A&P Digital Cameras surpassing real film?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by enexgee, Jan 11, 2005.

  1. enexgee

    enexgee New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    4,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    atl
    Is this possible? It seems with an analog film camera you are able to capture more life in your photos. Someone shed some light on this.

    Thanks...
     
  2. JordanClarkson

    JordanClarkson OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    59,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Go Dodger Blue!
    it's close but not quite there yet. digital allows much more flexibility, but the CCD's are still only half the size of a 35mm sheet. it's important to get the right colors instead of just guessing the ones you don't capture. this is why film looks sharper. in photos where it's not as complex, they're pretty even
     
  3. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,131
    Likes Received:
    89
    Location:
    east coast
    Film still has a greater latitude, that is the ability to capture a wider range of tonal values than digital. Film also looks more "real" to the eye since we're basically conditioned to accepting film as reality whenever we go to the theatre.
     
  4. vwpilot

    vwpilot New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm going to disagree a bit here.

    First off print film has about the same latitude as the current crop of high end dslrs. Slide film however still has less latitude, however, if exposed properly it will yeild a wonderful shot. Both print and dslrs allow for a little bit of fixing when the exposure does not hit right on.

    Also, when it comes to details, right now the high end dslrs have finally gotten to a point that they get as much if not more detail than film. The new 1DsMkII has been proven in print to capture more detail than 35mm film and rivals what medium format can capture. Even the current 8mp dslrs capture as much as 35mm film does.

    Like anything analog vs. digital both have unique looks to them. You have grain in film that some love and you have the lack of it in digital that some like, especially when making large prints. I dont like 35mm over about 11x14, its way too grainy for me. However, I love making 20x30s from my dslrs because they can be so clean when edited properly.

    That brings us to the post procesing point. With digital there is a lot more left up to the shooter and if its done right in the computer it can look wonderful, if its done wrong it will look like ass.

    I can wager that I could take a digital and a film print and put them in front of you and you would not be able to tell which is which in a normal sized print, up to maybe 8x10. Abbove that it will get obvious if you know what to look for because of the grain in film that digital does not have.

    I would say that right now, depending on your needs and gear, digital can be every bit as good or better than film, at least 35mm. However, there are still things that digital cannot emulate and never will be able to, such as artsy black and white or using grain to your advantage.
     
  5. PRMike

    PRMike Guest

    Yea once you get to 6MP+ it's getting the detail of Film it's the color that stands apart. The film you have chemical reaction with endless possibilities where as digital is all a mixture of Red Blue and green.... It always kills me though if I take prints into a shop and the guy developing can take one look @ a shot and say, "this one is digital... it looks flat." Fuji seems to have the best color and I'm sure it's no surprise being they make the better machines for developing, but they lack the sharpness/detail of Nikon and Canon. I've heard great things about the Kodak's prints but it's god a hefty price tag and I hear they're highly unreliable.
     
  6. vwpilot

    vwpilot New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    If your digital file's colors are flat, then you need to do a little more post processin work. There is no reason that they can not pop as much as film.

    I worked in a shop/lab and I can take posters I did from film and show them to anyone other than the MOST critical photographers and have them believe they came from film.

    btw, I'm not judging your skills, just saying that its possible to make them look good.

    Here is an example from another board.

    Someone compared a digital file (10D) with a shot taken on Velvia. He pointed out that his Velvia shot was way better when it came to color. Now his Velvia shot had more color to begin with cause of the lighting, but I took his digital shot and adjusted it and got it as close as it will ever get to the Velvia considering the lighting differences in the shot.

    Here are the shots.

    Digital:

    [​IMG]

    Velvia:

    [​IMG]

    My re-do of the digital shot:

    [​IMG]

    As you can see the Velvia shot had a little more of the nice sunlight in its frame and Velvia is as colorful as you get with film. But you can see that my re-do comes awful close and I did this in under five minutes from his low res jpeg file.

    So good film color with digital is very doable.
     
  7. PRMike

    PRMike Guest

    you can still tell.... As for my settings I get nothing but compliments on them the shots weren't mine I was talking about although I've had some extremely good digi shots where my guy developing could tell (he just saw the prints after th eother guys did them so he didn't know going in it was digi obviously)
     
  8. 67olds442

    67olds442 uhhhh

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    0

    so your comparing a edited digital picture to an unedited scanned picture? :ugh: Seems to me that you should make the same adjustments to the film picture as you did to the digital.
     
  9. Tomash

    Tomash Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    77,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Umm... I though EOS-1Ds Mk2 has a full-frame 16.6MP sensor.
     
  10. JordanClarkson

    JordanClarkson OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    59,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Go Dodger Blue!
    yes it does. i meant the lower end ones.

    i've taken shots with a disposable 35mm that were quite good. and it's not really fair to compare a digital to a picture scanned by a consumer scanner. getting your pics scanned right from the film at the lab gives you the best results. ask for their highest resolution possible. there's usually a hell of a lot of noise but it can be removed in software.
     
  11. chlywly

    chlywly Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    18,745
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Toronto
    Digital Cameras have surpassed film a while ago actually; most professional photographers, use digital now... It's also a lot better than slide scanning, REAL pro digital equipment costs LOTS of money; and has surpassed film long ago. Sorry to break the news to you.

    This question would have been right about 4 years ago.
     
  12. vwpilot

    vwpilot New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can still tell they are different, but I dont think you could tell me that one was film and the other wasnt. And like I said, in print I dont think you could tell either.

    The quality of digital is here and short of someone wanting a particular "look" of film, digital is just as good a quality as film.


    The shots compared were scanned on a higher end slide scanner which I can tell you will do a much better job than any lab will short of a drum scan.

    Everything will always be different. Just as two different films give different looks, two different digitals give different looks, film and digital will give different looks. But the beauty of digital is that you can make it generally look however you want.

    But when it comes to quality, the only thing film still does better is long (multiple minutes) exposures. Things like star trails and those things still are a little better on film. Other than that, digital is it.
     
  13. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    there are some things that digital has not taken over yet, like architectural photography. Not many can throw down $50k - $100k for a digital scanning back for a large format camera. There are many uses for digital and just as many for film. In general its more cost effective to shoot digital, but some clents prefer film simply beacuse you don't have to pay for post proccessing or atleast not as much
     

Share This Page