...Can't be done on film

[Josh66]

See the sister thread, "...You need film for that".
(Probably should have named this one "...You need digital for that", so they would match...oh well. If a mod sees this - can it be fixed? If so, please do so. Thank you. )


What are some things that a digital camera can do that is just not possible with film?

I would think there would be a lot of things that a digital sensor can do that film can't, since the sensor can be made sensitive to any spectrum of light the desingers wish.

What are some of them?

 

[Garbz]

Sorry but film can do that too , and in any case the sensors can not be easily made sensitive to any portion of light. If they could then you wouldn't need an IR cut filter, or a beyer filter pattern on the sensor.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that even the world of post processing is mostly derrived from film. Dodge and burn are darkroom terms. Even using layers and blending modes such as "overlay" are derived from film.

I guess the only real stand-out that digital cameras can do that film can't is video, and in the case of global shutters like on the D40 and the old Canon 1Ds sync with flashes at any shutter speeds.

 

[Battou]

What a lot of people fail to realise is that even the world of post processing is mostly derrived from film. Dodge and burn are darkroom terms. Even using layers and blending modes such as "overlay" are derived from film.

So is USM....

 

[Josh66]

If they could then you wouldn't need an IR cut filter, or a beyer filter pattern on the sensor.

Forgot about that - the designers inability to make the sensor sensitive to visible light, but not IR. Also that film can be made sensitive to different spectrums.

 

[mrodgers]

What can digital do that film can't? Store thousands and thousands of images on a tiny little piece of plastic the size of my thumbnail.

Allow me to view any image I have created with no cost of proprietary equipment (assuming I already have a computer for other reasons like everyone else).

 

[patrickt]

I haven't used any modern film cameras but....
A. Change ISO without changing camera bodies or film in your camera.
B. If you shoot JPEG, setting saturation and contrast as you shoot rather than changing film.
C. As mentioned before, being able to shoot over 700 shots in raw without carrying 20 rolls of film.
D. Being able to see the display of your shot or a histogram when you take the photo. I don't bracket any more.
E. Not having to think, before you take a shot, I have only two shots left.
F. Not having to change film for color balance.
G. I don't know if new film cameras capture EXIF data or not but I remember keeping a log of EXIF data by hand.

 

[djacobox372]

Digital have much better high-iso detail then film--just compare a 3200 iso film to an digital/fx sensor 3200 iso.

The one exception to this rule may be if you were pushing large-format film to 3200 iso film and comparing it to small format digital, but that's not a fair comparison.

 

[Flash Harry]

I haven't used any modern film cameras but....
A. Change ISO without changing camera bodies or film in your camera.
B. If you shoot JPEG, setting saturation and contrast as you shoot rather than changing film.
C. As mentioned before, being able to shoot over 700 shots in raw without carrying 20 rolls of film.
D. Being able to see the display of your shot or a histogram when you take the photo. I don't bracket any more.
E. Not having to think, before you take a shot, I have only two shots left.
F. Not having to change film for color balance.
G. I don't know if new film cameras capture EXIF data or not but I remember keeping a log of EXIF data by hand.

A. Iso can be set manually on most film cameras
B. Saturation and contrast has nothing to do with changing film, its darkroom work.
C. No decent photographer needs 700 shots of anything.
D. See above
E. Change film early before a situation arises.
F. One word, "filters"
G. Take notes if its that important. H

 

[Garbz]

Before this blows out into an argument I think we should just accept that from the pure convenience sake digital wins out above, but from a technical perspective flash harry is right. None of those traits are exclusive to digital once the convenience is taken out of the equation.

That said while you can easily take as many photos on film if you carry lots of it Flash Harry I think your response to C. is incredibly naive.

 

[LokiZ]

Hmmmm take pictures using high iso film and with your digital camera. Now send those cameras film and digital cards and all through the x-ray at the airport.... nope film can't do that to well.

 

[Flash Harry]

Garbs,
naive, how come. I have shot digital since it got on par with film but I've yet felt a need to bang out 700+ shots on any job, between 2-300 at most on a wedding is satisfactory, any more you're just confusing clients taking longer to choose albums etc etc, any other type of work I produce even less and have no complaints, quality not quantity, possibly its you who are being naive.

I've also passed through many airports with film and have yet to encounter a problem. H

 

[Garbz]

LokiZ there's only one film in my collection which says do not X-Ray and that's the illford delta3200 I think. And that is beside the point. Ask for a hand inspection if you're worried.

Harry, that applies to your situation only. The counter example is for someone like me who's laptop broke last week and I'm going to Europe in 2 weeks with no chance to offload my photos in the first 3 weeks The 2 memory cards I am taking are not going to be enough. I also had a friend borrow my memory cards because she was going interstate on a week long photo excursion and didn't wish to carry around a laptop. Again I totally agree that it is not something digital has over film, but really there are plenty of people out there who would shoot more than 700 photos between chances to download them.

 

[Imaginara]

Well, there are environments where the weatherseal of even the Nikons wont hold up, but a manual film camera will.

But other than that, i shoot both media myself and use them for different things. In general when i want to shoot B&W and know i'm going to end up with a high grade B&W print, i prefere to shoot with B&W film. If im going to shoot a lo-fi lomostyle photograph, i reach for the Holga which will do it in one go instead of spending a lot of hours in photoshop tweaking the curves to get the right distribution.

For high iso, i definately go with digital. And also when i know i need to deliver the images very fast or if a stylist/creative director/designer needs to be reviewing the images while we are shooting them.

A lot of people also talk about the dynamic range being higher on digital than on film, which is correct in many areas. The level between the black and the white point may very well be better on digital. The spread and distribution inbetween however isnt. Shoot a lot of smooth gradients and compare film prints vs. digital prints and you will notice a difference.

Wether or not your client (or yourself) gives a crap about that detail is another point =)

As for shooting 700 images or not, it depends on a looooot of factors. Your own skill, the model / subjects "skill", the timing etc. There is no right or wrong. If you need 700 images to get the shot, use 700. The important part is to get the shot. I must add though that shooting film have made me more careful even with my digital shots. Less frames taken and more keepers by %. Do you need to shoot film to get that? Definately not, it just worked for me

 

[ksmattfish]

It's not so much that I can't do something with film in the darkroom, it's that it might take me hours, days, or months compared to minutes in Photoshop. Unsharp masking is a great example. When I shot film only my best photos got that treatment, because it was a pain in the *ss. Now I USM my family snaps!

The big things I notice is that with digital (from film or digital) I get to do all processing to the neg or original. In the traditional darkroom some of the editing is done in the printing stage, which means it has to be redone for each print, unless I make a new neg by shooting the edited print. The other thing is that I can easily make identical copies of the original for archiving.

 

[ksmattfish]

Hmmmm take pictures using high iso film and with your digital camera. Now send those cameras film and digital cards and all through the x-ray at the airport.... nope film can't do that to well.

Heck, skip the x-rays, and go right to print. Film doesn't need to be damaged to suck at high ISOs.