Agent M10 Posted October 29, 2008 Share #1 Posted October 29, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I ran across this article on Photo Utopia which confirmed my suspicions about the film/digital debate. From that article, I went over to the Kodak link and became eminently happy with my film Ms and R. If I've not mistaken, Photo Utopia's author is a forum member - thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Hi Agent M10, Take a look here Why I Am Sticking with Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kenneth Posted October 29, 2008 Share #2 Posted October 29, 2008 I ran across this article on Photo Utopia which confirmed my suspicions about the film/digital debate. From that article, I went over to the Kodak link and became eminently happy with my film Ms and R. If I've not mistaken, Photo Utopia's author is a forum member - thanks again. Well found Peter and very reassuring to those of us who have never lost faith in film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted October 29, 2008 Share #3 Posted October 29, 2008 Excellent piece. As far as I can tell, there are only two advantages I can see (for me at least) of digital per se - 1) the instant playback vs. waiting for the negatives to be processed, and 2) large stroage capacity of the memory cards. For images and flexibility, film continues to do everything it always did, and has not been bested by digital sensors. Period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 29, 2008 Share #4 Posted October 29, 2008 I don't intend to dissuade anyone from using film, but the linked sites need a litle debunking of their own. Utopia makes a fair case against MR/LL's description of film as binary. But both he and the Kodak guy go overboard in boosting the qualities of film. Kodak guy: We made scans of up to 100Mbytes from film. So what? - if one scans a BLANK piece of film one can still create a 100Mbyte file size - even though neither the film nor the file contain any information at all, just 100 million gray (or black or white) pixels. The fact that one can make a 100Mpixel scan - if one chooses - from either Ilford Pan F or Ilford TMax3200 pushed to 12,800 - should be a tipoff that scanning resolution is not identical with film resolution. What film resolves has nothing to do with how big a scan one can make of it after the fact. It has a lot to do with how big the grains are, and how big the dye clouds are (for chromogenic films) and how thick the diffusing jelly layer (i.e. emulsion) is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 29, 2008 Share #5 Posted October 29, 2008 To be fair with the Kodak guy: an uncompressed color scan is quite large. My 4000 dpi scans at 16 bit (well 14 bit really, but in a 16 bit file) are 140mb each. I *don't* think that is the absolute limit. You can go a bit further... So his claim of 100mb scans is not unrealistic - he's not saying 100 mega pixels... Actually, I just realized, he was talking about 4k by 6k scans, which is pretty much a 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm negative. Though I think the article was talking about motion picture film which uses a smaller area. To follow that up, I *can* tell the difference between a 4000 dpi scan of my negatives and a lower res scan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted October 29, 2008 Share #6 Posted October 29, 2008 I don't think the 100 MP figure is that unrealistic, at least for medium film formats. If anyone is interested, there is a comparison between a certain 12 MP digital camera and scanned medium format film on my website (link below) in the "Photo Gear" section: "Film in a Digital World". At least in that case the scanned film clearly out-resolved the digital camera. Not so sure what the outcome would be with 35-mm film though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted October 29, 2008 Share #7 Posted October 29, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't intend to dissuade anyone from using film, but the linked sites need a litle debunking of their own. Utopia makes a fair case against MR/LL's description of film as binary. But both he and the Kodak guy go overboard in boosting the qualities of film. . Adan thank you for your comments. What on my site needs debunking? Have you spotted any incorrect information? How have I overstated the "qualities of film' ? Surely the film is binary argument is a binary one? It either is or isn't and I can tell you it isn't. I have spent 18 months researching the piece on Photo Utopia, I would be grateful for any insight into how I have overstated my case. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted October 29, 2008 Share #8 Posted October 29, 2008 Adan thank you for your comments.What on my site needs debunking? Have you spotted any incorrect information? How have I overstated the "qualities of film' ? Surely the film is binary argument is a binary one? It either is or isn't and I can tell you it isn't. I have spent 18 months researching the piece on Photo Utopia, I would be grateful for any insight into how I have overstated my case. Mark Good post Mark. I'm not sure why people still spend time discounting film ... often with geekish delight ... when the medium is a creative decision rather than one of science and logic. Who cares what logic is evoked if you "emotionally" favor what you are seeing? It's tended to pull the wool over the eyes of the Lemmings ... so not only do they rush over the cliff in increasing numbers, they do so blindly. I find it strange that fully half the folks I've discussed this with who discount film, never even used film. They parrot information they read rather than seeing for themselves. Even though I am forced to digital for commercial work, and have a fortune wrapped up in 35mm DSLRs and MF digital cameras, I set some $ aside dedicated to film ... namely an Imacon 949 scanner that with certain 35mm films can scan @ a true 8000ppi 16 bit with a 4.9 D-Max. That my friends, makes it more Apples to Apples for resolution comparisons when using