Is 35mm slide film still better than the the output from a dslr?

[domromer]

I was flicking through the 2008 photographers market and I was shocked to see how many magazines still just want 35mm slides. Are they that much better?

I thought digital had surpassed film in quality?

Your thoughts?

 

[Big Mike]

My opinion is that those magazines must be run by some 'old' folks who just aren't comfortable with the new technology. Or maybe they have a bias for photographers who still use film.

I read an article a few years ago, where they tested 100 ISO film against the flagship DLSR from Canon...and they were very close, with the digital coming out just ahead in the end. There have been big advancements in digital cameras since then.

There may be some things, at which film might be better...but for a magazine...I'm not sure what that might be.

 

[Alex_B]

define better ...

digital wins when it comes to resolution / sharpness, even compared to fine grain film.

film clearly wins, when it comes to latitude in exposure. If shooting in complicated light, the results given by film will often win.

 

[Big Mike]

film clearly wins, when it comes to latitude in exposure. If shooting in complicated light, the results given by film will often win.

Not slide film though...

 

[Alex_B]

Not slide film though...

even my quite narrow velvia, which is a really contrasty film where you easily lose the shadows ... even that still wins against a Canon 5D in that respect.

At least this is my experience from using them both in identical situations.

 

[Big Mike]

That's interesting...I would have though that modern DSLR cameras have more latitude than slide film...but not as much as negative film.

I guess, once you consider some simple editing to the digital file, you can 'stretch' the dynamic range pretty easily.

 

[Alex_B]

That's interesting...I would have though that modern DSLR cameras have more latitude than slide film...but not as much as negative film.

I guess, once you consider some simple editing to the digital file, you can 'stretch' the dynamic range pretty easily.

slide film still wins, but by a narrow margin i have to admit.

but since you mention editing.... if you start editing you can stretch digital a bit. but if i scan my slides with a good scanner, i can stretch that by an order of magnitude more than digital! been there done that many times ...

 

[domromer]

I shoot a lot of e100vs and it defintiley has more latitude than my D80.

Last week I went and shot a very contrasty waterfall. I was shocked how much detail I still had in the highlights. Where the d8o had blown them out. Even when I dialed in the exposure I get some detail in the highlights but my shadows would turn really blocky.

That being said as much as I love to shoot chromes, I just can't afford it. I'm up to 17$ a roll by the time I process it. Couple years ago I could buy it and develop for less than $10 a roll.

You can get n90s on ebay now for around 100$...oh the humanity!

 

[RVP46]

The comment on the N90S..i feel your pain!
Digital is becoming very interesting but i have yet to see a Digital image that promotes the desire to rank it above RVP slide film.
For economical reasons i must admit it will be nice when Digital is the clear cut winner over film....assuming that ever takes place?
Always willing to change for the better, never willing to quit what works. :thumbup:
Right now I'm on the fence (and it hurts).

 

[Alpha]

Good digital sensors have wider latitude than slide film. Negative film is still the latitude king. For studio work, pick your medium. The lighting is tightly controlled either way so latitude is a non-issue in all but the most extreme cases. Go find an average to moderately complex studio lighting setup with a range greater than 10 or 12 stops. Then look out the window. You'll see a pig fly by.

Resolution? Eh, who knows. All I know is this: In nearly every shot on film slower than ISO 160, exposed and developed normally, that I have ever scanned on a non-drum scanner...I see pixels long before I see grain. That's good enough for me.

 

[Alex_B]

Good digital sensors have wider latitude than slide film.

Then that would mean I have a crap sensor

I know if I invest in a digital back, I might getting something better than I currently have, but that would be quite an investment.

 

[nicfargo]

Negative film still has the edge on the latitude side. I can use very very weak HDR to close the gap though...which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't depending on the subject.

 

[notelliot]

DPhoto Pro magazine has a good (one of two part) article on that, in jan/feb's issue.
it's too a point that film has no advantages over digital, imo. there are traits you may not see similar, but post-production techniques have pretty much solved this.
things like dynamic range, tonal gradation, clarity, sharpness can be achieved equally and surpassed with modern (hah) digital cameras.
film is fighting, but losing the battle. there is no longer a need for it

 

[Alpha]

things like dynamic range, tonal gradation, clarity, sharpness can be achieved equally and surpassed with modern (hah) digital cameras.
film is fighting, but losing the battle. there is no longer a need for it

This is true in part, and only with regard to the best MF backs.

There are not yet any 35mm sensors with exposure latitude wider than film. The MF ones are roughly equal to color neg.

Digital loses the sharpness war on face because it almost always requires sharpening in post. This is intrinsic to the way the sensor works.

The proposition that there is no longer a need for film can be answered with one word: art.

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

I was flicking through the 2008 photographers market and I was shocked to see how many magazines still just want 35mm slides. Are they that much better?

I thought digital had surpassed film in quality?

Your thoughts?

No. Digital has not surpassed film in terms of strict image quality. Not in sharpness, not in accutance, not in colour saturation, not in any other way.

There are easily 25MB of information on a 35mm transparency. Digital looks better viewed on a computer screen, because light is being actively emitted from the viewing surface, but make a transparency the same size as a computer screen and view it on a colour balanced light table and you will be startled by the difference.

That's not really a fair comparison though, everybody thinks they're a great photographer when viewing trans' on a light table.


That said.....I'm really suprised that magazines take transparencies instead of digital files.

I mean, they may be technically better....but at what cost in terms of putting together a magazine every month.... and how much of that improvement actually gets into a magazine printed on paper, never bigger than 11x14 inches usually.

You can apply an unsharp mask to a digital file in moments, and a proper unsharp mask for colour film takes ..... well....I've never actually done it myself, but I hear it's an all day job for a skilled technician.

For everything but fine art photography, low light photography, architectural photography or black and white, I thought digital was supposed to be vastly more convenient, and I'm actually a film junkie.