Digital Better then Film?

[61Dynamic]

You can select pairs of images for side by side viewing, lock them together so that zooming and panning on one does the same on the other, and so on.

You can do that in PS too.

With two images open, select the zoom tool (Z) and hold down Shift(Option) while you click. Both documents will zoom in/out at the same time. To move them around hold down Shift(Option)+Spacebar and both document windows will move at the same time.

The Window > Arrange menu has options for matching zoom levels and positions amungst the open documents as well.

You can do that with as many open images as you want too, just not RAW files.

[duranash]

Let me give you my feelings and impressions - from a film/scanner user.  I don't have a digital camera yet.....  I am getting very tired of carting the film half way across town to one of the few labs that still processes transparencies.  I spend LOTS of time scanning and dust busting.  Realize that I'm retired and have more time than money - hence no digital for the moment.  But I sure like the idea!

[61Dynamic]

When scanning film you are converting an analog image into a digital image and it always takes considerably more pixels to get the same amount of detail as an image that started off as digital.

ClarkVision has a very good article on the subject. The conclusion of his tests indicate that it would take roughly a 10mp camera to equate to the amount of detail that is captured in a frame of high-res 35mm film (like Velvia 50) and about 17mp camera for the same amount of color information as high-res film.

His test was conducted with a (realatively) very old digital P&S camera and I have no doubt that based off the advances in digital tech since the article was written that a camera like the 11mp 1Ds surpases any 35mm film you could shoot in both detail and color data. When Micheal says the 1Ds MkII can match or outdue MF film, I believe it. Furthermore, a digital camera does not loose that level of capturable detail untill it gets past ISO 400 (ISO 800 for the latest round of Canon cameras) which makes digital capture even better when resolving power is important.

Then there's workflow. Scaning film is a pain in the arse and time-consuming. As a hobby in small volumes, it would be no big whoopie but if you shoot alot...

[didger]

This is something totally different from 35mm, which has a film size of about 24x36mm.  4x5 means film size of 4x5 INCHES.  Do a google search for "large format photography".  There's also 5x7 cameras and 8x10 and even larger.  All these cameras use film holders and the image is on a ground glass and upside down and so dim you have preview your image under a dark hood and then put in a film holder for the exposure.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Some digital cameras can, but it's really pointless; you have much more control over the result blending separate exposures in Photoshop.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I suppose I am one of the film "proponents", he, he... Seriously, people should use what is best for them and the end result they are after. In my case, I went digital 2 1/2 years ago when I bought a film scanner.

I have not given up on film yet for a few main reasons:

1) I like slide film a lot, I mean, we never had so high quality slide films as we have today. Luckily, I don't have to make a living out of photography, so I can afford to spend time to go over my slides with a loupe and a light table. I then select the keepers, scan them, and store them. Then I select a few for printing, usually no bigger than 24x30, or 30x40 (cm, that is). I go to a pro lab I have used for many years, with my slides, for printing. It works for me.

2) I use the EOS 1V, I am used to, and need, its build quality and reliability, so for me going digital means the 1-pro series of cameras with full-frame sensors. Way too expensive and unjustifiable. I shoot in a very disciplined manner, mostly nature, landscapes, travel. So I don't have the need to be trigger happy. I also have one digicam, the Powershot Pro 1, which I use as if I were using a film camera, meaning that I try to properly expose and focus the picture before taking it, instead of relying on filling up the memory card with endless variations of the same photo, exposure-wise, to try and get one right. I am a firm believer of trying to get it right in the first place, instead of hoping that photoshop will salvage the shot later.

3) I also shoot a lot of B&W, mostly with a compact camera, street shots. I print my work in a trusted B&W lab that I have used for years. Again, I don't have the need for immediate feed-back, or immediate results to send to clients.

So where does all this leaves us? I don't know, I have a workflow that works for me, and that I am comfortable with. Scanning takes time, but I have found out that converting RAW images also takes time. There are pros and cons, and whatever way you choose, you will have a regret list!

I do think it is sad that the "digital-know-alls" make fun of the "little-film-people". To them I say, if you never saw a nice slide on a light table, shinning at you, you don't know what you are missing.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I do think it is sad that the "digital-know-alls" make fun of the "little-film-people". To them I say, if you never saw a nice slide on a light table, shinning at you, you don't know what you are missing.

The same could be said of viewing a freshly-converted RAW on a properly calibrated 21" LCD monitor. No loupe or squinting required.

Scanning takes time, but I have found out that converting RAW images also takes time.

True, but the computer can do that while I'm asleep. The same can't be said of scanning.

Just because one shoots digital doesn't mean one shoots sloppy and trust to fix it in Photoshop. Getting composition, focus, and exposure right in-camera is equally desirable with film or digital.

[Lisa Nikodym]

the only really bad thing that I see is that all non uber expensive cameras have either a 1.6x or 1.3x magnification

True, but it's not nearly such as bad thing as it used to be, now that lens manufacturers are starting to produce good lenses optimized for those sensor sizes (such as Nikon's DX series).  Such lenses are actually more cost-effective (i.e. cheaper for the same image quality) than standard lenses.  Of course, the problem is that you can't use them if you later decide to switch to one of the expensive full-frame-sensor cameras.

Combine that sort of resolution with the undoubted higher dynamic range of B&W film, I would think there'd be some very good reasons for some photographers to stick with film.

Keep in mind that color negative film has a much higher dynamic range (as used in this context) than digital too - so if you want to avoid the not-enough-dynamic-range problem, you don't need to be limited to B&W.  I used to mostly use Kodak Supra back in my film days (last year  ;-)  ) (the closest thing now, I think, is Kodak Royal Gold) because I was often in high-contrast-lighting situations and couldn't deal with it at all well with slide film.  If it weren't for the histogram on my digital SLR, allowing me to review and retake shots when necessary, I'd have stuck with film to avoid trashing too many shots.  With the histogram, though (and multiple-exposure-blending on occasion), I'm OK.

Lisa

[BJL]

And yes, I love looking at slides on a light table. What is wrong with that? Put 10 slides on a light table, with bracketed exposures, and you can see at a glance what went wrong with what.

I can understand that; I love the light table feature in the Olympus Viewer [edited from Studio] software that comes with the E-1 (Viewer is painfully slow and crashes too often, but it does a few very nice things).  You can select pairs of images for side by side viewing, lock them together so that zooming and panning on one does the same on the other, and so on.

To be fair, here are a few advantages I see for film
a) handling large subject brightness range ("high dynamic range"), especially B&W film and maybe color negative film. B&W is the main thing that I keep my film cameras for.
 top of the line SLRs like EOS-1 series, F5 or F6, or even second teir models like the F100 and EOS-3, are far more within the financial reach of a purely amateur enthusiast than DSLRs with the same quality on the non-digital side. For an enthusiast who is slow and serious about photography, not taking thousands of photos each year, a very good film SLR can still be far more affordable.


Note the correction; I am talking about the free Olympus Viewer software, not the Olympus Studio, which costs extra. And I was thinking of JPEG comparisons; I have not tried RAW files on the "light table", though Viewer generally handles RAW well. Also, I intended no quibble with PS; I only have my various free copies of PS Elements, not the full-fledged version, and have not explored even Elements very much.