Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Digital versus Film  (Read 20475 times)

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Digital versus Film
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2005, 06:57:43 am »

Quote
He was adamant about prints from negatives (he doesn't shoot transparency) and basically just wouldn't let up. His claim to fame was : RESOLUTION. The man was caught in the past. Interestingly, I asked him if he ever read any of the arguments posited on the Web about the supposed RESOLUTION controvery. He has no computer and is computationally-illiterate. Guess that says it all.
Bob,

The fact that someone is a computer illiterate does not translate into someone being a bad photographer. If someone is familiar with a particular workflow/results, why change? Unless you are a pro and need to adapt in order not to lose business, why change?

So much effort and energy waisted over pointless debates, and has photography improved? Do we see better photographers out of this? I don't think so.

boku

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.bobkulonphoto.com
Digital versus Film
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2005, 08:17:09 am »

Quote
Quote
He was adamant about prints from negatives (he doesn't shoot transparency) and basically just wouldn't let up. His claim to fame was : RESOLUTION. The man was caught in the past. Interestingly, I asked him if he ever read any of the arguments posited on the Web about the supposed RESOLUTION controvery. He has no computer and is computationally-illiterate. Guess that says it all.
Bob,

The fact that someone is a computer illiterate does not translate into someone being a bad photographer. If someone is familiar with a particular workflow/results, why change? Unless you are a pro and need to adapt in order not to lose business, why change?

So much effort and energy waisted over pointless debates, and has photography improved? Do we see better photographers out of this? I don't think so.
Who said he was a bad photographer? All I inferred is that he wasted my time with particularly uninformed banter. (I couldn't close my tailgate, he had is hand in the door jamb, so I had to listen or be rude.)

Computer illiteracy, in my opinion, can compel people into subjective "reasoning" to support their comfort zone. For many in that category, technology is "bad." Given that, they have no reason to confront their fear of the unknown. I see a lot more credibility in a film-shooter who knows computers, and can look me in the eye and say they prefer film, for whatever reason (skill set, quality, spirituality, authenticity, financial, tradition). I detected a strong underlying fear of technology in this man's position. He was telling me that 35mm consumer color negative film would beat the results of the 1DSMk2 hands down everytime. Is that a credible statement to make? Or is "I prefer film for my own reasons." more believable?
Logged
Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...[b

Richowens

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
Digital versus Film
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2005, 04:13:14 pm »

Bob,
I have to say that in your encounter with this person, you were more a gentleman than I would be. I have little tolerance for people who try to use me to validate their personal preferences. They need to find security within themselves. It is their personal problem, I have enough of my own.
As far as the hand in the door, with me he stood a very good chance at a serious injury or loss, unless he had quick reflexes. When the light's right, don't delay me unless you are deathly ill.  
I may sound harsh, but I really am a nice person until someone starts abusing my good nature.
Again, my hat is off to you, my friend.

Rich

P.S. I did have a good laugh at your story of mishaps and the ludicrous behavior of so many "photographers" today. Sorry it was at your expense.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Digital versus Film
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2005, 09:22:48 pm »

Quote
OK, I'm stoked. I'm going out tomorrow morning at 5 AM to new, promising venue. If anyone approaches within 500 feet, they will regret it. Can forensics detect the imprint of a 300 f/4L on a forehead?
Bob,

You might want to try my trick. I wear hearing aids, and I generally turn them off while photographing. If someone tries to talk to me, I can usually ignore them completely. If they persist, I smile, point to my ears, and mumble in a loud voice, slurring my consonants, "Sorry, my batteries are dead."

Hasn't failed yet. And less wear and tear on the 300.    

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Digital versus Film
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2005, 03:39:12 pm »

Quote
So, what I am saying is that *if* you had a digital camera back that could resolve the same dots per inch as a comperable digital SLR (comparing apples to apples you understand) I expect that you would see very similar results as the scan of the 4x5 film that Ken shows in his article. Just as an aside comparing approximate DPI between the sensor size of the Nikon D2x and a fictional 4x5 digital back the Nikon SLR comes out to be approx 4600 DPI and 12.2 megapixels. The same DPI in a 4x5 digital back would come out to be an enormous 423 megapixels. Kind of makes you think eh?

Digital scanning backs deliver the closest, at supreme image quality (no bayer interpolation here, and better dynamic range too). But they're slow and expensive.

http://www.betterlight.com/faq_sales.asp#faq2
Logged
Jan

gryffyn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • http://www.tarafrost.com
Digital versus Film
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2005, 02:39:55 pm »

Fylm?  Whassat?

Isn't that something that buggie whips came wrapped in?

