Future of Film

[redbaron]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Adan, while your analogy is very good visually, I would disagree with its relevance. This film is available to anyone, it's not expensive and easy to process. It can also be used in any 35 mm film camera, so much less of a niche product than high-end digital cameras.

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

Adan, while your analogy is very good visually, I would disagree with its relevance. This film is available to anyone, it's not expensive and easy to process. It can also be used in any 35 mm film camera, so much less of a niche product than high-end digital cameras.

 

 

I'm trying to reconcile how the future of Leica film photography could be a 20 EI b/w microfilm that requires special development to produce a halftone.

[marcusperkins]

Very interesting to read about peoples perceptions regarding film resolution versus digital. I guess it would be very difficult to compare the two because they can't really be measured in the same way.

 

However, since most people now have the equipment to analyze image resolutions from digital cameras in great detail (100% and more on screen), shooting film and then having it scanned professionally does bring some surprises.

 

I think the potential resolution of film is actually very high, but most of it is destroyed by poor lenses, or camera movement, - one of the issues digital medium format users are very aware of.

 

If you think about it, the more pixels (or silver grains) squeezed into any given area, the less movement it takes for pixels/grains to 'overlap' during exposure, effectively halving (or more) the resolution - but still giving a reasonably sharp picture (or perhaps give the impression that no more detail could be available).

 

When I view hi res film scans, I don't see the 'sharpness' common with digital files, but I do see far more micro gradations. And it takes far greater resolution to give softer micro gradations then it does to produce a single sharp line.

 

In many cases the eye is tricked into thinking there is more detail, when actually it is a different kind of detail.

 

Whilst I think it would be impossible to attain hand held, and I don't have a need for it, I have no problem whatsoever accepting that 35mm film could have the equivalent resolution as a 60mp sensor, albeit with a very different, and much softer fingerprint.

 

Shooting onto a modern emulsion with a modern Leica lens, a 50mm 1.4 asph for example, does give incredible detail. Not better, just different.

[AlanG]

Very interesting to read about peoples perceptions regarding film resolution versus digital. I guess it would be very difficult to compare the two because they can't really be measured in the same way.

 

 

 

Not so difficult. Thousands of experienced professional photographers compared the two and the vast majority switched to digital capture.

[redbaron]

... and some didn't.

[thebarnman]

 

When I view hi res film scans, I don't see the 'sharpness' common with digital files, but I do see far more micro gradations. And it takes far greater resolution to give softer micro gradations then it does to produce a single sharp line.

 

In many cases the eye is tricked into thinking there is more detail, when actually it is a different kind of detail.

 

Whilst I think it would be impossible to attain hand held, and I don't have a need for it, I have no problem whatsoever accepting that 35mm film could have the equivalent resolution as a 60mp sensor, albeit with a very different, and much softer fingerprint.

 

Shooting onto a modern emulsion with a modern Leica lens, a 50mm 1.4 asph for example, does give incredible detail. Not better, just different.

 

Very interesting...

[Guest nafpie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess it would be very difficult to compare the two because they can't really be measured in the same way.

 

In fact, its easy.

 

1. Make the two images from a sturdy tripod, with the same lens.

 

2. Look to the digital at 100% on your screen and study the negative with a really good magnifying glass and a light table. Forget about scanning the negative.

 

3. Search for small detail and compare.

 

Stefan

[StS]

Personally, I find this discussion about resolution fruitless. Digital and film both give resolutions far beyond what I need. I use both.

 

Using micro-film (SPUR64), I find this film to be very easy to scan and to give a pleasant tonal range together with a very large exposure latitude. These are my reasons to use it, not the resolution. I'm developing it in my bathroom, same effort as for any other film.

 

Sorry, there are good reason for both media, digital and film. I can fully understand, why someone prefers one, because it suits his needs best. I'm struggling a bit to understand, why one should express lack of understanding about other people making different choices.

 

Stefan

[andybarton]

Not so difficult. Thousands of experienced professional photographers compared the two and the vast majority switched to digital capture.

 

Not for that reason, though.

[AlanG]

Not for that reason, though.

 

Show me evidence that you know why photographers switched. Have you done a survey? I never would have shot 35mm film for architectural projects. 35mm digital is all I use now. I don't think you can compare someone using 20 EI b/w with a photographer who needs to shoot sports in a dim environment in color.

 

Do you actually believe that countless professional photographers, ad agencies, designers, publishers, stock agencies, etc. have all decided to use digitally captured images simply for convenience even though the results are inferior to those from film? Don't you think that those who buy stock photos or commission work would be complaining about a drop in picture quality? Where is the proof that film users on this forum have some kind of unique insight that has eluded all of these photo professionals.

[andybarton]

Show me evidence that you know why photographers switched. Have you done a survey?

 

Have you?

