hopefully) people can look at and enjoy in the future.

Maybe it's just striving for my own little bit of immortality, who knows.

All I need to do now is improve at it, so that people may actually do the "liking my shots" bit :shrug:
 
Ambermile said:
Yup. True, but not where it matters eh? Texture, warmth, resolution (yes, I know but it's true regardles of what the bloody Gadget show did), mood and general feel - all things not available with digital.
Click to expand...

Ambermile said:
Thing is, a digital system is always going to be finite by definition, the analogue system has more room for variation.
Click to expand...

...

gingerjon said:
Why are the arguments about quality only ever conducted on digital's home turf of pixels, dynamic range and other things that only geeks ever get a stiffy about?
Click to expand...


Ahem :D


excalibur2 said:
Well you have to get a shot in the first place and for me, I am not happy using film in low light conditions with no IS and flash. So I got the shots at the altar in the wedding ceremony and my grandson in the nativity play....well yes, but a bit blurred even using Fuji 800 & 1600 asa and I just know some DSLRs would give a better result.
Click to expand...

excalibur2 said:
Well I would be surprised if any film user didn't say to himself at one moment, one take, one job, or whatever......"I wish I had a DSLR at this very moment", and as a film user I was just giving you an example when I would have found a DSLR helpful.
Click to expand...


... are both arguements that have more to do with the user rather than the medium, no?
 
Woodsy said:
Sorry, but the first sentence of this just isn't true.
Click to expand...

Okay


Are you saying that the 4-5 stops of Velvia 100F, or 5-6 stops of Provia 100F (for examples) has a higher dynamic range than the 11-12 stops (give or take) of my D700? I think not. Granted, most B&W and colour neg has a huge DR, but much more than 12 stops? Ok, sure you can pull when developing, but still.

Please understand, I am playing devils advocate here, as I enjoy shooting both film and digital.
Click to expand...

I was just going by my limited experience. I have taken shots with film that have been pointed into the sun(rise/set) where the actual ball of the sun is visible, along with the sky, and clouds. Not to mention the warm colours and the cold colours are both very there. I have tried that on digital and well I might as well just die.:lol: It doesn't work that well I find, although I do have some sunsets on digital that are good I just found I couldn't get the same saturation of the colours, although digital has of course gotten tons better. Maybe I'm just rubbish :thumbsdown:
 
***... are both arguements that have more to do with the user rather than the medium, no?***

erm well without a user, photography is not much use and all I've said is:- "digital surpasses film in many ways" and gave you my examples when I (a user) would find a DSLR superior to a film camera i.e. my problem was.....in colour, 135-200mm lens, low light, can't use flash and had no tripod/monopod as it was too obtrusive at a wedding ceremony as a guest, and also sitting amongst parents and the nativity play.
But all you need to do is look at some posted shots from some DSLRs and I would have to use medium format to match the IQ, as for soul etc between digital and film I would leave that debate to others.
 
those that need a digital crutch are just rubbish photographers, us filmy's are just plain superior to everyone else ,:lol: :D :lol:

anyway its good to see that kodak are still making new emulsions ,,they've just released an iso 100 print film with a 16 stop range so na na na na na








































ok i lied :coat:
 
excalibur2 said:
... gave you my examples when I (a user) would find a DSLR superior to a film camera i.e. my problem was...
Click to expand...

I think, maybe you are proving my point. Digital is easier, not so much work for a given image while film is technically much harder - you have to think about it a bit more to get the result, you have to tease the picture out of the medium, you need experience to get an image rather then money, you need confidence to press the button and know it's a wrap, along with many more reasons why I say your comment was more a user issue.

Arthur
 
Ambermile said:
I along with many more reasons why I say your comment was more a user issue.

Arthur
Click to expand...


Well I would say it's a results issue.......getting the shot comes first and then any debating about what was used digital or film, atmosphere, soul, artistic licence etc etc would come second.
So if I couldn't get a decent shot (in my examples) with film, but digital could...there is no argument.
 
Yup - what I said, if you can't make the shot use an easier option.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I would say it's a results issue.......getting the shot comes first and then any debating about what was used digital or film, atmosphere, soul, artistic licence etc etc would come second.
.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree with that statement. The method is very important to distinguish between the various art form. Both oil and water painings produce pictures, but the craft is entirely different, and so is the end result. Indeed, painting by numbers also produce a picture ( of sort); but thats hardly art.

To me, you need film to produce photographs. And film photographs is more desireable because its difficult to learn and execute ( propoerly anyways). Digital produces images.

