Film is still hard to beat

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#61
dirtcastle said:
pdirestajr said:
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?
Click to expand...

Let me guess... you prefer film?

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

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.
 
Upvote 0
#64
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.
 
Upvote 0
#65
dr croubie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Upvote 0
#66
Forceflow said:
Danny Burk said:
Hello FredBGG.......I see that you liked my photo of my Fuji GX680iii that you found on my website.....
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
#67
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.
 
Upvote 0
#71
dr croubie said:
dr croubie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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/
 
Upvote 0
#72
traveller said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Upvote 0
#73
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.
 
Upvote 0
#74
dr croubie said:
traveller said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...


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
 
Upvote 0
#76
Pan-F was my goto fine grain film.

Still enjoy the occasional roll of FP4 (always was an Ilford fanboy) through my F1n but just for fun would never dream of doing anything important/serious with it although it’s cost that mainly stops me doing more.
 
Upvote 0
#77
I wonder how many times in the past 10+ years this conversation has taken place. and since I really couldn't be bothered to read through 6 pages of people giving their opinion I skipped to the end to say

It depends what you want to shot, what you want to do and who's going to see your work.

There are still a lot of high-end studio fashion shooters that will shoot film (mainly medium format of course) and totally swear by it for what work they do. Sure digital has it's place - hasselblad, phaseone etc - make perfectly amazing digital cameras for that kind of work yet there are still people favouring to shoot film.

Enlarging is one of the major issues with digital photography - of course it depends on what work you do - if you're doing the kind of commercial work that is going to be plastered on billboards that are 10 meters across - digital probably isn't the best way to go about that work.

For certain applications digital is better - a client wants something done at short notice and wants samples asap... digital is the way to go about that kind of work.

The kind of corporate head-shot work where clients will want to see results on the day, or even as you're shooting via a monitor - obviously digital is better in that respect.

as I said... it depends on what you want to shoot as to whether or not Film is better or Digital is better.

If in doubt - stock that fridge with as much 35/120 as you can get your hands on just in case! =D
 
Upvote 0
#78
sweetcancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is barely any noise at ISO400 on digital and already tons with film.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
In Seoul
Replies
11
Views
9K
itsnotmeyouknow
I
I
My dog Caesar
Replies
14
Views
10K
itsnotmeyouknow
I
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu