April 19, 2014, 05:16:02 PM

Author Topic: Film is still hard to beat  (Read 23653 times)

FredBGG

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2012, 06:33:59 PM »
Yup... film is still my favorite



But with medium format cameras like this...


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2012, 06:33:59 PM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2012, 06:37:39 PM »
@Kamera Obscura

No it's a digital scan of an analogue image, much like that of a cameras jpeg / raw, a digital sampling of an anlogue source (the primary photoelectronic process is an analogue one)

The only real differences in terms of the file are the effect that film grain has on detail, versus the effect that square regular pixels have on detail (no moire) the superior dynamic range on most properly scanned film images, true 16bit sample depth (rather than upsampled 14bit) and the fact that if you scan a slide of 35mm film at, say the 40MP that my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 manages, that you have 40mp of green, 40mp of red and 40mp of blue detail being scanned, rather than a vastly upsampled bayer image with all its guess work.

So it's not film.  But if it matters, done properly it's better - mostly for quality reasons - than the images from your DSLR.

Of course, for most users, me included, the immediacy of digital is far more user friendly, less expensive in consumable costs, and less hassle.  When I shoot speedway motorbikes I'm glad my card holds 2'000 images, and that I can shoot 8fps with some abandon.

Maybe some day DSLRs will catch up with film for quality, for most real world users, DSLRs are better, but they aren't quite there yet, and it's not all about pixels.... 

I haven't sold my EOS 3 yet for a few reasons (resale value, chromagenic mono film, the ECF AF)


Kamera Obscura

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2012, 07:02:48 PM »
Thank you for that, Paul.

I guess I was being a bit cheeky. :o

Great info and I agree.

All the best,
dario.

itsnotmeyouknow

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2012, 07:54:27 PM »
@Kamera Obscura

No it's a digital scan of an analogue image, much like that of a cameras jpeg / raw, a digital sampling of an anlogue source (the primary photoelectronic process is an analogue one)

The only real differences in terms of the file are the effect that film grain has on detail, versus the effect that square regular pixels have on detail (no moire) the superior dynamic range on most properly scanned film images, true 16bit sample depth (rather than upsampled 14bit) and the fact that if you scan a slide of 35mm film at, say the 40MP that my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 manages, that you have 40mp of green, 40mp of red and 40mp of blue detail being scanned, rather than a vastly upsampled bayer image with all its guess work.

So it's not film.  But if it matters, done properly it's better - mostly for quality reasons - than the images from your DSLR.

Of course, for most users, me included, the immediacy of digital is far more user friendly, less expensive in consumable costs, and less hassle.  When I shoot speedway motorbikes I'm glad my card holds 2'000 images, and that I can shoot 8fps with some abandon.

Maybe some day DSLRs will catch up with film for quality, for most real world users, DSLRs are better, but they aren't quite there yet, and it's not all about pixels.... 

I haven't sold my EOS 3 yet for a few reasons (resale value, chromagenic mono film, the ECF AF)

Great post. I did very little with the images in post, I just used a very small amount of USM with a small radius. For me the saturation and colour of film is something that shines straight from the scan without any need to change the saturation level at all.  The green sign wasn't actually as deep and dark as that and my 5Dmk III recorded it more accurately colourwise. But I don't always want simply a record of what I see. Sometimes I want to capture something.  Sometimes, but not necessarily always, film is the one way of capturing something.  Different types of film will record it differently.  Kodak Ektra will record very differently to Portra. And that's before you edit it in post. 

If you look at it as consumables, when you buy a digital camera, you are paying for your film up front.  Like film, generally the more you pay, the better quality "film" you get.  I didn't intend to say that film was better than digital.  Each has its advantages.  For me, film captures something that I can't put my finger on. It could simoply that due to the cost of consumables I take more care with the analogue shots than the digital.  This is something that has crept into my digital workflow too and I am seeing better results as a result. I often ask myself if the shot I am about to take would I still press the shutter if that frame was to cost me money. 

risc32

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 450
    • View Profile
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2012, 09:00:22 PM »
I most definitely don't want to get into a film-vs-digital debate, but when I lay my eyes on a 4x5 slide I see something very "right". What that something is I don't know, not sure I even care, but I like it. Sure I like my mk3 a whole hell of a lot too.

gmrza

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2012, 09:00:50 PM »
You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would  you assume that?

The feel is nothing but nostalgia, and is as such useful for anything else than recreating a certain feeling.

Digital is its own... Otherwise you might take the step further and say that a Kodak film anno 2012 is not quite achieving what the old camera obscuras could achieve.

If you want the film look by all means go ahead, but film is not hard to beat... it's been beat years ago. Both in pixel count terms and qualitywise.
Besides digital is far more efficient to one's workflow and you have photoshop to help you make what ever look you want. Don't try to make digital into film or compare it to eachother... there's absolutely no point.

I think this sums up my experience.  The only reason I have shot film recently is for nostalgic reasons.  Workflow is a PITA, and resolution has been beaten.  You have to do an A/D conversion somewhere with film, unless you have a full darkroom, which I don't - that is assuming you only want to print, but these days almost every photo needs to be converted into a digital format at some stage.

I will concede that for large format film may still be your best bet. ;-)

Oh, and for anyone whining about the AF on the 5DmkII, try an 85mm f/1.2L II on an EOS 650!  Focusing becomes a special kind of masochism!
Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

Danny Burk

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2012, 10:34:29 PM »
Hello FredBGG.......I see that you liked my photo of my Fuji GX680iii that you found on my website.....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2012, 10:34:29 PM »

Hillsilly

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2012, 12:07:54 AM »
Film and digital do compete with each other.  Every time someone decides to take a photo, they've made a conscious decision to use a digital or film camera....and digital has won (mainly for the reasons listed above - easier workflow, quality files and image manipulation opportunities).