Digital is for ease ( both learning and doing), and which suits commercial work - because its easily learnt and can be done by many ( and money, more than artistic merit, is the driver). And therefore does not have the exclusivity, which is a necessary ( but not sufficient )condition for desireable art.

All in my humble opinion, of course
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Strongly disagree with that statement. The method is very important to distinguish between the various art form. Both oil and water painings produce pictures, but the craft is entirely different, and so is the end result. Indeed, painting by numbers also produce a picture ( of sort); but thats hardly art.

To me, you need film to produce photographs. And film photographs is more desireable because its difficult to learn and execute ( propoerly anyways). Digital produces images.

Digital is for ease ( both learning and doing), and which suits commercial work - because its easily learnt and can be done by many ( and money, more than artistic merit, is the driver). And therefore does not have the exclusivity, which is a necessary ( but not sufficient )condition for desireable art.

All in my humble opinion, of course
Click to expand...


HUH! with a blank film you wont get far.....you need an image first whether film or digital is used.....so for example you want to shoot a bee in flight to a flower and I offered you a choice of cameras:- DSLR or film camera.....what would you use?
So what has soul, artistic merit/licence etc to do with it if a persons hobby is photographing flowers and bees and other insects. You can get some fantastic colours from slide (and neg) film, but it's going to be quite expensive and frustrating to get the exact shot you want capturing an insect in flight with a film camera.
 
That, imo, is the distinction. With digital you throw many images at a shot and hope one comes out. With film, you plan the shot, work out the detail, and take it - OK maybe bracket it +/- half a stop but that 's it. And that's the difference... anyone can eventually get the shot with a digital camera but it takes a photographer to get it on film.

Arthur
 
excalibur2 said:
You can get some fantastic colours from slide (and neg) film, but it's going to be quite expensive and frustrating to get the exact shot you want capturing an insect in flight with a film camera.
Click to expand...

First off, its our personal views, and I will always respect yours, even if I disagree.

As to your question; so what if its expensive or frustrating. Thats the nature of the hobby of photograpy.

Lets say my hobby is learning to fly. Its expensive and frustrating. So shall I get down to 'learn' flying on MS flight simulator, and claim I can fly airplanes...

P.S : I cant fly; and I am a lousy photographer....:D
 
Ambermile said:
That, imo, is the distinction. With digital you throw many images at a shot and hope one comes out. With film, you plan the shot, work out the detail, and take it - OK maybe bracket it +/- half a stop but that 's it. And that's the difference... anyone can eventually get the shot with a digital camera but it takes a photographer to get it on film.

Arthur
Click to expand...

C'mon you know it's all about the right tool for the job, and in many cases the argument about film and digital is irrelevant as it's just the results that count, like seeing shots of your grand children blowing out the candles and other things that you can't plan but have split seconds to react.
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/haloweencrop.jpg
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/lolalipstick3.jpg
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/yum603.jpg
 
It's about planning ahead, let's be fair - you got a birthday cake with candles in a dark room and you're surprised if someone's gonna huf 'n' puff at them?

Arthur
 
Ambermile said:
It's about planning ahead, let's be fair - you got a birthday cake with candles in a dark room and you're surprised if someone's gonna huf 'n' puff at them?

Arthur
Click to expand...

Of course if they remember to tell you when they are bringing the cake in, and you have got your camera ready (which was put out of the way to stop kids treading on it)...and then while you are getting your camera there is a small crowd gathering around the cake, I tell ya I've had more misses than hits.
 
Ambermile said:
That, imo, is the distinction. With digital you throw many images at a shot and hope one comes out. With film, you plan the shot, work out the detail, and take it - OK maybe bracket it +/- half a stop but that 's it. And that's the difference... anyone can eventually get the shot with a digital camera but it takes a photographer to get it on film.

Arthur
Click to expand...

you can but you don't have to. It is possible to have an IQ AND shoot digi :p
 
This thread tempted me to register. Film has entered the realm of craft skill like etching or hand weaving, supplanted by different technology but providing those who still do it with inordinate pleasure. I have a Canon Sureshot somethingorother, a great little digital compact for photographing stuff sharply and in focus and showing it to other people on the web. It exhausts everything I require of on-screen digital imaging and I'm not tempted to go down the DSLR route.

When it comes to print on paper however, I prefer silver and the alchemy that goes with it. Absolute resolution has very little to do with satisfactory image making and - that's from a man with a 5 x 4 MPP as well as 35mm Nikons - but film has a compelling appearance that's hard to resist. Trumping all that is the ability of the photographer in whatever format or technology and the joy they derive from making pictures. As the smart folk always said, it's not about the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top