Thinking bout going to digital

[Ysarex88 82]

Film has better dynamic range than digital.

I don't want to get into any "discussion" about what looks like what. If you enjoy shooting film and want to do that you should and vice versa. As for the Canon vs. Nikon debate that's easy: Nikon.

The OP didn't ask about "look" she/he asked, a question that warranted a technical answer. The OP's question about color was answered. Otherwise, sticking with the spirit of the OP's technical question, let's not leave the above stand uncorrected. The opposite is true. It's 2014 and the state-of-art in digital sensors well exceeds the dynamic range of any film.

Joe

No clipping ?

Not one pixel.

Joe

 

[zaroba]

Most (not all) will probably tell you that once you go digital you'll never go back.

I don't miss using film one bit.

It's 2014 and the state-of-art in digital sensors well exceeds the dynamic range of any film.

Also this.

There are reasons that digital photography is vastly more popular then film photography, and only growing more so as technology improves. Mainly, ease of use.
No dark rooms or costly film developing - you only need a home printer
No film rolls to lug around and change
Instant viewing of photos to see if they turned out nicely
Easy sharing with other people - internet being the prime example. Over 1.3 billion people on facebook
No running costs - unless you have a camera that doesn't have a rechargeable battery pack
Easy storage of photos - hard drive or online vs boxes and boxes of photos and negatives
Easy editing of photos - load them in any picture editing program
Easy to learn - you instantly see your mistakes and learn how to correct them with trial and error

Comparing film to digital?
That is like comparing the fuel mileage of a car from 1960 to that of a brand new car. Or windows 3.1 to windows 7. Or an 8 bit video game console to a modern video game console. the origional Gameboy to a brand new Gameboy. A TV from the 1980s to a modern LED flatscreen. You get the idea. Yea, some people may like the older technology better. But guess what? If it was so good it would not have been replaced with something more convenient, easier to use, and it wouldn't become popular. Like HD-DVD, Blu-Ray proved to be a better media format so HD-DVD died pretty quickly. If film was truly better then digital, and if most camera owners/buyers believed that, then digital cameras wouldn't still be being sold or wouldn't have evolved in to what we have today. They would have died shortly after being first produced.

 

[limr32 1]

Are you going to explain it or are you just going to say "Wrong!" and move on? Because if I'm wrong, it would be nice to be educated about something instead of just being scolded.

And I would also like to clarify something: when you say "state-of-the-art sensors" do you mean the sensors that are in any current digital cameras? (Current meaning the last couple of years - not older digital sensors) Or does it refer only to the top-of-the-line digital cameras?

 

[limr32 1]

Comparing film to digital?
That is like comparing the fuel mileage of a car from 1960 to that of a brand new car. Or windows 3.1 to windows 7. Or an 8 bit video game console to a modern video game console. the origional Gameboy to a brand new Gameboy. A TV from the 1980s to a modern LED flatscreen. You get the idea. Yea, some people may like the older technology better. But guess what? If it was so good it would not have been replaced with something more convenient, easier to use, and it wouldn't become popular. Like HD-DVD, Blu-Ray proved to be a better media format so HD-DVD died pretty quickly. If film was truly better then digital, and if most camera owners/buyers believed that, then digital cameras wouldn't still be being sold or wouldn't have evolved in to what we have today. They would have died shortly after being first produced.

This is far too simplistic. Film --> digital is NOT the same is comparing the same technology, only improved over time. The concept is the same and the lenses apply to both technologies, but the way they produce images involve different technologies, so no, it's NOT fair to just say that digital is an "upgrade" because it's not.

You're also assuming that "convenient" and "better" are the same. Sometimes they are, and for something as subjective as photography, the two words are synonyms for a person like you who values that convenience more than other aspects of the activity. Not everyone has the same priorities.

 

[zaroba]

You are correct, it is just my opinion.
I find being able to pop out my memory card and put it in my computer far more convenient then sending film off to be developed.
Although I don't know how, I'm pretty sure it's also more convenient then it would be to set up a dark room in my house and develop film myself.


Whats next though, saying that VHS is better then DVD/Blu-Ray?

 

[timor]

I don't want to get into any "discussion" about what looks like what. If you enjoy shooting film and want to do that you should and vice versa. As for the Canon vs. Nikon debate that's easy: Nikon.

The OP didn't ask about "look" she/he asked, a question that warranted a technical answer. The OP's question about color was answered. Otherwise, sticking with the spirit of the OP's technical question, let's not leave the above stand uncorrected. The opposite is true. It's 2014 and the state-of-art in digital sensors well exceeds the dynamic range of any film.

Joe

No clipping ?

Not one pixel.

Joe

I gonna hold you to your promises.

 

[limr32 1]

You are correct, it is just my opinion.
I find being able to pop out my memory card and put it in my computer far more convenient then sending film off to be developed.
Although I don't know how, I'm pretty sure it's also more convenient then it would be to set up a dark room in my house and develop film myself.


Whats next though, saying that VHS is better then DVD/Blu-Ray?

The point was not that film can be just as convenient as digital. The point was to say that some people don't care as much about the convenience, but rather are more concerned with other aspects of the activity.

It's pointless to say something is better simply because it's convenient unless the ONLY criteria being used for judgment is "convenience."

A Hot Pocket is also more convenient than food cooked fresh. Is a Hot Pocket "better" than freshly-cooked food, then? Depends on your priorities.