<wide grins>
Logged
.....Andrzej

etmpasadena

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
Digital versus Film
« Reply #26 on: July 21, 2005, 05:47:49 pm »

Bob,

Speaking of photographers in groups, I think you'll like the following essay about this subject and the Bad Behavior it brings about.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/article...3/dw0303-1.html
Logged

zatvornik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Digital versus Film
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2005, 04:43:32 am »

Don't know what to make of it really. Just happened to read this page yesterday : http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

He does seem to make some valid points, especially looking at the sample photos (not charts, but autumn trees). I think it is quite a balanced article and goes along the lines of "yes film has more resolution but to a vast majority of people that should not make any difference".
Logged

Hank

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
Digital versus Film
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2005, 12:37:03 pm »

I'm delighted by as recent experience with a crusty subject I was hired to shoot.  A photog for another client showed up midway.  I had good rapport with the subject by then, which the new arrival disrupted, instisting on talking to me about his cameras and asking for a look at mine.  I told him "maybe later" but he persisted.

The subject sat through the routine a few minutes longer then piped up in a loud, sharp voice.  "Don't talk about cameras!  Just shut up and shoot."  
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Digital versus Film
« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2005, 03:04:54 pm »

Quote
Quote
(although I confess I wondered what possessed Boku to be out there with 50 photographers in a bug-infested swamp in the first place   )
1) Chance to meet a few new friends (obviously, I need to set higher standards).
2) New location/situation that wasn't very well explained in advance.
3) I actually thought I would be one of the big bad guys with my wimply little 20D  ???
4) I wanted to learn how to do macro flash techniques better.*

*Funny - every time someone in that crowd tripped a Canon EOS flash, several others went off by mistake. I guess they were set to slave. This entire event was like a Seinfeld episode. That's when I decided to scoot. Idiots.
Bob,

It's too bad you didn't have Chris there to photograph the scene for an upcoming LLVJ    

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Jer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
Digital versus Film
« Reply #30 on: July 22, 2005, 10:27:07 pm »

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've found that it's really much easier to completely accept everything Michael writes about. I'm not saying that if you don't he'll be disapointed or annoyed with you. No, what I'm saying has nothing to do with Michael. Life & photography are so much more simple and enjoyable when you hand over power to someone who knows how to articulate things... and when you generally agree with their point of view :: .
     That being said, jdemott makes some interesting remarks, but I can't understand any of them. Not that he's inarticulate rather I am a bafoon with good eyes.  
     Johnathan, thanks for the laugh. Carry on.

                    Jeremy
Logged

gr82bart

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
    • http://www.artliem.com
Digital versus Film
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2005, 12:55:51 pm »

Quote
Computer illiteracy, in my opinion, can compel people into subjective "reasoning" to support their comfort zone. For many in that category, technology is "bad." Given that, they have no reason to confront their fear of the unknown.
He may have point to fear technology. God knows, I spend enough hours of the day in front of this thing that was suppose to make my life easier.

Quote
I see a lot more credibility in a film-shooter who knows computers, and can look me in the eye and say they prefer film, for whatever reason (skill set, quality, spirituality, authenticity, financial, tradition).
I don't buy into that. There are lots of credible artists out there that produce wonderful images and are computer illiterate.

Quote
I detected a strong underlying fear of technology in this man's position. He was telling me that 35mm consumer color negative film would beat the results of the 1DSMk2 hands down everytime. Is that a credible statement to make? Or is "I prefer film for my own reasons." more believable?
It's like the drunk on the street that begs me for money. I know he's going to buy a drink with the money, but I give it to him anyway. Credibility has nothing to do with it.

Art.
Logged
Visit my website at [url=http://www.gr82

Jer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
Digital versus Film
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2005, 06:05:58 pm »

Rich, I also wanted to reply in a similar manner. Well said. Best,

                    Jeremy
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Digital versus Film
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2005, 12:49:30 am »

Quote
Can forensics detect the imprint of a 300 f/4L on a forehead?
A sturdy monopod with a decent ballhead on top would be much more effective, handier to swing, less likely to be damaged by an impact, and much less expensive to replace in the event that it did break.
Logged

dferrier

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Digital versus Film
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2005, 02:47:23 pm »

Quote
Don't know what to make of it really. Just happened to read this page yesterday : http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

He does seem to make some valid points, especially looking at the sample photos (not charts, but autumn trees). I think it is quite a balanced article and goes along the lines of "yes film has more resolution but to a vast majority of people that should not make any difference".
Yes, I have read much of what he has written on his site. One of the most  entertaining is his Seven Levels of Photographers and his discussion of "Equipment Measurbator's". See that one here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

But as to the discussion of film vs digital, the better looking scans of film are most often of larger format film like 4x5 for instance. And larger format *always* looks better than the smaller negative size of 35mm, assuming of course proper camera technique etc... And the link below shows this to good advantage. So, what I am saying is that *if* you had a digital camera back that could resolve the same dots per inch as a comperable digital SLR (comparing apples to apples you understand) I expect that you would see very similar results as the scan of the 4x5 film that Ken shows in his article. Just as an aside comparing approximate DPI between the sensor size of the Nikon D2x and a fictional 4x5 digital back the Nikon SLR comes out to be approx 4600 DPI and 12.2 megapixels. The same DPI in a 4x5 digital back would come out to be an enormous 423 megapixels. Kind of makes you think eh?

