135 film vs 10 MP digital

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually I couldn't care less which is "better" The prints I get - and I print up to 1 m wide - are cleaner and more detailed from my M8 than they are from film. But that does not make them "better", just slightly different. So, from time to time I take out my M3 and Kodachorme 64 and enjoy the slides projected large - no digital camera can match that. Black and white - unmatched if one keeps the whole process chemical - but as soon as one starts scanning the advantage is lost and a digital capture becomes preferable. So this whole discussion lacks a foundation and will remain unresolved forever - except for thoese, like me, that straddle the fence, who will enjoy both. Or for pro's who survey the output their market demands and choose their tools accordingly.

[Mark Antony]

Yes all of that is in play but there are photographers at the top of the game who can use whatever they want, including film and are using digital and not because they are getting inferior results.

 

Well not really, digital is being used mainly because of speed, ease of manipulation and cost effectiveness. There was a point for us where digital became 'good enough' it didn't need to be superior because all the other benefits mentioned above far outweighed the small difference in quality.

 

Some top end guys likeDerrick Santini still use film, because they like what it offers them.

 

Most of the guys I have talked to went digital a while back, just to compete.

 

I have a friend who still loves to shoot his Sinar 4x5 because of the movements, but shoots a 1Ds because there is no longer a Lab that will process E-6 within 20 miles of his studio (there were two just 5 years ago)

 

Does he think his Canon is better quality? No is his reply, it the client that pays his bills and they want digital and fast!

Mark

[Advertisement]

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

[hankg]

There was a point for us where digital became 'good enough' it didn't need to be superior because all the other benefits mentioned above far outweighed the small difference in quality.

 

Some top end guys likeDerrick Santini still use film, because they like what it offers them.

 

We passed the good enough point a while ago. Yes some use film because they prefer it and some use digital because they prefer it. Some use both depending on the job. If you think the top pros who use digital think it's inferior to film and would switch back if they could you are kidding yourself.

[delander †]

Going back to the OP. The street lights were on for the M8 shot!

 

Jeff

[Mark Antony]

We passed the good enough point a while ago. Yes some use film because they prefer it and some use digital because they prefer it. Some use both depending on the job. If you think the top pros who use digital think it's inferior to film and would switch back if they could you are kidding yourself.

 

No not many of us would switch back for the reasons stated, to say we switched mainly for quality is to oversimplify the issue.

 

No , the world has changed as far as Pro photography goes there is no going back, but that isn't just driven by quality- there are much more complex issues here.

 

Mark

[hankg]

No not many of us would switch back for the reasons stated, to say we switched mainly for quality is to oversimplify the issue.

 

No , the world has changed as far as Pro photography goes there is no going back, but that isn't just driven by quality- there are much more complex issues here.

 

Mark

 

Every one has there own reasons. I shoot my personal work in digital because I find the results in color superior in most ways to film. For B&W it's a much closer call and there I think digital is just now closed the gap for some types of work.

[Mark Antony]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Every one has there own reasons. I shoot my personal work in digital because I find the results in color superior in most ways to film. For B&W it's a much closer call and there I think digital is just now closed the gap for some types of work.

 

Yes in other words for most pros its 'good enough' quality wise for client expectation.

Where digital has really won over pros is speed of results and flexibility – hands down.

Even if film were a quantifiably better, say 10%? then the benefit of instant capture, manipulation, ease of duplication and cheaper workflow are going to win the day.

 

What I have found is that colour film is rarely used now for clients (B&W never was) But in all honesty I never had a problem with colour quality in the studio, it helped that we had our own Prolab in the same building! But I understand that people are now getting a easier path to good colour, but I don't think before digital the colour images I produced are any worse than they are in the post digital era

 

Mark

[guywalder]

......... probably the dumbest statement made on the forum for 2007...........

 

. nah it is the dumbest.................the again it may be ignorance or just someone who is naive......naivity is forgiven

 

an accolade, of sorts!

In terms of any of the attributes being discussed in this thread, all of my own experience, and a large majority of the info in the public domain, back my 'silly / trollish / ignorant' statement (and you dont need anything like 10Mp either, there are people having 35mm slides made from 4Mp files which then win major salon competitions)

 

In terms of how you create your images, you may well do better with film, but your images hardly depend on most the IQ attributes which are usually considered essential...

 

I like film (or more usually emulating film in the digital domain) because it gives more pleasing images, but not technically better ones

[guywalder]

Yes in other words for most pros its 'good enough' quality wise for client expectation.

