Film vs. Digital

[aesop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...not entirely sure what the OP's intention was, but this has deteriorated into a pointless thread. Moderators?

[Guest nafpie]

An old debate. Useless.

 

If you capture a great photograph, it doesn't matter if you use film or digital. If you process the film or the digital data in the right way, nobody will see the difference. Except of those, who are using a magnifying glass to look at grain or pixels. But forget about them, because they forget to look at your whole picture.

 

Using film has advantages, using a digital camera has advantages too.

 

Using a digital camera has disadvantages, using film has disadvantages too.

 

So use the camera you have and you feel great with. That's all you can do with the hardware in order to get great photographs.

 

That's the whole story. Short. Simple.

 

Stefan

[andybarton]

I can't see that any forum rules have been broken in this thread.

[aesop]

I can't see that any forum rules have been broken in this thread.

 

...come on, Andy, be a sport - if I claim provocation, does that count? Because right now I appear to be frothing around the mouth (and I am not talking toothpaste ). Alternatively, I could cite gross misuse of server space. Any joy?

[Guest maddoc2003jp]

For those of you that are still shooting film, what do you see as the benefits vs. shooting with a M8, M8.2 or M9?

 

The film M Leicas that I already own are paid for ...

[andybarton]

Any joy?

 

Just don't read the thread...

[cocker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Film smells nice when you open the box

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[erl]

I can't help smiling to myself when I read threads like this one. It's like a visit to the fruitshop. Will I buy bananas or grapes today.

 

I live by digital, love by film. Both are perfect for their designated purpose. I would never dispense with either, willingly. Forgive me if I repeat myself (I know I am ) but earlier this year I was lucky enpougfh to to acquire a trip to Antarctica. I took both film and digital Leicas as I really did not know which would survive the elements better. As it transpired, both came through with flying colours, but.........

 

So far my favourite image was produced on the M7 using B&W film. I would never have predicted it, especially as I found myself shooting (guesstimate) 10 to 20 times (even more!) as much with the M9. Using the M9 was (is) a technological experience. Shooting the M7 is just plain sexy and sensual.

 

Film V's Digital! Never. It's like wife V's mistress. They just don't compare. They each have their own specific role at which they excel..

[koray]

Film smells nice when you open the box

 

I've got some expired (but still good) Agfa APX400, believe me, it smells awful. Like, ummm... fart.

 

But still, I love it.

 

K.

[LeicaBraz]

"This is hardly surprising since the M9 has only 18.5 megapixels, whereas film can provide the equivalent 50 to 60 megapixels."

 

 

Is this true? In case of black film, would 50 be obtained with 400 film and 60 with 125?

Thanks

[zlatkob]

"This is hardly surprising since the M9 has only 18.5 megapixels, whereas film can provide the equivalent 50 to 60 megapixels."

 

Is this true?

 

Not really. See 11 megapixel digital vs. drum-scanned 35mm Velvia film here: Shootout

And note that this is the old Canon 1Ds (from 2002) vs. the highest resolution color film available.

 

And see 39 megapixel medium format digital vs. drum-scanned 4x5" Velvia film here: 4x5 Film vs. Digital

 

ISO 400 film wouldn't even come close to Velvia in these comparisons.

[erl]

Sorry, but the megapixel argument means buggar all on it's own. When you use either camera, film or digital, many other factors are locked in with the 'pixies'. Just a few, but by no means all:

 

1. Working in low or high light.

2. How fast do you need an image.

3. Do you or can you have full control over the processing of the image.

4. Will your gear be subjected to repeated Xray examination.

5. Do you have the capacity to transport "exposure stock" for the duration of your shoot.

6. What degree of enlargement will be needed.

7. Do I need to list any more ideas?........

 

When you can tie all this together + more, satisfactorily, you may have chosen the right medium to shoot on. But it is by no means cut and dried.

 

Having considered all the above, my next (pending) assignment has such a dilemma. I will probaly shoot both film and digital, simply because I cannot convince myself that one is clearly superior than the other for what the client is asking.

 

Just for the curious, I am pitting the M8 (my M9 is in Solms hospital) against a Hasselblad to shoot aerial work. The request is for prints to go to aprox. 2mtr square. The 'square' part is influential, but not final.

[LeicaBraz]

Sorry, but the megapixel argument means buggar all on it's own. When you use either camera, film or digital, many other factors are locked in with the 'pixies'. Just a few, but by no means all:

 

1. Working in low or high light.

2. How fast do you need an image.

3. Do you or can you have full control over the processing of the image.

4. Will your gear be subjected to repeated Xray examination.

5. Do you have the capacity to transport "exposure stock" for the duration of your shoot.

6. What degree of enlargement will be needed.

7. Do I need to list any more ideas?........

 

When you can tie all this together + more, satisfactorily, you may have chosen the right medium to shoot on. But it is by no means cut and dried.

