FILm vs DIGITAL

[InSpiringPhOtographer13]

I have a canon power shot A75 digital camera, and i find it hard to catch something moving in the air without making it blurry..UNLESS i use flash

any help on how 2 do this w.o using flash?

 

[Nikon Fan]

I love my Canon Elan 7ne, couldn't be happier with it, but would love to have a Digital Rebel as well **cough**DigitalMatt**cough j/k
Anyway, I think the perfect world we have a mix of both, b/c they are both great for different reasons. Personally I wish I could have bought a digital rebel, but my class called for a 35mm film camera...I love film for darkroom purposes, but then again when I see the awesome things people do here, and I would like to attempt them, I decide against b/c I don't want the hassle of developing...someday though I'll have both!!!!!!! The the everything will be complete...or so I think

 

[InSpiringPhOtographer13]

HAHA yeah i mean im not that You know high-tech with photography being 13 and all, but i would love to have a mix of film and digital! :-D

 

[rmphoto]

for me its like this; digitals fun for shooting hundreds of photos within minutes and having fun, testing different setups, times, experimenting and whatnot... but when i get down to business, its film 100%

 

[Roberts Eyes]

I am almost positive that you know this debate has been going on for a long time now and it seems that everywhere I go on the net in a photography forum of some kind this question always pops up and that is so much that by the end you are still scratching your head. The question is, will digital photography ever replace film photography and I really believe that the answer to that question relies on the individual who is taking the photos.

A few years ago I would have said that digital cameras are a long ways from even being close to film, but with every passing year that goes by and the evolution of the digital age digital cameras are becoming better and better with each passing year. You can even say every month if you really want to get technical. I mean look what is available to the public these days, more and more people are throwing away their film cameras and are replacing them with digital cameras, only because they can now edit their own photos and process them at home or at a local store.

Yes it is true that there is a new generation of new photographers that use digital cameras and the photos that they take are just as beautiful as they were when they used film. But this doesn’t mean that digital is better, it just means that our technology is really growing in that direction and maybe it is just a matter of time before film we be an art of the past, however I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Film still holds a lot of quality then a digital camera but that doesn’t mean it is better still.

I understand that most of the people that are going to be reading this might totally disagree with me, however taking into account that there are so many photographers that are still using film and have invested so much money on their equipment are just not going to throw away their cameras and just switch over just because digital is the wave of the future, it isn’t going to happen that way.

So when someone ask me is digital is better then film at this point in the game I would only say it is getting very close, and in getting close it is really just a matter of time. How long will it take? Well that really depends on the photographer themselves.

 

[Corry]

I am almost positive that you know this debate has been going on for a long time now and it seems that everywhere I go on the net ...

Yes...and it's been done on THIS forum WAY too many times.

 

[InSpiringPhOtographer13]

Well sorry i was just wondering I didnt know
good points though

 

[Mumfandc]

I wouldn't post this question on the forums at photo.net...they'll tear you up alive over there for asking.

 

[Soulreaver]

I prefer film over digital, but thats just because I like working with film.While I dont think digital is quite on a par with film yet, you can make awesome pictures in digital, without even resorting to PS, as we can see here in this forum.
And digital is way more practical than film, less expensive and you can see the results immediately.I am about to get an ultra compact digital that I can take anywhere I go, to take out of my pocket and take a pic whenever I want.
But I will never let go of my film camera, and someday I will even have an MF camera to play with.
I think each one has its own niche.

 

[celery]

Well, I'll tell you what's going on in the photography business here in Vegas. Digital is really taking over. No one even develops true B&W film anymore either. All we have is C41 processing machines.

Wedding photography is also becoming a digital only field more and more (unless you're freelance).

I don't have my own DSLR yet (saving for a canon 1ds mark II or a nikon d2x, hopefully next year), but I wouldn't mind using film more if there was more support for it. If I had my own darkroom, that would be awsome, but I don't.

Oh well, times change and so does the equipment we use. Just look at CD's and cassettes, and now mp3's.

 

[Mumfandc]

But I will never let go of my film camera, and someday I will even have an MF camera to play with.
I think each one has its own niche.

I think film at this point is still much greater in terms of resolution compared to digital. I have a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S, and If you take a 6x7cm transparency drum-scanned at 4000dpi (this is the film grain level, and some drum scanners even go up to 11,000dpi optical res.), you're looking around 9449 x 11,024 pixels. Of course, drum scans can be rather expensive.

A high-end DSLR like the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II 16MP camera has a Max resolution of 4992 x 3328 pixels. But I do think digital cameras definately win in terms of convenience, like in street photography etc. And many digital camera specific post processing softwares, can really make digital look superior to film.

But seems like everyone is biased when it comes to what they think is best anyway.

