Film vs. Digital

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

…

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.

 

Got a comparison shot of out of focus area differences?

[wildlightphoto]

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.

 

It appears that this topic (film vs. digital) is brought up most often by someone who is clearly in the 'film' camp. I have no problem with anyone's preference, film or digital, but it seems that those on the 'film' side of the question have more raw nerves.

 

I prefer the user experience of the Leicaflex SL over the R8 with DMR by a wide margin, but if print quality is the question - including highlights, shadows, and everything in-between - the R8/DMR meets my needs much better than the SL ever did.

 

Where is this often repeated assumption that digital is sharper now than film coming from? Firstly, it is coming from people who have spent a lot of money on their digital cameras so they can be up to date and want to justifly their purchases. Secondly, it is coming from people who use home scanners.

 

Any tool that doesn't meet my needs is sold. If the DMR didn't meet my needs I could sell the camera for more now than I paid for it. It has worked so well for me that I bought a backup R8/DMR (which I could also sell for more than I paid for it). I don't regret these expenses at all; what I regret spending money on is drum scans for my slides. I used to have and use several Leicaflex Standard, SL, and SL2 bodies but I sold most of these when it became clear that I was only using them to finish partial rolls of film in them.

 

I hate the DMR's weight, bulk and appetite for batteries. The viewfinder is good by modern SLR standards but the SL's is much easier for me to use. The R8's multiple modes and metering functions are pretty much useless to me; aside from the mirror pre-release, I use the R8 as though it were an SL: manual metering, selective meter pattern, single exposures not bursts.

 

If the DMR's image quality wasn't better than the slide films I was using in the Leicaflexes (K25, K64, K200, E100G, Provia 100F, Provia 400F) I'd be a fool not to sell them, but the print quality and my productivity with the DMR make it foolish to use any more film. The most precious resource I use is my time in the field, any tools or materials that produce less than optimum results squanders my most precious resource. I used my last roll of K64 a couple of months ago, the rest of my un-exposed color film was given to my nephew.

 

I miss the smell of a fresh roll of film, the enforced solitude of the darkroom and the smells of the darkroom chemistry, and the simplicity of the Leicaflexes, but for productivity and quality prints film is history for me.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wildlightphoto]

Got a comparison shot of out of focus area differences?

 

same lens, same subject, same position, a few minutes between exposures:

 

SL2/Provia 400F:

 

R8/DMR @ ISO 400:

 

The Provia 400F photo is fine for web display, the R8/DMR photo is fine as a 10" x 15" print. I don't see a big difference in the out-of-focus areas.

[menos I M6]

Thanks for the comparison Doug - I am not looking for arguments, just technical curiosity on the film vs digital oof thing ;-) So more images anyone ?

[NZDavid]

I used to have and use several Leicaflex Standard, SL, and SL2 bodies but I sold most of these when it became clear that I was only using them to finish partial rolls of film in them...

 

Only most of them? So have you kept any, Doug? If so, why?

 

I spotted a DMR plus R for sale locally at reasonable price, but it certainly looks big and bulky. Surely, a digital R would still be possible, especially now, the technology is there, just needs to be compact, robust, simple, and affordable. Easy. Sigh.

 

I find reliability, archivability of slides, and overall image quality of the M film Leicas still convincing. Of course, digital is practical, but yes, film cameras still have an emotional appeal. Crazy I know.

[wildlightphoto]

Only most of them? So have you kept any, Doug? If so, why?

 

I've kept two for nostalgia. 100% emotional appeal.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

same lens, same subject, same position, a few minutes between exposures:

 

SL2/Provia 400F:

 

 

R8/DMR @ ISO 400:

 

 

The Provia 400F photo is fine for web display, the R8/DMR photo is fine as a 10" x 15" print. I don't see a big difference in the out-of-focus areas.

Not really a surprise, as the OOF areas are rendered by the lens, and just recorded by the film/sensor.

