ron110n Posted January 25, 2007 Share #41 Posted January 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The difference is obvious to my taste. Maybe a few more generation. Also the digital crisp sharpness is too jagged to my taste. Unlike film that go round and deep. But it's a matter of taste. I chose a film transparency, because a Digital CCD is patterned to a transparrency film. M7, Lux 50mm Asph, Ektachrome 100G Catedral de Santa María de la Sede, Sevilla España. But of course, a film camera cannot shoot videos. =) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 Hi ron110n, Take a look here What film can do that digital can't. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hamey Posted January 25, 2007 Share #42 Posted January 25, 2007 Capture... An... Image... Without... The... Aid. ..of... Battery... Current. Lol. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share #43 Posted January 25, 2007 Well, as much as I love Robert's sports images (as I've stated repeatedly in the Photo Forum) I have to point out that my beautiful film image has been (ahem) diminished greatly from the print I hold in my hand to the 72 ppi constraint on the board. Something about digital...it is a leveller of sorts. It just doesn't soar for me like my film images do. Thanks. Allan PS One ounce? Really? Got to remember that.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 25, 2007 Share #44 Posted January 25, 2007 One ounce? Really? Got to remember that.... Depends on the density Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasw_ Posted January 25, 2007 Share #45 Posted January 25, 2007 for me it is a preference for one 'weakness' of film over the corresponding 'weakness' in digital: film's grainy aspects over digital noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r_smith Posted January 25, 2007 Share #46 Posted January 25, 2007 Time was, not so long ago, that film was so clearly superior to digital photography in all important aspects other than convenience there was simply no contest. This is no longer true. In another five years, there will be no substance for a debate on issues of quality, even in terms of digital versus medium format or 5x4 film. There hardly is now at the top level of digital cameras like the M8, Canon 1DS mk II, or Hasselblad HD3. If film does survive as a medium of choice for some photographers (and I think it will), it will be for these reasons - * Film provides an archival, platform independent negative which can be stored and reproduced outside of a computer system. * Film photographers enjoy the craft of chemical photography and darkroom work, and do not wish to give these things up. * Film, particularly B/W film, looks different to digital (not better, just different). Some people like this look. Some people like the analogue distribution of grain in a B/W print and the way it gives a crisp texture to the result. * Film photographers enjoy loading the film into the camera, advancing the film after each frame, and choosing their film stock for each assignment. Film photographers also believe that too much instant gratification is bad for us, and that the best things in life are worth waiting for Best regards John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted January 25, 2007 Share #47 Posted January 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) * Film provides an archival, platform independent negative which can be stored and reproduced outside of a computer system. * Film photographers enjoy the craft of chemical photography and darkroom work, and do not wish to give these things up. * Film, particularly B/W film, looks different to digital (not better, just different). Some people like this look. Some people like the analogue distribution of grain in a B/W print and the way it gives a crisp texture to the result. * Film photographers enjoy loading the film into the camera, advancing the film after each frame, and choosing their film stock for each assignment. Film photographers also believe that too much instant gratification is bad for us, and that the best things in life are worth waiting for Best regards John John has spoken!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted January 25, 2007 Share #48 Posted January 25, 2007 Film just has THAT look and at the moment you can't get THAT look with digital (and maybe never will). As to OOF, the M8 probably has the best bokeh around but it depends on the lens and I've seen some pretty good bokeh with my D200, 70-200 combo also. However I feel the biggest difference is dynamic range. I get awesome dr with almost any b&w iso 100 film with my M4 and long exposure shots still blow me away. And while I've sold many color images, for me b&w is what photography is all about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 25, 2007 Share #49 Posted January 25, 2007 Proven to last for centuries. Easily make a B&W silver print. Be projected without huge loss of original beauty. Can easily be converted to digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFi-Chaser Posted January 25, 2007 Share #50 Posted January 25, 2007 IMO there are two things, digital can't do (today): 1) long exposures > 10 min without big noise or heating the sensor to death. 2) working under extreme conditions without electricity. OK, most of You won't get into situations, where you need this. But I do from time to time (SoFi is the german abreviation for solar eclipse ). And that's why I cannot imagine, ever selling my R6 or M6. Regards Torsten Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyp Posted January 25, 2007 Share #51 Posted January 25, 2007 My wife and her craft cronies use plastic slide mounts for small ''picture'' frames on greeting cards they make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lieberdavid Posted January 26, 2007 Share #52 Posted January 26, 2007 But for today, it seems to me that the answer is obvious: film produces better pictures. If you doubt this, take a look at a slide projected on a big screen and tell me how you can get that kind of quality with what is available in digital today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachkebia Posted January 26, 2007 Share #53 Posted January 26, 2007 As far as we will support it and we will love it it wont die! so lets love film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 26, 2007 Share #54 Posted January 26, 2007 What film can do that digital can't ...... be easily used on a 4 week expedition to the Himalayas, maybe ? (not knocking digital here, or anywhere) 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! 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=153315'>More sharing options...