Here's some info about film comparison to digital MPs I found on various sites:

Consumer Digital Camera 0.365 megapixels
Amateur 1kX1k " " 1.05 megapixels
Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels
35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv.
35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv.
35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv.

Ratio'd for medium formats (using actual film sizes e.g., 56mmx56mm for 6x6cm..):

area ratio megapixel 16.7megapixel how one 16.7Mp chip
format to 35mm equivalent chip equivalents compares as % film
6x4.5cm 2.9:1 364 Mp 21.7 times 4.6%
6x6cm 3.6:1 453 Mp 27.0 times 3.7%
6x7cm 4.5:1 566 Mp 33.8 times 3%
6x9cm 5.3:1 633 Mp 39.6 times 2.5%

How Many Megapixels To Equal 35mm Film?
"As we've reported in the past and have deduced from our own tests, a tripod mounted, high end SLR with a superb lens and ISO 100 color print film can capture the equivalent of a 40 megapixel sensor. That's an order of magnitude more than a 3.3 or even 4MP sensor..." - Popular Photography, March 2001, page 55.

AFIPs Peer Reviewed Science Paper (see table)
35mm fast film (ISO 400 and up) = 22.11 megapixel equiv.
35mm medium speed film (ISO 100 to 200) = 54 megapixel equiv.
35mm slow speed film (circa ISO 25-80) = 124.76 megapixel equiv.

 

[Digital Matt]

I think film at this point is still much greater in terms of resolution compared to digital. If you take a 6x7cm transparency drum-scanned at 4000dpi (film grain level, and some drum scanners go up to 11,000dpi optical res.), you're looking around 9449 x

Once you drum scan it, it's not film anymore, it's digital. The high resolution of film that you speak of is dependant on digital technology, so ask yourself again, where that resolution comes from.

 

[Mumfandc]

Well, I'll tell you what's going on in the photography business here in Vegas. Digital is really taking over. No one even develops true B&W film anymore either. All we have is C41 processing machines.

Wedding photography is also becoming a digital only field more and more (unless you're freelance)

The thing I still wonder about is, many photography majors in college are still being taught the traditional film and darkroom tehniques. By when is this going to become obsolete?

 

[Jeff Canes]

I have a canon power shot A75 digital camera, and i find it hard to catch something moving in the air without making it blurry..UNLESS i use flash

any help on how 2 do this w.o using flash?

None of these post address InSpring’s question.

This is not a digital issue. It’ a shutter issue.

Your camera does not have any shutter & works more like a video camera that a film camera. Most SLR both film and digital have focal plane shutter. Focal plane shutter help stop motion. Not going to try and explain this now because any good photography book should do a better job that I would do. I get home will post a quote for one of my books, Maybe

IMO Way to do this
1) without a flash get a better camera
2) take one photo w/ flash and another with out merge them together with layers in PS

 

[Roberts Eyes]

I think film at this point is still much greater in terms of resolution compared to digital. I have a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S, and If you take a 6x7cm transparency drum-scanned at 4000dpi (this is the film grain level, and some drum scanners even go up to 11,000dpi optical res.), you're looking around 9449 x 11,024 pixels. Of course, drum scans can be rather expensive.

A high-end DSLR like the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II 16MP camera has a Max resolution of 4992 x 3328 pixels. But I do think digital cameras definately win in terms of convenience, like in street photography etc. And many digital camera specific post processing softwares, can really make digital look superior to film.

But seems like everyone is biased when it comes to what they think is best anyway.

Here's some info about film comparison to digital MPs I found on various sites:

Consumer Digital Camera 0.365 megapixels
Amateur 1kX1k " " 1.05 megapixels
Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels
35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv.
35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv.
35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv.

Ratio'd for medium formats (using actual film sizes e.g., 56mmx56mm for 6x6cm..):

area ratio megapixel 16.7megapixel how one 16.7Mp chip
format to 35mm equivalent chip equivalents compares as % film
6x4.5cm 2.9:1 364 Mp 21.7 times 4.6%
6x6cm 3.6:1 453 Mp 27.0 times 3.7%
6x7cm 4.5:1 566 Mp 33.8 times 3%
6x9cm 5.3:1 633 Mp 39.6 times 2.5%

How Many Megapixels To Equal 35mm Film?
"As we've reported in the past and have deduced from our own tests, a tripod mounted, high end SLR with a superb lens and ISO 100 color print film can capture the equivalent of a 40 megapixel sensor. That's an order of magnitude more than a 3.3 or even 4MP sensor..." - Popular Photography, March 2001, page 55.

AFIPs Peer Reviewed Science Paper (see table)
35mm fast film (ISO 400 and up) = 22.11 megapixel equiv.
35mm medium speed film (ISO 100 to 200) = 54 megapixel equiv.
35mm slow speed film (circa ISO 25-80) = 124.76 megapixel equiv.

Is there a link to some of these sites? I would like to read how much more then have to say.