35mm Film: 174 megapixels!

[compur]

If you can see the dots, it has too few. If you can't see the dots, then it does not matter.

skieur

Your viewpoint, maybe, but not mine. I don't care how many dots it has
regardless of whether or not I can see them.

There are plenty of "dot-free" photos that are terrible and plenty of great
photos with "dots."

If dots or no-dots is what you think photography is all about, you are
entitled to your opinion but it's not a universally held belief.

 

[skieur]

Your viewpoint, maybe, but not mine. I don't care how many dots it has
regardless of whether or not I can see them.

There are plenty of "dot-free" photos that are terrible and plenty of great
photos with "dots."

If dots or no-dots is what you think photography is all about, you are
entitled to your opinion but it's not a universally held belief.

Actually, it is generally held that photo quality is 300 dots per inch. Anything less and the image is not viewed as a photo. Blends for example are seen as individual colours, skin colours are blotchy. It looks like a multiple copied, edited, and blown up jpeg from a 2 gig cel phone.

skieur

 

[Mike_E]

If you digitally print none of this matters. This side of freakin' huge that is.

The question I would like answered is how many DPI do you get when you print from an enlarger the old fashioned way?

Bet it blows 300DPI all to hell and gone.

And yes, if you want to pour over a really nice landscape it does matter.

 

[compur]

Actually, it is generally held that photo quality is 300 dots per inch. Anything less and the image is not viewed as a photo. Blends for example are seen as individual colours, skin colours are blotchy. It looks like a multiple copied, edited, and blown up jpeg from a 2 gig cel phone.

skieur

That's fine. There are still plenty of "dot-less" photos that are terrible and
great photos with plenty of "dots."

It's all a matter of taste.

 

[christopher walrath]

Alright. If you shoot film, be it negative or reversal, then shoot film. If you shoot digital, then shoot digital. Whatever works for you. Being a photographer is not in the tools (of course you can't make a photograph if your using paper and charcoal). Being a photographer is in the vision, the artistry. The tools are merely personal preferencial means to an end, the photograph.

 

[monkeykoder]

It is practically REQUIREMENT for any shot film to be scanned to be worked on digitally nowadays anyway, so one way or another you end up with digital files. So to compare scans of film to digital is the natural thing to do. Now, wait a second, to get a 6MP scan of a 35mm roll of film that I might as well have shot on my D40, I need to splash out £20, and if I were to buy a good scanner it would cost thousands. To REALLY take advantage of the resolution film can offer, I'm looking at £50-100 per exposure for drum scanning. Can you imagine how much lovley, brand new digital equipment I could have gotten for the price I paid to scan, say, as little as ten exposures from film at this price?

Who the HELL would want to work on film digitally??? Do they WANT to lose all the richness of film to the mere digital files? Take a picture right in the first place and OPTICALLY enlarge now you have a gorgeous print. If you're doing commercial photography I say shoot digital there is no match for digital in this arena. Outside of commercial photography choose the medium that fits the image you want to capture.

 

[panocho]

Who the HELL would want to work on film digitally??? Do they WANT to lose all the richness of film to the mere digital files? Take a picture right in the first place and OPTICALLY enlarge now you have a gorgeous print.

Right. And that was precisely another tricky point of the so-called test: shooting was film vs digital -but then both were treated digitally.

 

[epp_b]

Who the HELL would want to work on film digitally???

Me, for one, because I don't have a darkroom and all sorts of equipment for working with film, but I already have a computer and a scanner for work purposes, so working with it digitally is a whole lot easier for me and probably does everything I'll ever need.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Who the HELL would want to work on film digitally???--

it's not a mater of wanting too it’s a mater of needing too, look around your town, anytown or the whole US, I would bet you that for every one full service pro grade tradition lab there are 50 digital pro grade lab

 

[stsinner]

Why the hell would anyone still shoot film unless they just like having a pain in their ass? You can't appreciate anything over 5 MP unless you're in the business of making posters, so why would any one put up with the crappy pain of developing film?

 

[ksmattfish]

Flame on!

Well, I can respect his tastes, but if he's going to promote an agenda based on fuzzy logic, I don't know if I can respect his statements.

His articles are written to create traffic at his website. Film vs. digital does that pretty well. Check out his 5D mkII review. In the same article he says digital is better than film and film is better than digital.

As I've said before, I'll take on anyone's 174mp scan from 35mm vs my 12mp 5d. We'll ask random people off the street which 20"x30" print looks cleaner, sharper, and shows more fine detail. Personally, I think 35mm sucks at 16"x20" which is why I gave up on it years before I went digital.

Edit: Or I'll take on anyone's 20"x30" optical print (no digital technology used at all). That's what I did my comparisons against.

 

[skieur]

That's fine. There are still plenty of "dot-less" photos that are terrible and
great photos with plenty of "dots."

It's all a matter of taste.

Ah, the printing process for any photo is based on dots, so a "dot-less" photo in print form...not possible!

skieur

 

[epp_b]

Why the hell would anyone still shoot film unless they just like having a pain in their ass? You can't appreciate anything over 5 MP unless you're in the business of making posters, so why would any one put up with the crappy pain of developing film?

'Cause it's a good kind of hurt?

I shoot both digital and film, and they're both fun in their own way. Film has a look (partly due to the fact that it's film and also due to the frame size over crop DSLRs) that you can't achieve with digital.

BTW, when did this become a film vs. digital thread? I just posted KR's comments as a point of discussion.

 

[selmerdave]

Ah, the printing process for any photo is based on dots, so a "dot-less" photo in print form...not possible!

skieur

Geeez how lame can you be. Obviously he put dot-less in quotes ("dot-less") in reference to *YOUR* post about whether or not you could see the dots.

And just to be a dumbass, the printing process for any photo is not based on dots. Only digital printing uses dots, optical printing is not based on dots.

Dave

 

[compur]

Ah, the printing process for any photo is based on dots, so a "dot-less" photo in print form...not possible!

skieur

I think now you're just being argumentative.

Film and digital are different mediums. There is no point in arguing which is
better. Use whichever you want.