haris Posted January 26, 2007 Share #55 Posted January 26, 2007 Well, I shoot the girl and then invite her into my darkroom... That is what film can and dimaging can't Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 26, 2007 Share #56 Posted January 26, 2007 Personally I think the basic premise of this thread is flawed, as Robert has shown. If anything, Robert has unwittingly undemined his own argument. Tastes vary but, for me, the second American football shot renders detail and the transition between stuff that is in focus and the stuff that isn't much more pleasingly than the first. I have been using digital alongside film for over five years (and have no axe to grind either way) and I simply do not accept the argument that the recording medium does not impact on the way a scene is rendered. It's not about bokeh (which I agree is a lens characteristic) but about how middle distance and far distance detail gets rendered. The M8 and 5D (the two digital cameras I now own) are much more 'film-like' (a term I hate) than other cameras I have owned and used but I still see the difference with film. If everything was equal I'd take a film 'version' almost every time but, for me, the differences (disadvantages) I still see in digital capture are no longer significant enough any longer to outweigh the hassle or expense of scanning film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 26, 2007 Share #57 Posted January 26, 2007 The difference is obvious to my taste.Maybe a few more generation. Also the digital crisp sharpness is too jagged to my taste. Unlike film that go round and deep. But it's a matter of taste.) Agreed. If your shot had been taken with the M8, it would certainly have greater apparent (and probably real) resolution and the crown details would stand out more starkly against the OOF background behind it. I'm sure many (though not me) would prefer it that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted January 26, 2007 Share #58 Posted January 26, 2007 Ian, I doubt that 10mp really outresolves slow speed film, Leica or otherwise. The files I have worked with from the M8 are good for what they are, but are still not up to a scanned fine grain c41 negative. What digital allows is full use of the capabilities of the camera and lens without the intervening factores of poor processing and/or printing. Both digital and film offer the ability to create amazing clarity and quality. Digital is easier, but in reality not archival. I doubt my great grand children will be digging my La Cie hard drive out of a box and firing it up in the 22nd century. Unless you plan to create a trust in your will to manage your digital files it's likely that your photos will die off shortly after you do. If you think of your images as art or mearly documentation of your life it is depressing to think of all the records that will be lost to our families and to history in the digital age. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted January 27, 2007 Share #59 Posted January 27, 2007 Depends on the density Fluid once then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted January 27, 2007 Share #60 Posted January 27, 2007 Ian, I doubt that 10mp really outresolves slow speed film, Leica or otherwise. The files I have worked with from the M8 are good for what they are, but are still not up to a scanned fine grain c41 negative. What digital allows is full use of the capabilities of the camera and lens without the intervening factores of poor processing and/or printing. Both digital and film offer the ability to create amazing clarity and quality. Digital is easier, but in reality not archival. I doubt my great grand children will be digging my La Cie hard drive out of a box and firing it up in the 22nd century. Unless you plan to create a trust in your will to manage your digital files it's likely that your photos will die off shortly after you do. If you think of your images as art or mearly documentation of your life it is depressing to think of all the records that will be lost to our families and to history in the digital age. Believe me, the M8 beats 35mm film. Maybe the most fine grained slide films when drum scanned can compete, but to me the M8 is superior for accurate color, little grain/noise and resolution. However, I love the look of film and often prefer it, but to say that film is better objetively speaking is plain wrong to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.