 

Having considered all the above, my next (pending) assignment has such a dilemma. I will probaly shoot both film and digital, simply because I cannot convince myself that one is clearly superior than the other for what the client is asking.

 

Just for the curious, I am pitting the M8 (my M9 is in Solms hospital) against a Hasselblad to shoot aerial work. The request is for prints to go to aprox. 2mtr square. The 'square' part is influential, but not final.

 

Slow down, you move too fast (Simon & Garfunkel

Not making an argument here about one or the other. Was just curious about pixels equivalents. Thought you were a moderator....

[pop]

Soul.

 

Nah. Prefer Pop.

 

Now, really:

 

I own practically all photographs my father and mother made, some more than 50 years old. I also own all photographs my grandfather made before them, some of them more than 100 years old.

 

They are not works of art. For a good number of the shots, I know who the people are because my mother very thoughtfully went over each album in the last years before her death, identifying the people she could.

 

I don't intent breaking that tradition. I also don't intent to swamp my posterity with a deluge of pictures. Hence, every now and then I unwrap one of my film cameras and do a few shots on film.

 

It does not matter greatly what's on the shots. I have learned that most old photographs have their own charm as long as you can relate to the person who took them or their content.

 

I will give as I have been given, with interest, if I can.

[adan]

For those of you that are still shooting film, what do you see as the benefits vs. shooting with a M8, M8.2 or M9?

 

I'm shooting some film in a Hassy for the simple reason that there is no current way to get a 40mm (Superwide) view in a square picture digitally. And if there were a 54mm x 54mm sensor/back available, it would likely cost $80,000.

 

It's a nice change-up to shoot waist-level, ground-glass and square. That's about the only real attraction for me.

 

The Hassy (ISO 100 color film) nudges out a square (12 Mpixel) crop from an M9 (Erl, take note) in a 16" x 16" print, mostly because the M9 print starts to show a few moire rainbows and barber-poles when 33% of its data is thrown away. But I left the two prints at a local shop for them to show customers - and thus far, the guessing as to which was which has only been 50/50 in accuracy.

 

So - big surprise - a 24mm x 24mm crop from an M9 original can't quite stand up to a 54mm x 54mm film original.

 

As to film producing "50-60 Megapixels" - possibly, with an ISO 16 B&W microfilm. But that is not representative of "film" overall any more than a 600-mph world-record car on the Bonneville Salt Flats is representative of "cars" overall. MOST cars driven can't reach 150 mph - MOST film shot is ISO 400 or 800 color negative. Compare like to like.

 

I'll leave it there - otherwise I'll be foaming like Aesop. "Soul" - forsooth!

[pico]

[...]

Using film has advantages, using a digital camera has advantages too.

 

Using a digital camera has disadvantages, using film has disadvantages too.

 

[...]

 

Lately I've been walking about and when I see an interesting scene, I just wink one eye and remember it. My exposures are perfect, and I have zero film or pixel expense.

[bill]

Thought you were a moderator....

 

Soooo...?

[bill]

I'll leave it there - otherwise I'll be foaming like Aesop. "Soul" - forsooth!

 

...why...?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[plasticman]

People shooting wide-angle where the ultimate aim is maximum detail and sharpness may as well shoot digital, unless they love the special color or rendering of a particular film, or don't see the depth and beauty of infinitely varied clusters of film-grain instead of regimented bayer-interpolated pixels.

 

However, anyone shooting 35mm and upwards, and utilising the specially beautiful rendering of Leica's lenses wide-open should really be using film for the vastly superior look of the out-of-focus areas, and the far more subtle transitions from sharp to blurred, not to speak of the greater charm and grace in the way that film handles highlights.

 

Shooting the same scene with the same lens (particularly with the Noctilux) at the same time on film and digital has been really instructive - the images look completely different. Anyone who has a hard time telling them apart must be blind.

 

Incidentally, I do find it interesting that this touches such a raw nerve with the digital crowd (I'm sometimes in that crowd, too, but reluctantly). It really is so annoying that after decades of sensor advancement, film still renders light more beautifully.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[chrism]

Actually I thought that nearly the whole purpose of internet photo forums was to finally grind out the answer to the film vs digital question by a kind of distributed computing. Isn't that why Al Gore invented the internet just after the introduction of the digital camera? Around the time when it became obvious that the overgrown boys wearing knotted hankies in the "Camera Clubs" would take far too long to come up with the answer?

 

Chris

Just joking...I've still got my knotted hankie somewhere

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!