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sca....html#testarea2

For a practical statement of digital, you might want to take a look at bythom here: http://bythom.com/d2xreview.htm where he makes the statement that:
"For the pros: you'll need Nikon's best lenses to fully achieve what the D2x is capable of capturing, and, yes, we really are in the realm of better-than-35mm resolution."

I suppose that 150 years ago the same thing was happening only in the realm of negative and print chemistry and lens technology. That is the development of better and more sensitive negatives and prints to light, the ability to resolve finer detail, better and more rugged optics etc... And just think it took over 100 years or longer to get to where we are today in the film world.

The digital photography world has undergone a similar evolution but only in the span of 10 to 15 years. Amazing eh? :cool:

Dale
Logged

pfigen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
    • http://www.peterfigen.com
Digital versus Film
« Reply #35 on: August 02, 2005, 08:28:45 pm »

I recently got in a mildly heated, shall we say, discussion, on this very topic on the Hi-End Scanning newslist. The person who started the discussion did so on the premise that his sole criteria for image quality was image detail, so going with that qualification, I indulged. His statement that, comparing a scanned 35mm slide or neg with a full frame 24X36mm digital capture, was that there was no possible way that a "mere" 48mb file could equal the optical resolution of a 240mb 8000 ppi drum scanned piece of film with, as he put it, 80 mp of "optical" data. Unfortunately, it was easily shown that a 1DsMKII using sharp lenses at optimum apertures, locked down on a heavy tripod using mirror up cable release, could not only equal film resolution, but easily outperform. Now, granted, he had a lot at stake, as he is in the business of selling drum scanners, he could only believe his outdated theories and not what everyone's eyes clearly saw. The complete absense of grain and noise in the digital captures more than offset the higher resolution of the scan and the smaller grain particles (as compared to pixel site dimension) in the scanned film. To be as fair as possible, and actually having no precoceived notions as to what the real outcome might reveal, I shot several types of fine grained color transparency film and T-Max 100 black and white. I also used the same scanner model and resolution as he had used to make his claims.

In addition to shooting an outdoor real world target that included ever decreasing detail that went beyond the limit of camera/lens/film resolution capture, an image that was criticized by some as not being scientific - something that often happens when someone doesn't like the results, I also shot a resolution test target, in which the digital file was still higher resolution, if not quite as smooth on the radial pie charts.

The outdoor direct sun images showed that the digital captures clearly had 2-3 more stops of effective dymanic range, and possible more if one was making small reproductions where shadow noise wouldn't be a problem. Color neg does have more dynamic range at the expense of fairly large grain and very limited resolving power.

All this is to emphasize that there are many factors that influence image quality, many of which favor modern digital captures and a few of which favor a slightly more organic look of film. It all depends on your intentions.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Digital versus Film
« Reply #36 on: July 21, 2005, 08:07:48 pm »

"Vortex shedding" sounds like a great catch-all excuse if used properly:

Q: Honey, can you take the trash out?
A: Not right now, there's too much vortex shedding out there. In a little while.

Q: Why are you so afraid of commitment?
A: My therapist says I should avoid vortex shedding on my inner child for the next few months.

Q: Do you find me attractive?
A: Yes, my vortex is shedding already...

etc, etc...
Logged

  • Guest
Digital versus Film
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2005, 10:14:03 pm »

OK

"Uncle!"

Michael
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Digital versus Film
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2005, 01:07:54 pm »

Quote
He was telling me that 35mm consumer color negative film would beat the results of the 1DSMk2 hands down everytime. Is that a credible statement to make? Or is "I prefer film for my own reasons." more believable?
And therein lies the heart of the problem. I have no problem with people who shoot film for whatever reason. It's their money, their time, and if it makes them happy to shoot film, God bless 'em. But when they start making completely unfounded arguments in an attempt to "prove" that 35mm film is "better" than what I can get from my 1Ds, I take issue with that.
Logged

boku

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.bobkulonphoto.com
Digital versus Film
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2005, 12:22:17 pm »

Quote
Asking if film or digital is better is like asking whether an acoustic or electric guitar is better.

How true an analogy!
Logged
Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...[b
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up