It has begun! So, I'm transitioning to primarily film in a near future...

[Vtec44]

Is this in the same vein as "it sounds better on vinyl"?

There are certain things film can do that digital can't, and vise versa. It's purely technical, not personal opinion.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

Is this in the same vein as "it sounds better on vinyl"?

There are certain things film can do that digital can't, and vise versa. It's purely technical, not personal opinion.

Can't all things film be done digitally? Or is there really a difference. Processing vs Lightroom. One is analog (chemicals) and one is bits of data recorded to a "source"
I would venture if you tested this theory with images from both mediums, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who could tell the difference.

 

[table1349]

Is this in the same vein as "it sounds better on vinyl"?

There are certain things film can do that digital can't, and vise versa. It's purely technical, not personal opinion.

Can't all things film be done digitally? Or is there really a difference. Processing vs Lightroom. One is analog (chemicals) and one is bits of data recorded to a "source"
I would venture if you tested this theory with images from both mediums, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who could tell the difference.

Short answer, No.

 

[smoke665]

Short answer, No.

Even a digital back on a large format?

 

[table1349]

No.

Short answer, No.

Even a digital back on a large format?

No. A high resolution MF film such as Adox CMS 20 is capable of resolving 800 line pairs per mm. In other words, this is a potential 400 megapixel result. Scanning that image to digital will reduce the overall result.

Large format high resolution film has an even greater advantage.

In the 35mm world things are pretty much even quality wise. Once you go bigger film is still better.

 

[loonatic45414]

Medium and Large in film format are MUCH better.

It can be argued whether 35mm film is technically better than digital, but it's different. It can be smooth, it can be gritty. It's more work, but I find the results more appealing.

 

[limr]

(Awwww, sweet kitty! Also a great shot.)

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt that @Vtec44 intended this to descend into yet another film v digital thread. Let the horse rest in peace.

 

[Vtec44]

@limr , yep no drama. I shoot both and business is good so I can't complain

 

[Optimum Clarity]

Jose Villa charges 20k+

Don't take this as an insult, but is it possible people pay him 20k+ because of his skill and not because he uses film?
Is it possible he could charge the same amount for images shot in digital?
I seriously doubt people pay 10 times more to any photographer that shoots film instead of digital.

Perhaps you need more practice with digital (shooting and processing) to achieve the best possible results that will rival film.

Take more time to compose each shot, and slow down and shoot it as if it were film and you were spending 50.00 per shot and not digital.

 

[Cody'sCaptures]

I would think he kicked your dog the way some of you are responding.. lol.. good luck! can't wait to see some of the results, watered down into a digital format of course [emoji38]

Zenfolio | Captures By Cody

 

[limr]

What on earth is the point shooting digital as if it were film and making it look like film if he can (and wants to) just shoot film to begin with? That's just a tail wagging the dog.

 

[Optimum Clarity]

What on earth is the point shooting digital as if it were film and making it look like film if he can (and wants to) just shoot film to begin with? That's just a tail wagging the dog.

If that comment was about my comment of shooting digital as if it were film, I don't mean to look like film, I meant use the same methods to shoot it.
I don't know why anyone would want their digital images to look like they are film images either.

 

[Vtec44]

Jose Villa charges 20k+

Don't take this as an insult, but is it possible people pay him 20k+ because of his skill and not because he uses film?
Is it possible he could charge the same amount for images shot in digital?
I seriously doubt people pay 10 times more to any photographer that shoots film instead of digital.

People pay 20k for Jose Villa because his name is Jose Villa, regardless of what he shoots. LOL

Perhaps you need more practice with digital (shooting and processing) to achieve the best possible results that will rival film.

Take more time to compose each shot, and slow down and shoot it as if it were film and you were spending 50.00 per shot and not digital.

Why would you assume that I need more practice with editing and shooting digital to get the same result as film? What result are we referring to?

 

[Vtec44]

Short answer, No.

Even a digital back on a large format?

A digital sensor behaves differently than film. As of now, the technology is not there yet to have the ability to retain highlights as well as film. A digital back regardless of size will have the same issue.

On a more subjective note, skin tone on film is more pleasant.

 

[Optimum Clarity]

Jose Villa charges 20k+

Don't take this as an insult, but is it possible people pay him 20k+ because of his skill and not because he uses film?
Is it possible he could charge the same amount for images shot in digital?
I seriously doubt people pay 10 times more to any photographer that shoots film instead of digital.

People pay 20k for Jose Villa because his name is Jose Villa, regardless of what he shoots. LOL

Perhaps you need more practice with digital (shooting and processing) to achieve the best possible results that will rival film.

Take more time to compose each shot, and slow down and shoot it as if it were film and you were spending 50.00 per shot and not digital.

Why would you assume that I need more practice with editing and shooting digital to get the same result as film? What result are we referring to?

Exactly, he gets what he charges and can because of his talent, You will not become him shooting film. That's the point.


Why would you assume that I need more practice with editing and shooting digital to get the same result as film? What result are we referring to?

The results you say you can get from film and cannot get with digital, even though a lot of photographers can get those same results with digital.
I assume you are not satisfied with the results you get from digital and so that's what I was referring to.

Not trying to offend anyone, just being realistic.

In my experience a good photographer, skilled in processing both film and digital can get the same level of quality with either method.
That's not to say all photographers can achieve this high level of quality with any medium they use as it's obvious some need to use film and some need to use digital to get the best results.

YMMV

In any case. I wish you all the luck in the world. Godspeed.