 

[pgriz]

This "discussion" about the merits of digital vs. film has the same relevance as artist discussion of whether oils or watercolours are the "best" medium. Pfttt. Whatever works for YOU. They both record images. They do it in different ways. And those differences allow different expressions. So... let's discuss the merits of Broccolli vs. brussel sprouts next. or maybe using bags of frozen peas vs. cold packs to treat aches and pains. Or a real controversial one - Red or White wine? Zinfandel or Gammay?

 

[zaroba]

Some people prefer the journey, others prefer the destination.
I prefer the destination.

As for the hot pocket scenario, it depends on the situation. Do you have the time, supplies, and energy to prepare a freshly cooked meal?
If so, then yes, it would be better to make a freshly cooked meal. It's far healthier.
However, if your pressed for time because you have to go some where, or are exhausted after a long day of work, then I would say the hot pocket would be a better choice.
I'd hate to be late for work because I had to prepare a fresh cooked meal to eat for breakfest. But that hot pocket only takes 2-3 mins and I can eat it in the car on the drive to work.

 

[timor]

You are correct, it is just my opinion.
I find being able to pop out my memory card and put it in my computer far more convenient then sending film off to be developed.
Although I don't know how, I'm pretty sure it's also more convenient then it would be to set up a dark room in my house and develop film myself.


Whats next though, saying that VHS is better then DVD/Blu-Ray?

So, convenience. Yes. YES. YES. YES.YES.
That is why in the last 14 years was born so many "photographers". I think digital camera actually caused devaluation of photography. Made out of it a trow away item; 3 seconds attention and forget about it as new "stuff" is coming. No time for reflection. Anyway, what for ? 99% of images are looking the same.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=land...6oLADg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=854
Dazzling colours, opium for the eyes, zone of dreams. Yes, we need that to, but tell me, how many of them is actually hanging on your wall ? For keeps ? Maybe a calender ? Every month new picture after disposing the old one ? I wish for you, that in your lifetime you will make 5 pictures emotionally so strong, that you will frame them, hang on the wall and they will stay there and be enjoyed until you gone. And it will be no matter, if you made this pictures with film or digital. Holga or 4x5. 4MP or 36MP, doesn't matter.

 

[zaroba]

but tell me, how many of them is actually hanging on your wall ? For keeps ? Maybe a calender ? Every month new picture after disposing the old one ? I wish for you, that in your lifetime you will make 5 pictures emotionally so strong, that you will frame them, hang on the wall and they will stay there and be enjoyed until you gone. And it will be no matter, if you made this pictures with film or digital. Holga or 4x5. 4MP or 36MP, doesn't matter.

Is that a request for me?
I don't think I've had any type of photo hanging on my wall since the early 90s. lol

 

[limr32 1]

Some people prefer the journey, others prefer the destination.
I prefer the destination.

As for the hot pocket scenario, it depends on the situation. Do you have the time, supplies, and energy to prepare a freshly cooked meal?
If so, then yes, it would be better to make a freshly cooked meal. It's far healthier.
However, if your pressed for time because you have to go some where, or are exhausted after a long day of work, then I would say the hot pocket would be a better choice.
I'd hate to be late for work because I had to prepare a fresh cooked meal to eat for breakfest. But that hot pocket only takes 2-3 mins and I can eat it in the car on the drive to work.

Exactly. What is "better" depends - it depends on what is important to you (or anyone) at any given point in time. What's important to you today may not be so important in five years, or vice versa. What is important to one person is not to another. And this is exactly why the film vs digital "debate" is a fruitless endeavor and why "better" is meaningless because everyone is using different criteria and they are prioritizing those criteria differently.

For me, a Hot Pocket is never ever ever a better choice. I would rather not eat anything than eat one of those things. But I am not everyone and everyone is not me, so who the hell I am to generalize about freshly-cooked meals being "better" than Hot Pockets?

So what is better, film or digital? Both! Neither! It.Does.Not.Matter.

 

[timor]

Is that a request for me?
I don't think I've had any type of photo hanging on my wall since the early 90s. lol

No request, absolutelly, just a wish and looks lika a valid one. Why don't you have any ? you don't like any of your pictures ?

 

[Ysarex88 82]

Are you going to explain it or are you just going to say "Wrong!" and move on? Because if I'm wrong, it would be nice to be educated about something instead of just being scolded.

And I would also like to clarify something: when you say "state-of-the-art sensors" do you mean the sensors that are in any current digital cameras? (Current meaning the last couple of years - not older digital sensors) Or does it refer only to the top-of-the-line digital cameras?

I don't want to get involved in the film/digital head butting here just want to keep the tech accurate. Digital continues to develop at a fairly rapid pace. Back a decade or more especially when most digital cameras were equipped with 10 bit A/D converters you could compare film and digital dynamic range and make a case for film. We're now solidly using 14 bit A/D converters in modern digital cameras with 16 bit converters showing up at the very high end. Yes -- top of the line stuff like a Nikon D800 which is very expensive. It would take two years of my film costs back in 1995 to buy one today. Film is mature tech and if improvements are made they are incremental at best. In 2008 I was shooting a 10 mgpx camera with a 10 bit A/D converter. Your statement may have been accurate then. Do the math and compare the difference between 2^10 and 2^14 and then try next year's 2^16. Film dynamic range got passed up somewhere between 2^12 and 2^14.

Joe

 

[snerd]

......... A Hot Pocket is also more convenient than food cooked fresh.....

My grandad was always saying......... "Where ya headed there, High Pockets?!"

I have no idea why that reminded me of that, but it did.