abrewer Posted January 24, 2007 Share #1 Posted January 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've been dying to take a stab at this question for awhile... Film can render OOF areas with a diffused softness that is unique. Digital cannot touch what I've seen from my film camera...not a contest in my opinion. Any others care to comment? Thanks. Allan 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/14344-what-film-can-do-that-digital-cant/?do=findComment&comment=151512'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 Hi abrewer, Take a look here What film can do that digital can't. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jacksparrow Posted January 24, 2007 Share #2 Posted January 24, 2007 Two important things for me: 1. latitude 2. phisical backup in the form of negatives. I've lost too many digital pictures (even backing up)! my two cents. E Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arminw Posted January 24, 2007 Share #3 Posted January 24, 2007 I can only say, the two mediums have their advantage and disadvantage. Hence, I use both at the appropriate times !! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted January 24, 2007 Share #4 Posted January 24, 2007 Film supplies that indefinable something of knowing the film has advanced smoothly after a precise audible and tangible creamy 'click'. Digitals have a horrible spitting tick rather akin to a spark of static electricity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted January 24, 2007 Share #5 Posted January 24, 2007 Allan....I would go one step further and bring to the table the word "atmosphere." Shadows can retain a velvety texture in film...especially with better glass. I'm sure William will agree with me here. I agree with you on this...but soemtimes I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall. I've been shooting 0's & 1's long enough to see the differences. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2007 Share #6 Posted January 24, 2007 And the other way around- these are different media equally side by side. But Leica seems to be bridging the gap by offering lenses that draw like scalpels even on film and offering digital cameras that are hailed as film-like. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 24, 2007 Share #7 Posted January 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) One thing film consistently does better (or more easily) than digital is realistic skin tones. The M8 is pretty poor in this respect but I'm hopeful that Leica and/or Phase One will provide some better profiles in due course. I also think that film renders mid and far distance detail more attractively than digital but the difference in this respect is less marked than it used to be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmazariegos Posted January 24, 2007 Share #8 Posted January 24, 2007 The out of focus areas just look unique in film. Have yet to see this on digital. Also dynamic range in Black and White seems to look much better, well horses for courses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyp Posted January 24, 2007 Share #9 Posted January 24, 2007 Someone [can't recall name] once said they liked slides because it was "like holding li'l photographic fossils in your hand", I guess you could look at it that way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmr Posted January 24, 2007 Share #10 Posted January 24, 2007 Andy: Film can't: 1) Make us spend money on IR cut filters (2 for each filter size, just in case) Never thought of buying an IR cut filter until the M8 came out 2) Consistently make my synthetic black come out magenta I am kidding guys... don't kill me Took an M8 home the other day for a 24 hour try out. I LOVE it, but could not pull the trigger to buy it. Returned it and ask for my name to be kept on the "Wanna M8" list. They will continue to call me when another black one shows up... at least until I buy one. And I will eventually buy one this year. I still like film... I like the workflow and the process of taking it to my local camera shop to get it processed, printed, and scanned into a CD. I get to talk to my friends in the camera shop. I share my prints with the folks there, family at home, and share some in this forum or e-mail to family. It is always a social event there and a social event sharing pictures. I have a Digilux 2 too, I noticed that not many people get to much of my shots (Good and very bad ones). So I started to make a CD and get it printed to share it with others. Else the shots, good or very bad ones, just stays in the memory card and/or in my computer. I guess sharing the moment is also important to me. Again a social and bonding event. Granted I can share it on my laptop with others, but... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavio Posted January 24, 2007 Share #11 Posted January 24, 2007 Hi all, I am an old analog shooter. since 1983 I use Leitz/Leica SLRs and some years ago added a M4 with Summicron. Kodachrome and now Velvia are my slides. Of course I cannot deny how easy and fast may be use digital cameras (that I use, especially to improve my daughter photo skill) and if I watch a picture on my Mac display I can say: that's great indeed, but if I watch a slide and the same picture in TIFF mode things changing a bit. Red leaves in backlight may be a sad reality, in my opinion, thin differences in undertone color, color at all and overall quality appear to be far from the same result. Still in my mind. And what do you think about the easy way to change reality (just light condition or even at all, depending on the software you want to use) in few steps. I use "Aperture" from Apple, it is a good instrument to optimize and archive my pictures and I "see" it as a son of the old darkroom, but I could even produce minor change in some parts of my images. Other software may change so much more. Is it still photography or something else? After some time thinking about M8 or a Nikon/Canon DSLR camera, I went back to analog world, waiting for some time more. I am even thinking to buy a good old M3. Thanks all for your very interesting messages and, sorry, I have been too much long. Flavio Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted January 24, 2007 Share #12 Posted January 24, 2007 Allan: This is from a Leica digital and it has pretty good out of focus areas Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted January 24, 2007 Share #13 Posted January 24, 2007 Allan, I still love to use my M5 and the more recent screwmount iiif, however I really think that the gap has closed with the M8. I am finding some really nice OOF area with the M8 now also. Remember that on an M8 the 28 will still render as the 28 did on film, even though you get the FOV of a 37. It may be that the crop factor and original DOF rendering is throwing out the impression between the digitial and film. If we were to talk my Nikon D200, then I would be in complete agreement with you. On the other hand, I still have to admit that film may have a little more DR that shows more shadow detail and doesn't blow highlights as some digital cameras can do. Film is still enjoyable for me and I doubt that I will ever abandon it, especially for B&W. ( I just bought all the stuff to develop my own B&W, but not the silver printing.) On the other hand, the results that I am now getting with the M8 are so nice it is difficult to resist the timing advantages of digital. Best, Ray Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted January 24, 2007 Share #14 Posted January 24, 2007 Allan: This is from a Leica digital and it has pretty good out of focus areas I saw the comment and immediately thought of your football shot! Next myth to be busted, please?!!!! Cheers, Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christoph_d Posted January 24, 2007 Share #15 Posted January 24, 2007 Gentlemen, IMHO Dust is rendered much more accurate on Film than digitally. The crispness and sharpness is simply not to compare. Good night, C. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richam Posted January 24, 2007 Share #16 Posted January 24, 2007 Allan, Hear hear. Subject is properly sharp and every background element at the various distances has just enough "out of focus-ness" to recognize what is essential to the image without distracting. I have another example of my own that I'll post separately. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted January 24, 2007 Share #17 Posted January 24, 2007 Just to be fair, here is a film shot with the 400mm lens. I must agree that dust is more of a problem with film than it is in digital. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 24, 2007 Share #18 Posted January 24, 2007 You know I'm old enough to remember when it was the in focus elements in a photograph that were important, but I guess fashions come and go. Personally I think the basic premise of this thread is flawed, as Robert has shown. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted January 24, 2007 Share #19 Posted January 24, 2007 Robert, For M8 users, please can you clarify what colour the Huskies uniform is? Cheers, Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 24, 2007 Share #20 Posted January 24, 2007 Surely, the out of focus areas and the "bokeh" are a function of the lens, not the medium that is recording the image. The look and feel of the image itself might be different between film and digital, but the rendition of the lens is down to the physics of the optics, not what records the lumens. Sounds like a film user trying to justify his position to me Allan. Borrow an M8 and use your 35 wide open as you like to do and then see if there's a difference in the OOF areas. Boost the contrast as you like too. I am really looking forward to running down Steve U's battery on my SD card on Sunday... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.