Film vs. Digital - a comparison

photoboy15 · Nov 20, 2005

Really it depends on the final need of a photo. It depend on what you shoot catalog, portraits, landscapes, etc. If you shooting web work then digital is probably a better choice, or if your shooting "Ansel Adams type" work then film might be your choice. Some art directors still like to see chromes on a light table and will chose a photographer who will shoot that way and some want to see it on a screen and add logo, etc. right away. Its really just another way of shooting. Its kind of like what better 35mm or large format. it really depens on what you shoot. Ok, enough babbling.

jstuedle · Nov 20, 2005

It depend on what you shoot catalog, portraits, landscapes, etc.

I would argue that todays high end DSLR's are fully capable and are in fact used for everything from newspaper to full bleed double-truck centerfolds. The full "Ansel Adams" treatment, better grab your T&S 8X10 view camera.

photoboy15 · Nov 20, 2005

I agree, but most sudio product work is shot large format because of movements and large mega pixels backs. Im not down on film or digital, I shoot both. Im just saying that there is a reason that makes one no more valuable than the other. It really just depends on what you are shooting.

icondigital · Nov 20, 2005

jstuedle said:
So, at the end of the day, do we just resign ourselves to agree that film and digital are as different as say, color and B&W, Kodak and Fuji, Nikon and Canon, or Ford and Chevy? Neither better or worse, but each with there own fan base and each locked in friendly debate to time eternal?

it won't be until time eternal since as you posted before films days are numbered.
but to me it seems like there is a superior attitude among photographers still committed to film.

jadin · Nov 20, 2005

I'm all digital.. but in the example you provided, I actually like the film better. The color is significantly better (even if not closer to actual) and the contrast is better.

Besides those two factors I defer.

jstuedle · Nov 20, 2005

I'm all digital.. but in the example you provided, I actually like the film better. The color is significantly better (even if not closer to actual) and the contrast is better.

To the degree that film has more latitude than most digital at this time, the contrast is a little better in some instances, others no difference. The nrw D2X has a broader digital dynamic range and I thing almost parallels film. As to color, I disagree. If you do a custom W.B. and get it right in the camera, digital is more true to life than film. Every film brand and type has its color shift and unique look. Digital can either be true, or mimic the look of any film produced today or yesterday. It all depends on your initial shot setup, your color calibration, and post process workflow. Admittedly, it can be more work than film, but the results can be stunning.

jstuedle · Nov 20, 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstuedle
So, at the end of the day, do we just resign ourselves to agree that film and digital are as different as say, color and B&W, Kodak and Fuji, Nikon and Canon, or Ford and Chevy? Neither better or worse, but each with there own fan base and each locked in friendly debate to time eternal?

it won't be until time eternal since as you posted before films days are numbered.
but to me it seems like there is a superior attitude among photographers still committed to film.

Thanks Jeff, I stand corrected. Glad to see someone reads, and it was not a total waste of electrons.

Marctwo · Nov 20, 2005

I see it as three basic options:

Shoot film and process in the darkroom
Shoot film, scan and process digitally
Shoot and process digitally

I think #1 only comes into it if you are comparing photo quality prints which (as I said earlier) is a different kettle of fish.

You can use #2 or #3 to get effectively the same image - including any manipulation or correction. Which ever one you prefer, for whatever reason, is most likely the best option for you.

#2 is my preference but I also use #3 for practicable reasons.

jstuedle · Nov 20, 2005

I see it as three basic options:

Shoot film and process in the darkroom

Shoot film, scan and process digitally

Shoot and process digitally

I think #1 only comes into it if you are comparing photo quality prints which (as I said earlier) is a different kettle of fish.

You can use #2 or #3 to get effectively the same image - including any manipulation or correction. Which ever one you prefer, for whatever reason, is most likely the best option for you.

#2 is my preference but I also use #3 for practicable reasons.

Could you discribe the reasons for your preference?

Marctwo · Nov 20, 2005

My main reason is discipline and the loathing I built up for my old 'disposable photo' kind of approach. It may work for some, just not for me. I get better results and enjoy my photography more when I concentrate my efforts into fewer but more concidered shots. If it wasn't for this, I'd most likely never have tried film.

I also find the extended dynamic range of neg film invaluable. I've had so many blown out swans and gulls, etc. from digital in the past.

jstuedle · Nov 20, 2005

Just curious. We each have our preferences. I don't find myself shooting digital any different than I did film for 30+ years. A lot of my shooting is action, man, machine, or critter, they all move and I like to overshoot than miss a shot. Digital lends itself to my style. As for dynamic range, I try to expose for the highlights and don't blow them out as much as seems the norm, and I shoot raw so the shadows can still be extracted. The new generations of chip, starting with the D2 will make this less of an issue. Thanks for responding, I always like to know what others think and what goes into there decision process. Now if I can just figure why anyone would use a Canon!

thebeginning · Nov 20, 2005

That reminded me of an article i read where someone did an extensive test comparing a 1dsII with velvia (i think it was velvia)....i'll find it eventually and post it up here.

I love digital. i love processing it, shooting it, printing it, everything. However, the tones of slide film and traditional bw film attract me in a way that digital could not (unless it was processed very well). I've seen quite a few places that say digital has 'more accurate color rendition', but that doesnt make for a more pleasing image...at least in my opinion.

jstuedle said:
Now if I can just figure why anyone would use a Canon!

gotta love that humor, mmmmm boy! :mrgreen:

jstuedle · Nov 20, 2005

I've seen quite a few places that say digital has 'more accurate color rendition', but that doesnt make for a more pleasing image...at least in my opinion.

Do you not find you have the control to make the output as pleasing as film?

My current gripe with digital is the quality of B&W output. The new Epson K3 system in the 2400 is said to resolve those issues. I will then have no complaints.

thebeginning · Nov 20, 2005

i agree about the bw output...

i know i have control over the output to make it as pleasing as film, but it's still not the same as having that already done. Also, sometimes processing a digital images to that point gets tedious and frusterating.