 

Mark

 

Mark,

as Hank says, your arguement is some years out of date. The early adopters of digital were attracted by speed, but in sticking to the 'good enough' quality arguement rather ignores the fact that 35mm legacy based digital has, meantime, replaced MF film for a great range of uses (weddings, studio, portrait etc). That is to say digital has replaced the medium which was being used because 35mm 'wasnt good enough'.

 

Sorry to hear that expressing an opinion different to yours is 'silly and trollish', I was expressing my opinion based on several years experience of comparing MF film and several digital platforms. Maybe I could get more resolution out of a 20iso film, but actually I dont think I could take any of my type of pictures with such a slow film, so whats the point? If resolution was such a decisive factor we would all be running around with 5x4 or 10x8 cameras, but ever since Barnack made a lens which enabled 35mm film to produce 'good enough' pictures 35mm film has been the dominant format of choice.

It isnt anymore because digital does a better job...

[Guest stnami]

I was referring to your statement about being hacks at digital, my personal stuff has no bearing on that.

Other than that images with a high IQ lend themselves with greater manipulation with the capabilities of different IQs within the one image .....

[Mark Antony]

Mark,

as Hank says, your arguement is some years out of date. The early adopters of digital were attracted by speed, but in sticking to the 'good enough' quality arguement rather ignores the fact that 35mm legacy based digital has, meantime, replaced MF film for a great range of uses (weddings, studio, portrait etc). That is to say digital has replaced the medium which was being used because 35mm 'wasnt good enough'.

 

Sorry to hear that expressing an opinion different to yours is 'silly and trollish', I was expressing my opinion based on several years experience of comparing MF film and several digital platforms. Maybe I could get more resolution out of a 20iso film, but actually I dont think I could take any of my type of pictures with such a slow film, so whats the point? If resolution was such a decisive factor we would all be running around with 5x4 or 10x8 cameras, but ever since Barnack made a lens which enabled 35mm film to produce 'good enough' pictures 35mm film has been the dominant format of choice.

It isnt anymore because digital does a better job...

 

Guy my argument is this:

Pros did not adopt digital for quality reasons alone, there were a host of other factors in the mix.

 

The reason I called your post "silly' and 'trollish' is not because you were expessing a different opinion from mine (because you weren't) but rather because of your bullish statement:

 

If you are getting better results out of 35mm film, that is because you havnt learnt digital yet, like it or not

 

In other words insulting people because they use film and think it's better because they havnt (sic) learnt digital – I mean if they think film is better they must have bad digital skills right?

Stnami picked up on it too, so its not just me- what is it with people that if someone prefers film that they can't do digital? Why the binary thought process?

I think I'll just add you to the ignore list Guy

[Guest stnami]

Most film photographers would be more aware of the resolution/image issues as they really have to run through a few more hoops. Minute changes can make a huge difference, there is many a time that a similar (if not the same image) image has had to be viewed as a chemically and digitally printed image,,,,,,,,

[Mark Antony]

Exactly, Film photographers work flows are often digital and chemical (hybrid). Why people who use digital as their only output should think film photographers are 'digitally ignorant' or less competent than those who have an all digital work flow is beyond me.

 

I see far too much film user bashing, luddite, elitist, zealot 'stuck in a cave', 'out of date' 'living in the past' type arguments from insecure digital users.

 

Freedom of expression, cuts both ways what I mean by that is we shouldn't pigeon hole ourselves too much, quality is subjective, art is also (hope that makes sense)

Mark

[stunsworth]

I see far too much film user bashing, luddite, elitist, zealot 'stuck in a cave', 'out of date' 'living in the past' type arguments from insecure digital users.

 

I think quite often people (and I refer to film and digital users here) speak of their personal preference as if it's a universal truth. The one true way, and everyone else is delusional or a heretic.

 

I shoot digitally, that's my preference, but does it bother me if some one else shoots film? No it doesn't. Both are equally valid. What matters to me personally is the final image. I've no real interest if it's produced using film or digital, with a Leica or a Canon, that's just the means to the end.

[guywalder]

Guy my argument is this:

Pros did not adopt digital for quality reasons alone, there were a host of other factors in the mix.

 

Why the binary thought process?

I think I'll just add you to the ignore list Guy

 

 

hmmm, correct of course that there are many factors involved in the choice, however you seem to be extrapolating the reality to support a different arguement.