certain emulsions. The only use I have for a flatbed is to scan B&W prints made in the dark room. That also is a horse of a different resolution : -) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Lord Posted October 29, 2008 Share #9 Posted October 29, 2008 Excellent piece. As far as I can tell, there are only two advantages I can see (for me at least) of digital per se - 1) the instant playback vs. waiting for the negatives to be processed, and 2) large stroage capacity of the memory cards. For images and flexibility, film continues to do everything it always did, and has not been bested by digital sensors. Period. I actually find the deferred gratification of film development/processing is a plus point for film, and the very finite, non-reusable "memory card" (ie 36 roll) encourages more care and composition rather than the scattergun approach of shoot-first-ask-questions-later style that digital insidiously introduces. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 29, 2008 Share #10 Posted October 29, 2008 I don't think the 100 MP figure is that unrealistic, at least for medium film formats. Again, the article quoted stated 100 mb, not 100 mp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted October 29, 2008 Share #11 Posted October 29, 2008 Again, the article quoted stated 100 mb, not 100 mp. In that case my "the" should have been an "a." I was talking _megapixels_. As in: "I don't think a 100 megapixel figure is unrealistic, at least for medium film formats." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted October 29, 2008 Share #12 Posted October 29, 2008 Well, I'm not getting rid of my M8, because it has its uses. However, along with my trusty M3 I've now added a 6x9 to my arsenal and am shooting film almost every other day. I've been particularly incensed at those so-called internet guru's who do all the pixel-peeping comparing film versus digital but don't use a level playing field and then justify their methods in order to push THEIR agenda and their egos. Arrrgh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 29, 2008 Share #13 Posted October 29, 2008 In that case my "the" should have been an "a." I was talking _megapixels_. As in: "I don't think a 100 megapixel figure is unrealistic, at least for medium film formats." Oh ok yeah. Even though I've read tests by 'experts' where something like a Canon DSLR beats scanned medium format, every time a normal person does it and I see the results, MF clearly wins. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 29, 2008 Share #14 Posted October 29, 2008 I find the whole digital jargon tedious, and I am convinced that the use of it is to try and impress but there again if these people spend vast sums of money on technology that is outdated before the bring their latest all singing all dancing gadget out of the store, they have to try and convince themselves that they are not consumer lemmings who will part with their hard earned on a whim that this or that is going to make them better photographers, that is until mark 2 appears and then they are back on the consumer treadmill again. I am also unsure that techno has any place on a thread entitled Why I am sticking with film? We are not that interested, go and play somewhere else i.e. on the forum dedicated to the medium Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted October 29, 2008 Share #15 Posted October 29, 2008 Oh ok yeah. Even though I've read tests by 'experts' where something like a Canon DSLR beats scanned medium format, every time a normal person does it and I see the results, MF clearly wins. Exactly. And it doesn't take super X-ray vision to see the difference. I honestly don't know where a lot of the "data" that gets thrown around comes from. One thing though: digital imaging will continue to improve at a fairly rapid pace for a while, whereas progress in the area of film technology is likely to be minimal. So what we're seeing today might not apply two or three years hence. But as things are at the moment, my own approach is: * Digital for speed, convenience, and "work." * Film for quality, permanence, and personal projects. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_goode Posted October 29, 2008 Share #16 Posted October 29, 2008 Excellent article, Mark. It's nice to see science and facts included in the debate about film vs. digital ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_goode Posted October 29, 2008 Share #17 Posted October 29, 2008 Absolutely spot on, Adrian. My "frames shot" count is down with film but my quality (or yield) is way up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plaubel Posted October 29, 2008 Share #18 Posted October 29, 2008 So what? - if one scans a BLANK piece of film one can still create a 100Mbyte file size - even though neither the film nor the file contain any information at all, just 100 million gray (or black or white) pixels. Plain wrong. 100Mbytes of information are just that - regardless of whether you like the content or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernando_b Posted October 30, 2008 Share #19 Posted October 30, 2008 >> What on my site needs debunking? Have you spotted any incorrect information? Mark, don't worry. Those, among us, have some knowledge of molecular physics and photochemistry, know also that you are right. Please if you don't mind if I suggest a topics that I did't read in your article: it seems to me you forgot the thickness of the film. In case of multilayer colour film it has some influence on the results. That was the superiority of thin films (like Kodachrome) over others. However this topics has no influence on your conclusions, expecially about single layer B&W emulsions. Fernando. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leitz_not_leica Posted October 30, 2008 Share #20 Posted October 30, 2008 Digital (D700) vs. film (F5) examining REALLY BIG enlargements, I mean REALLY BIG. FiveFWD - Challenge - Blow Up - Part 3 video from The Gadget Show Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.