film vs. digital

[Mverick]

When you develop film, especially if you do your own darkroom stuff, you get to manipulate the development process to a certain extent. Many pros ask photolab to overexpose or underexpose or develop the film at slightly different ISO than the film rating intentionally..

Yep, You can ask them to Give you a Stop or a Half stop. Which does adjust things. But I'm not adjusting colors 5 ways. And it doesn't take 4 hours to do. As long as they have there machine set up well. With good chemicals. It's gonna come out close to the same as last time you had something developed. But NEVER the same.

I develop B/W. Not Color Film. As Labs do a Much better Job of controlling Temp's of Chemicals. Which has a huge effect on the Developing quality.

When you print from film, most photo lab do have some sort of automatic or manual adjustment/calibration so that's a manipulating process as well. That's why when you take you film to different photo labs, the result is not always the same..

If you're Printing on your Home Printer. I'll tell ya this. Your Pro Lab can Out due you. No Problem. All Printers make Adjustments for colors. ALL. Digital and Film. It's standard. That's why I said take both to the same lab. So there calibrations are as Similar as possible.

So with film, you are at the mercy of someone else's manipulation while with digital, you have more control in manipulating the picture. In my mind, this is a moot point between digital and film since both will have to through some sort of manipulation at one point or another by someone so there is no untouched, unmanipulated pictures one way or another..

I said. Take it to a lab. Have the film processed by them. Have the Same lab Print BOTH digital and Film.

And Even with Digital. You are at the MERCY, as you say, of someone else. As the Labs have BETTER digital Printers. That THEY calibrate. Not you.

And it's not a MOOT point as you say, 90% of Digital is Manipulated. I'd say 10 percent of Film is. Because Wal-Mart and WalGreens and the Send in labs process alot of film. And Few People know about Pushing and Pulling.

Please correct me if my understanding of film development/printing is incorrect but this is my impression.

I'm just stating facts. That if you look are out there... Not OPINIONS.

But you need to do your own looking.

 

[Gilligan]

There have been some thorough opinions, explanations and comparisons between film and digital done in this post so far.
People coming to this board with the "film vs digital" question can extract some good decision making information from this post.
So Dee, how about making this thread a "sticky" titled "film vs digital" as it may save a lot of redundancy for the near future.

 

[Dee]

I was thing the same thing last night as I read through the whole thread again. I must say I am surprised. In the past this discussion has needed some creative moderating, that's why I've stayed out of it.

I think it answers the questions very well, with passion, patience and respect to everyone. Kudos to all who have posted in this thread.

 

[clive francis]

Well, I was trying to answer the question

"The pictures seem pretty good on a computer but I have been disappointed with the quality of prints from digital cameras. Do good digital cameras have the same quality as 35 mm cameras? How many pixels do you need to achieve the same quality prints as 35 mm film?".

i originally had a olympus c920, only 1.3 meg and i had 6 x 4's done for some work stuff on a sub dye printer and even the works photographer who used film couldn't believe they came from my little camera.

So, that's comparing a 35mm Print from a Lab. To a digital printed at a lab. At my lab. They Print 35mm the old way. They don't scan it first. So you're not limited by there scanner.

And a Lab Printed 35mm is the Equivelant to the Lab Print of a 40-50Megapixel camera. On good film.

They do have programs to ENHANCE the digital file. Enlarging it without loosing to much detail. But I'm talking right out of the camera.

By the way, I shoot Medium format and Large Format. Very little 35mm. I like big negs for greater detail. Mostly Black and White. Which will start to showgrain if you Enlarge even up to an 8x10 with 35mm. 6x7 negs on 100 films won't. And 4x5 and 8x10's Negative prints look awesome. And have shot for 28 years. Had a Dark room in Every home I've owned and My father had one in the home also. So I grew up around it. I started when Digital came out and Was very upset at the lack of quality in Prints. They've come a long way. But they aren't there yet. For Print Work, Yea, there fine. For Art Work and Oversized enlargements. Fine if you don't mind loosing detail. I do mind. And they don't touch Medium Format Color at all. Unless your talking about Trying to Scan it and then Print it. But Why would I want to do that? For Touch up? Maybe, But I've gotten by without it for large prints up till now. I like to show Reality. Not Touched up.

I have just had a pic printed at 8 x 10 from my 5060, i only did auto levels in photoshop and it has come out perfect and the guys at jessops said it was amazing the quality you can get from a 5 meg camera, and had they not known it was a digital they wouldn't have been able to tell.

no grain, no fringing just a perfect picture.

so even at 8 x 10 you can get a prefect print, and i say to any one don't knock it until you have tried it and if you don't want to try it then don't knock it!

 

[clive francis]

And Even with Digital. You are at the MERCY, as you say, of someone else. As the Labs have BETTER digital Printers. That THEY calibrate. Not you.

all the places i have taken my digitals for printing, you stick you card in the machine and it sends them to the printer.

i was lead to believe they use the same printer for both film and digital (when i have arived early they have pulled them off the same machine as the 35mm stuff)

 

[Mverick]

so even at 8 x 10 you can get a prefect print, and i say to any one don't knock it until you have tried it and if you don't want to try it then don't knock it!

