Film is still hard to beat

[pdirestajr]

I thinks there is no debate or comparing "film vs digital".

It's like trying to compare a painting to a digital photoshop illustration. They are completely different in every way. One is organic and the other is digital art.

The process of making an exposure on film, developing that film in a dark room, optically making a print on an enlarger, and developing the print has nothing to do with the digital workflow process.

Why can't they just be different forms of art?

Let me guess... you prefer film?

The reason they are considered the same artform is because they are both photography. ;-)

I don't prefer film. I use both. I also use photoshop sometimes, and illustrator other times. And oil paints other times, and crayons when I color with my daughter.

Crayola is better than roseart.

[dirtcastle]

Crayola is better than roseart.

I just registered http://CrayolaRumors.com

[pdirestajr]

Crayola is better than roseart.

I just registered http://CrayolaRumors.com

Lol. This thread just got fun!

The digital vs film debate is old.

[hutjeflut]

personaly i like digital more specialy at iso 100 its often clearer no noice at all and i like it that way.
i get some people like the film noise but i just dont i dont see it when i look at a object so i dont want to see it when i look at a picture of the object.

thats why digital wins for me and i only have a simple 450d now.

[dr croubie]

Aside: i've just thought of a test, seeing as I've got an EOS 3 now (now there's one way film beats digital, Eye control AF), and a roll of Velvia 50 lying around, i'll go ask my friend if he's bought his 5D3 yet and do a direct same-shot-same-lens comparison one day.

OK, so i've now got an Epson v750M scanner in the mail (cost me as much shipped from europe as a v700 costs here (v750M isn't available in aus).
As soon as it gets here, all I need is for my mate to come back from the states with his 5D3 and the tests can begin...

[FredBGG]

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.

He is referring to the photo of the camera. I shot the portrait. We happen to know each other and have exchanged info on the camera system. Danny Burk like me is a Fuji gx680 enthusiast and pro photographer.

[FunPhotons]

You want to know how film compares to digital? Look at the growth of number of pictures taken versus population growth. I haven't done this, but I know the rate of population growth is slowing while the growth of digital pictures is exponential. 15 billion pictures per year by next year is a number I recall (could be wrong by a few digits). Try walking around with a film camera as small as the S100, or a film camera in your phone.

Digital has trumped film as a medium, case closed.

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Because quantity always beats quality, sure. [irony alert]

[smithy]

Because quantity always beats quality, sure. [irony alert]

+1 million (although that was sarcasm, not irony!)

[crasher8]

Just shot 4 rolls yesterday of Ektar 100 on the Elan 7 with a Lensbaby. Will be scanning into LR on Tuesday for my nature on lsd show.

[traveller]

Aside: i've just thought of a test, seeing as I've got an EOS 3 now (now there's one way film beats digital, Eye control AF), and a roll of Velvia 50 lying around, i'll go ask my friend if he's bought his 5D3 yet and do a direct same-shot-same-lens comparison one day.

OK, so i've now got an Epson v750M scanner in the mail (cost me as much shipped from europe as a v700 costs here (v750M isn't available in aus).
As soon as it gets here, all I need is for my mate to come back from the states with his 5D3 and the tests can begin...

I'd be interested to see your tests, as in most real world tests that I've seen, film doesn't even come close to the resolution that you calculated in your previous post [Re: Film is still hard to beat « Reply #54 on: May 20, 2012, 06:03:18 PM »].  I think the problem with your calculations is that you can scan at any resolution you like, if the detail isn't there to resolve, you won't get any more useful information out of it.  You could drum scan a picture printed in a newspaper at 10,000dpi -the picure wouldn't be of any higher quality than a normal flatbed scanner. 

I think I've posted the link before, but you might like to take a look at this test conducted by Tim Parkin and Onlandscape:

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

[dr croubie]

I'd be interested to see your tests, as in most real world tests that I've seen, film doesn't even come close to the resolution that you calculated in your previous post [Re: Film is still hard to beat « Reply #54 on: May 20, 2012, 06:03:18 PM »].  I think the problem with your calculations is that you can scan at any resolution you like, if the detail isn't there to resolve, you won't get any more useful information out of it.  You could drum scan a picture printed in a newspaper at 10,000dpi -the picure wouldn't be of any higher quality than a normal flatbed scanner. 

Yeah, that's what I'd be interested in figuring out too. I know the scanner can go up to 9600 dpi or something stupid, maybe i'll scan that high and down-res to a 5D3-sized image.

At any rate, so far i've only been shooting Kodak Tmax and Ilford iso400 B+W, i'm fairly certain that i can get better results from my 7D than from the film, but that's still not stopping me.

For the test i'm planning on using iso50 Velvia as the one everyone raves about having the finest grain, anyone got any other ideas what films to shoot in terms of resolving-power?

[sweetcancer]

I think digital is fine shot at lower iso. At iso 400 and up, I prefer film, because digital noise, more often than film grain, is UGLY. That said, I would never only shoot film, because of all the hassle and cost.

I only have experience shooting 35mm film.

[crasher8]

I'd be interested to see your tests, as in most real world tests that I've seen, film doesn't even come close to the resolution that you calculated in your previous post [Re: Film is still hard to beat « Reply #54 on: May 20, 2012, 06:03:18 PM »].  I think the problem with your calculations is that you can scan at any resolution you like, if the detail isn't there to resolve, you won't get any more useful information out of it.  You could drum scan a picture printed in a newspaper at 10,000dpi -the picure wouldn't be of any higher quality than a normal flatbed scanner. 

Yeah, that's what I'd be interested in figuring out too. I know the scanner can go up to 9600 dpi or something stupid, maybe i'll scan that high and down-res to a 5D3-sized image.

At any rate, so far i've only been shooting Kodak Tmax and Ilford iso400 B+W, i'm fairly certain that i can get better results from my 7D than from the film, but that's still not stopping me.

For the test i'm planning on using iso50 Velvia as the one everyone raves about having the finest grain, anyone got any other ideas what films to shoot in terms of resolving-power?

Try these:


Ilford Pan-F Plus Ultra-Fine Grain Black and White Film ISO 50
Acros Neopan 100
Portra 160
Fujicolor Superia Reala
Ektra 100

[Dylan777]

Hands down to all film shooters

For me...I'll stay with digital - shoot it, view it, if I don't like it then delete it, and if I like it shoot it AGAIN for even better pic.