But it is interesting that the people still using film (even if it is only for a small percentage of their photos) include a high number of very good / acclaimed photographers.  And while they would be succesful with either medium, they still choose to use film for some critical work.  Why would this be the case?  Surely not just for nostalgic reasons? Personally, I like the "look" of film and I think a lot of others do too.  Plus, I've got a darkroom set up in my garage, and its fun to make prints.  And it really doesn't cost much if you're developing your own film.  (Although, local E6 processing costs have shot through the roof and I'll probably just stick with B & W at some point in the near future).

To say that digital has beaten film is probably just comparing 35mm film?
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

dafrank

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
    • davidfranklinphoto.com
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2012, 12:11:03 AM »
My most used camera before I totally switched over to an all digital capture workflow was the Fuji GX680. Wonderful cam and lenses. It was a big tripod-bound brute though, but, run some Velvia, or even Provia, throught it and...shaazzam. Do a good 16-bit 4K scan and you've got an amazing image to work with.

I've shot with, and unfortunately owned (too much money!), just about every type of digital capture cam, from big Phase One backs, to full frame, to APS-C, to snapshot cams. No digital capture quite looks, or reacts to PP, quite like film. This doesn't mean it's better or worse, just different. Those who dismiss film images out of hand as inferior to digital probably haven't worked with really good film images very much. Autofocus 35mm derived color negatives are OK for making good 11 x14 chemical prints, or even larger, but terrible for scanning, and if that is your comparison to digital, then a lot of digital is is better.

But, now look at some Fuji 6x8 transparencies, or 4x5's, or 8x10's (yes, I used to shoot this stuff all the time), and your 'full frame" digital camera, even a Nikon D800, is left far far behind. There is a combination of real physical and observable differences that, when combined, give film derived images something quite different from digital captures, and sometimes it comes down to just a superior looking image. Then again, sometimes not. But, different just the same.

While there is no question about the great cost benefits, efficiency, speed and startlingly quicker learning curve for beginners associated with digital capture, all the characteristics which make it now almost impossible for film to compete as either a commercial tool for competitive professionals or a medium fit for those with minimal skill sets, there is still a place for film in the hands of those already schooled in its proper use and for those who just love the "look" it can give. This smaller market will continue to slowly wither, but probably not die in the next 30 years or so. There will always be those, like analog sound enthusiast who brought back vinyl LP's and belt-drive turntables, who can hear the difference.

This is no contest of "film vs. digital" techno nerds; that pissing contest was always a foolish pursuit of a chimera at its most hotly debated. This is about the fact that good film shots will always look better than average digital ones and vice versa, no matter how good digital capture ever becomes, and that film and digital will probably always look just a little different. Furthermore, if digital ever comes so close to being able to mimic the film look perfectly, who will care? Digital enthusiasts aren't really looking for it, and film lovers already have it. Go figure.
Outcomes are more important than intentions.
See my work at: http://www.davidfranklinphoto.com

Forceflow

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
    • My Gallery
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2012, 02:00:53 AM »
Hello FredBGG.......I see that you liked my photo of my Fuji GX680iii that you found on my website.....

Gee... one would think that this community (as it is filled with photographers) knows that one should not simply rip off other peoples photographs. Especially when it kind of implies that you made the photograph yourself... not cool.
Canon 7D - Canon 50mm 1.8 - Canon 24-70mm 2.8 L - Canon 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS - SIGMA 85mm 1.4 - SIGMA 150mm 2.8 OS Macro - SIGMA 10-20mm 3,5

archangelrichard

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2012, 03:11:18 PM »
"If you want the film look by all means go ahead, but film is not hard to beat... it's been beat years ago. Both in pixel count terms and qualitywise."

LMAO

LMMFAO

If you believe this I have some land to sell you, excellent ocean view ... straight above

Seriously, anyone who believes this try enlarging that shot to 16 x 20 (or crop an 8 x 10 from that enlargement) --- what? You can't? all you get is dots (pixels)?

NO digital does not come near the resolution (by a factor of thousands) of film; but that isn't the point -- Digital is more CONVENIENT to use, you view the images instantly, rdit them ion your computer and print them yourself (albeit at the very low resolution of 300 dpi) and many find they can't tell the difference

this comment is just so incredibly beyond reality I am ROTFLMMFAO

KeithR

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2012, 04:49:09 PM »
this comment is just so incredibly beyond reality I am ROTFLMMFAO

Yeah, right.

Dream on.

dirtcastle

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2012, 06:09:16 PM »
Are there any scientists here who can cut through all this crap and tell us whether there is a perceptible resolution/DR difference between the highest quality of digital vs film?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2012, 06:09:16 PM »

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1397
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2012, 07:21:30 PM »
"Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise.   ;)
I dunno, I just got my EOS 3 off ebay for $150 shipped.
at $12 a roll of film plus $8 developing, how many rolls do I have to shoot to equal a 5D3 body?
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1342
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #29 on: May 19, 2012, 07:31:33 PM »
.
For those who think they need a "scientist" to tell them whether they should like a picture, poet Walt Whitman had some advice:


When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before
   me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and
   measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with
   much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #29 on: May 19, 2012, 07:31:33 PM »