 

Not so difficult. Thousands of experienced professional photographers compared the two and the vast majority switched to digital capture.

 

Photographers have not gone to digital in their droves for the reason you stated above.

[adan]

It is not likely to happen, for economic "niche market" reasons, but I'd be interested in seeing someone build a digital sensor to "Adox 20" specs. No need for color, so the light-robbing Bayer filters could be left off, increasing the effective monochrome ISO to 500 or so (starting with an M9 CCD).

 

Since ISO 500 is overkill (we only need ISO 16), the light-gathering area of the pixels could be cut accordingly by 4.5 stops. 10 square microns (compared to the 46.24 u^2 area of the M9's pixels) or about 3.16 microns on a side.

 

Noisy at ISO 100 or 400 - but we are only need ISO 16 here.

 

My math says that would generate, on a 24 x 36 sensor, a 7,590 x 11,384-pixel image (86.4 megapixels)

 

Then we'd have something to compare with Adox 20.

 

As an aside to Stefan - I have no problems with anyone shooting anything they like. I have serious problems with phony arguments based on bad science or special pleading. It is not wrong to want to shoot film - it IS wrong to make untrue claims in support of that preference.

 

If you like Spur64 and say you find its tones pleasant, no one can or should argue with that. taste can't be debated.

 

If someone claims Spur64's tone are "better" than something else (Adox, or Efke, or digital) I'm going to dig out the grayscales and the densitometers to test that claim. "Better" outside the realm of personal preferences is something that CAN be tested.

[AlanG]

In fact, its easy.

 

2. Look to the digital at 100% on your screen and study the negative with a really good magnifying glass and a light table. Forget about scanning the negative.

 

Stefan

 

If you don't print or scan the negative, the image is pretty useless. Film photographers in general will either make prints or make their own scans or reasonably priced scans.

[AlanG]

Have you?

 

Photographers have not gone to digital in their droves for the reason you stated above.

 

I told you that I never got the quality from 35mm film and scanning that I now get from digital capture. No, I have not done a survey, but I don't have to provide evidence to support the contention that they were either ignorant or knowingly gave up quality when switching from film to digital. Professional photographers have to please their customers and it is clear to me that digital capture is doing that or their clients would not have accepted it.

 

If making a comparison, do not compare only one type of film. For instance, compare Ektachrome 200 pushed to 800 and then scanned with images shot on the best digital cameras at 800 ISO.

 

And of course many photographers find that 12 megapixel or lower resolution cameras give them all the detail they need.

[SteveYork]

Depends on what you want. Film has a more painterly or artistic quality and digital is more clinical; it's more like what you see with your eyes. It's almost a "night and day difference," meaning it's a pretty big difference. To use another cliche, it's apples and oranges.

 

For me, properly scanned film, with a good scanner, and good lenses, and high quality film, just blows away digital. But low end digital blows away low end film (e.g., old equipment, out of date film, ect.).

[SteveYork]

I told you that I never got the quality from 35mm film and scanning that I now get from digital capture.

 

What were you using? I'm truly impressed with modern films and optics with a good scanner.

[SteveYork]

Show me evidence that you know why photographers switched. Have you done a survey? I never would have shot 35mm film for architectural projects. 35mm digital is all I use now. I don't think you can compare someone using 20 EI b/w with a photographer who needs to shoot sports in a dim environment in color.

 

Do you actually believe that countless professional photographers, ad agencies, designers, publishers, stock agencies, etc. have all decided to use digitally captured images simply for convenience even though the results are inferior to those from film? Don't you think that those who buy stock photos or commission work would be complaining about a drop in picture quality? Where is the proof that film users on this forum have some kind of unique insight that has eluded all of these photo professionals.

 

It's mostly convenience. Go talk to the professionals. I have. They love film, but it just doesn't make sense from an efficiency point of view. And now that I'm scanning through my negatives, I see what they mean. 'Tedious' is the word that comes to mind.

[Guest nafpie]

If you don't print or scan the negative, the image is pretty useless.

 

Thats right.

 

But to compare the information of the negative with the information of the digital photo you don't have to print the nagative. What you don't see with the (good) magnifying glass on the negative, you may never see on the print.

 

Stefan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Steve Ash]

Regarding the Adox Cms 20 I want to add that this is my standard daylight film. It gives me the possibily to shoot without ND-filter and the level of detail it provides is amazing. I rate it at 25 and shoot it from sunrise till sunset. Most people overestimate the light requirements for this film. It is very usable. I utilize the adotech Developer.

 

regards Steve

[AlanG]

Depends on what you want. Film has a more painterly or artistic quality and digital is more clinical; it's more like what you see with your eyes. It's almost a "night and day difference," meaning it's a pretty big difference. To use another cliche, it's apples and oranges.

 

 

So film is artistic and digital is not. I get it now. Thanks.