[hamey]

Very nice Doug, however when you scan a slide to compare to your electronic images you are actually compering it to a duplicated electronic image.

 

Try PROJECTING YOUR DMR (Electronic image) shots to the screen along side the Provia slide.

 

I like using my little Canon G9, two months ago I got a loan of a Canon 40D to try with my Leica R lenses,

was I impressed, NO, I found the Canon G9 was pretty good for my needs.

 

Every time I get my slides back I realise how beautiful this medium is.

 

For those who like Electronic imaging, thats fine it's your choice.

 

I have posted an interesting shot taken around 1882 of a batch of Great Western 7 foot gauge Locomotives,

Wonder if our Electronic images will still be viewable after 100 years.

 

LONG LIVE FILM.

 

Ken.

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!

[theendlesshouse]

Nothing wrong or boring with a film vs. digital debate as long as they don't become Ad hominem abusive.

 

I find the digital negative has more latitude but the unending variations achievable and ease of post process is distracting. Film is a lot less tolerant of mistakes and places greater emphasis on the moment of capture.

[jaapv]

Of course the prints will still be viewable - archivable inkjets prints already have a guaranteed life of over 100 years. My father's 60 year old Agfa slides are not usable any more, however..

[menos I M6]

…

I have posted an interesting shot taken around 1882 of a batch of Great Western 7 foot gauge Locomotives,

Wonder if our Electronic images will still be viewable after 100 years.

 

LONG LIVE FILM.

 

Ken.

 

I am very glad, digital imaging made it possible to retain this more than 100 year old photograph and have me seeing it, which would be pretty unlikely, if it would exist only in some shoebox as a negative or moldy print ;-)

 

A very strong photograph indeed! Hopefully the negs are safe for future scans/ prints and generations to come.

[andybarton]

Of course the prints will still be viewable - archivable inkjets prints already have a guaranteed life of over 100 years. My father's 60 year old Agfa slides are not usable any more, however..

 

But, no one prints things any more. Every family has shoe boxes full of prints of grandparents, aunts etc etc. That's because every photograph shot was printed, usually contact prints from small but MF negatives. while the negs are long gone, the prints survive. Everyone has had the pleasure of looking through a family collection of photographs that never made it to an album.

 

In 50 years time, what will our grandchildren have? A few prints hanging on a wall and some hard disks or unreadable DVDs.

 

Maybe our grandchildren will just look at things on-line instead.

 

This is something that really does concern me.

 

I don't know what the answer is.

[jaapv]

I print

[andybarton]

But I bet that you're discriminating about what you print, unlike way back when, where everything was printed. It's this "everything" that may actually be the most interesting stuff.

 

If all our grandchildren have to look forward to is a dead Facebook wall, we really have lost the plot. That could easily happen.

[bill]

Three words.

 

Electro.

Magnetic.

Pulse.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[andybarton]

Explain, please.

[bill]

Certainly. An EMP is what is generated by a nuclear blast. It fries electronics within range. So if the blast don't get you, you are dumped back in the Victorian era by all your electronic equipment that is not "hardened" being rendered useless.

 

Paper, funnily enough, is immune to EMP...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[cocker]

I print too!!

 

I was talking to a very senior university Archivist at the weekend who is in charge of a big on-line archives project. We started talking about photographs. Her view was that analogue material will have a much greater chance of longevity and survival than digital material.

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!

[bill]

Precisely.

 

Coins, yes, pottery, yes, but when was the last time anyone dug up a Roman SD card...?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[koray]

But I bet that you're discriminating about what you print, unlike way back when, where everything was printed. It's this "everything" that may actually be the most interesting stuff.

 

If all our grandchildren have to look forward to is a dead Facebook wall, we really have lost the plot. That could easily happen.

 

That's a good one. When I go through previous month's shots with my wife, we tend to keep & print the 'nicest smiles'. Seems like my little daughter has never cried since she was born.

 

K.