Do you really think that when mr photographer sold his pentax 6x7 and bought a DSLR, that suddenly all his/her customers shrugged their shoulders and said 'ok, we'll accept a quality level which was never acceptable before just because it makes your life easier! 35mm never made the grade, but now we just love the crap digital images you give us...'

 

you seem to be determined to ignore that I not only use film, but also prefer its aesthetic. Why would that be??

binary thought process? er no, just selective reading.

[Guest stnami]

..................and your explanation for this.....................

If you are getting better results out of 35mm film, that is because you havnt learnt digital yet, like it or not

 

......... is?

[Kent10D]

hmmm, correct of course that there are many factors involved in the choice, however you seem to be extrapolating the reality to support a different arguement.

Do you really think that when mr photographer sold his pentax 6x7 and bought a DSLR, that suddenly all his/her customers shrugged their shoulders and said 'ok, we'll accept a quality level which was never acceptable before just because it makes your life easier! 35mm never made the grade, but now we just love the crap digital images you give us...'

 

you seem to be determined to ignore that I not only use film, but also prefer its aesthetic. Why would that be??

binary thought process? er no, just selective reading.

 

I absolutely cannot comprehend how you came to that understanding. As I read it that's not what Mark or anyone else is saying at all.

I've been in and around advertising for the last 30 years myself, and I can vouch for the fact that the client usually wants faster and cheaper. Quality is incidental. It's not the client saying "OK, we'll put up with digital because it makes the photographer's life easier." Not at all. It's the client saying "You mean you can do it faster and cheaper?? Then do it!!" Photographers have been forced to use digital, not the other way around. That doesn't make it wrong, that's just the way it is.

[guywalder]

..................and your explanation for this.....................

 

 

......... is?

 

....is that it is a bullishly expressed opinion.

 

Given the way digital has decimated the MF film market, and my own experience, I stand by the statement, while admitting that I might have expressed it more diplomatically

 

I have no problem at all with people prefering film, I'm just not buying into the 35mm film is technically better line.

 

Incidentally, if my goal was to maximise film resolution I would be using my Mamiya 7 and not 35mm. As the Irish might say 'if thats where you want to get to, you shouldn't be starting from here' or something to that effect... However I like film for its 'technical weaknesses' as much as for any other reason, and it is getting ever easier to emulate them digitally....

[hankg]

I absolutely cannot comprehend how you came to that understanding. As I read it that's not what Mark or anyone else is saying at all.

I've been in and around advertising for the last 30 years myself, and I can vouch for the fact that the client usually wants faster and cheaper. Quality is incidental. It's not the client saying "OK, we'll put up with digital because it makes the photographer's life easier." Not at all. It's the client saying "You mean you can do it faster and cheaper?? Then do it!!" Photographers have been forced to use digital, not the other way around. That doesn't make it wrong, that's just the way it is.

 

That's only part of the story. There are client's where faster and cheaper is the priority and there are those where quality is the number one priority. For a long time the smaller quality segment stuck with film because digital did not measure up. That is no longer the case.

 

The impression is being left that quality conscious clients and photographers would choose film if it were not for speed and cost issues and that is just not true any more. Digital competes not just on speed and control (the top photographers who do $100,000 shoots geared and staffed like a movie set have not lowered their rates so it's not cheaper) but on quality as well today. Yes at the bottom of the market digital has been all about cost. All market segments want more speed and control but at the top end if you can't cut it on quality and 'look' none of the other components matter.

 

So use whatever makes you happy but the difference between film and digital is no longer a choice between convenience or quality it's just a personal preference of which media you are more comfortable with.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[guywalder]

I absolutely cannot comprehend how you came to that understanding. As I read it that's not what Mark or anyone else is saying at all.

I've been in and around advertising for the last 30 years myself, and I can vouch for the fact that the client usually wants faster and cheaper. Quality is incidental. It's not the client saying "OK, we'll put up with digital because it makes the photographer's life easier." Not at all. It's the client saying "You mean you can do it faster and cheaper?? Then do it!!" Photographers have been forced to use digital, not the other way around. That doesn't make it wrong, that's just the way it is.

 

 

oh please! so the only people who ever stumped for MF or LF were hobbyists!?? were all those people using MF for weddings, portraits, corporate work were a figment of my imagination, because in reality all paying customers were happy with 35mm, or better yet with APS film, because cheap is all that matters?

Do you think the only people now dropping 30k for MF digital are doing it for a laugh?