I've got a 5060. And a PT-20. I know the quality already. It was posted in my previous post I have it. And have Printed out of it at my Lab. Prints from it At my Pro Lab. Are good. But DO NOT COMPARE to the prints from a 35mm Film Camera.

Like I said. When you enlarge them. They Show there colors. They can't compare to Film enlargements yet. Because Film has better Resolution.

And There is a Possibility of 35mm film being printed on the same printer that they print your Digital camera pictures. But they have to Scan the Negative Then Print it. Which some machines can do. And give you a disc at the same time. If they would Print it as a Photo. You'd gain Resolution. Because The scanner is the limiting factor. Not the Film.

Color Film is in LAYERS. 3 or 4 Layers. To capture the Colors. They overlap themselves. To make for a very great color saturation. And to Blend for better resolution. Film in the last 5 years has made Leaps and Bounds. It hasn't been sitting still like others think. But then again. I don't buy my film at Wal-Mart.

Digital is making Leaps and Bounds ALSO. But it isn't there yet. The reason your gonna need 40-50mp is for the Details. And to be honest. It's gonna be hard to tell a 30mp from a 50MP. Till you get to the details. Like the Hair in an Eyebrow. The extra is for the VERY fine Details. But that's also how you get great pics. Details. And that's what Pro Level film is giving now. So to match it. Digital has to get it too.

Wanna know a next step. Use a OLY8080 with 4 of the 8mp sensors. To get 4 Different colors. Then Overlap them for final print. Then, Maybe your getting there. It's coming. It's not here yet. Because they need to make there money off these things. Or it would already be out.

Or the Kodak 14CN with 4 of the 14mp Sensors. Each recording a different color. And overlap the output. I'd bet that would get there.

I like my 5060. Kinda wish I'd of waited and got the 8080. It's been fun. I don't like 35mm anyway. I like 6x7 and Large Format. And they don't make a housing for a 8x10. That I could change film in.LOL

 

[Mverick]

all the places i have taken my digitals for printing, you stick you card in the machine and it sends them to the printer.

Wal-Mart and Walgreens here do that too. They are Convenience Stores. Not Photo Labs. They are'nt Pro labs and Your not going to get the Best Print from them. They are a Mass Market way of Printing.

 

[TX101]

I like 6x7 and Large Format.

Hey, me too! I assume you have a Mamiya (or maybe a pentax) - they do an underwater housing for the RZ67. It's hella expensive though. It would be interesting to see the results from shooting MF underwater, although I don't know if the bulk and extra work needed to shoot MF would pay off. And who sells an underwater lightmeter?

 

[Mverick]

I have 4 Bronica GS-1 Bodies.

There's a Housing for Hassy's too. Tried to buy one. Went for around $2500 used... For 6x6..

And I think it's Sekonic that makes an underwater light meter.

 

[-hh]

http://www.williamsphotographic.com/digital/dig1.html

...Funny how everyone keeps thinking digital is cheaper. Yet PhotoShop is Around $800. Computer to manipulate is Around $1200. Add in a minumum of $600 for other Plug ins. And the Camera itself is More expensive. And people want to complain about film costs. Yet my 1gig chip cost $260 or so. Sure, it holds alot of pics.

Agreed...I just dropped another $60 worth of ink cartridges into my printer the other night. And I'm getting low on Glossy Paper and CD-R's. Personally, I'm lousy at faithfully doing my PC backups, so the fact that film automatically comes with a "permanent archive" copy is a very desirable feature.

Objectively, both systems cost money to use and maintain, and its a YMMV as to which costs you're more willing to live with. Personally, I suspect that many people don't account for the true value of their free time when thinking about all of this...I find that I'll easily blow through an hour per image when I start to manipulate unsharp masks, contrast, balance, etc, etc...some things are best left to the Pro's.

(Internet reviews)...always leave some points out. That greatly influence Image.

The one that stated 40-50mp for a 35mm was one that took it all into account. From the Camera. NO manipulation software. Since that's the whole point. What the camera will do. Not what we can turn it into later.

I've been watching the field for awhile, and IIRC, the "equivalent" rule of thumb I use is 48MP. While people do correctly ask the quesiton of how often we make a 20x30 enlargement, the devil's advocate question here is that you never know when that Once-in-a-lifetime photo (Whaleshark, etc) is going to occur, so is it philisophically better to have the resolution and not need it, or to need it and not have it?

Personally, I'd rather have it and not need it, which is why I've been reluctant to transition from film to digital.

But I probably will be buying a 6MP DSLR in the near future, although for land photography. For UW, I'm watching the reports on the image quality issues on "sunbursts" on wide angle, quality drop-off towards the edges, and overall noise...I personally have concerns over bluewater "sky" images, particularly those that end up getting curved blue bands from the .JPG formats stemming from lower-end digital images.


-hh