A&P Film VS Digital (UH-OH)

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by IAMHERENOWv0.0, Mar 13, 2007.

  1. IAMHERENOWv0.0

    IAMHERENOWv0.0 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    What's better?
    Pro's - Con's?

    So far form what I have gathered is that FILM OWNS Digital hands down.

    I have read that in Prints a 25 year old Canon AE-1 or any 100.00 film slr will surpass the resolution of even the newest 12mp DSLR's.

    Opinions?
     
  2. 19Godfather86

    19Godfather86 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is going places.
     
  3. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    only if you know how to get the most out of it. Know what an EI is?

    B&W neg film has the highest tonal range
    color chromes have the best and or most accurate color

    digital is 10000x times cheeper in the long run, gets you instant feedback and no scanner needed.

    a 7 year old canon d30 can surpass film in resolution, its all about how and what you do with it.

    try iso 3200 in film and compare it to iso 3200 from a canon 1 series. While the actual pattern of grain may be more pleasing in the film, the amount is nigh and day.
     
  4. slugsgomoo

    slugsgomoo New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    bremerton, wa
    it depends. I don't buy color negative in 35mm anymore, but I still prefer b&w negative and color slide film to digital. Now is this because I simply don't know how to manipulate the tools as well, and i'm more familiar with film?

    While that's definitely part of it, there are certain arguments that digital hasn't surpassed, i.e. what viperx27 mentioned about tonal range, vivid/accurate color, etc.

    Digital is getting leaps and bounds better, and it's definitely good enough for 90% of what i shoot. The only thing I use film for now is some landscape work, and some other misc. shots. The buy in is less, but it costs a lot over the long run.
     
  5. joy division

    joy division New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    16,419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    hollywood, LAids
    So far I haven't seen any digital that isn't full of noise in the shadows, and by full of noise I"m exaggerating but...I'm a shadow nazi- I want the most rich detail possible in the darkest regions.
     
  6. Tedrzz

    Tedrzz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
  7. .chris

    .chris You drown before the water lets you in. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    53,175
    Likes Received:
    495
    Location:
    954
    film is much better. but much less convenient.
     
  8. anthem404

    anthem404 not my cup of mud

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia
    4x5 > 35mm > digital


    the actual quality of a 35mm frame scan (from a film scanner) is 5959x3946 at 4000 dpi.

    Which is quite a lot better than my d50's 3008x2000 300 dpi.

    As far as quality when printed...no questions. Film wins.

    For convenience, turn over time, and cost? Digital.

    If you have the time, money, and don't mind waiting for development, then go get some trix and overexpose it by 3 stops.

    If don't like the above, then go digital.
     
  9. GregFarz78

    GregFarz78 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    64,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Digital is much more convenient for me, I'm a beginner so most of my shots right now end up in the recycle bin I'd be wasting a lot of money on film otherwise. When I get better with my digital I want to pick up an old 35mm SLR just to play around with, you can get them pretty cheap on ebay under $100
     
  10. Burmonster

    Burmonster OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    45,073
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Agreed. Digital is an excellent learning tool. Gives you instant feedback and lets you learn at your own pass and keeps material costs to a minimum.
     
  11. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,713
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    deadhorse.jpg
     
  12. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    52
    I think I disagree with this. Someone tell me if i'm wrong...

    While it may be true that a scan is technically 'larger' than a native digital image, at the end of the day, you're still dealing with a 2nd generation image, which unavoidably ends with data loss.

    (with the possible exception of insanely high quality drum scans, but we'll leave them out since they aren't readily available to the public)

    So, even though you have a really large file, the quality of the image is less than the quality of the natively taken digital image.

    I do agree that if you take a 35mm neg, and print it in a darkroom (color or b&w), the quality will be better than the same shot taken with a digital camera and printed, even on a great printer. Film and light > pixels and inkjets...

    However, I also believe that if you take those two native images (film and digital picture), and then SCAN the film, then print both on the same printer, the quality of the native digital picture will be greater, because of the data loss in the conversion of the film from film to digital.


    This is the reason I converted to digital. It's almost impossible to find a way to natively enlarge and print color slides and neg's these days, and I was never satisfied with the quality of the scanned/printed end product. So, I have decided to change my ways, and shoot native to the way I am being forced to print...

    I have compared many (hundreds?) copies of my own 35mm work that had been natively printed against the copies that had been scanned and printed, and I have yet to find a digital print that can rival the native prints.

    I do have one image that I am sending away to be drum scanned, and I will let you know if drum scanning changes my opinion.

    I would also love to hear others input on this, to see if your experiences differ from mine. I would also love to hear your input on the conclusions I have come to in my experiences....
     
  13. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    20x24 > 8x10 > 4x5

    not shit sherlock. How about you tkae an action shot with a large format?
    Having been one of the only to ever own a 4x5 here its safe to say that the uses for a 4x5 are fwe and far between, plus the cost, lets see thats $2.50 per polaroid, $3 per quick release, and another $1.89 for proccessing, per shot.
     
  14. 19Godfather86

    19Godfather86 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that the convienence, cost, and flexibility of digital outweighs the loss in quality, which is both small and subtle, in the long run.
     
  15. anthem404

    anthem404 not my cup of mud

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Georgia
    I never said anything about taking an action shot with large format. Last I check, that's not one of the things people who use 4x5 shoot using it. From what I've read and heard from people, large format is traditionally used for landscapes.

    I understand the larger the neg, the better quality it is. I was just saying 4x5 to add something else to discuss in this thread.
     
  16. hsubaru

    hsubaru New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use both. Film is a novelty, though. Far too inconvenient to be my workhorse.
     
  17. ej25power

    ej25power OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    This pretty much sums it up.

    I think everyone should learn on film though, no matter how inconvenient. People that learn on a digital get spoiled by the ability to fire away and hope for the best.

    IMO, most who learn on digital aren't photographers, they're people who can press a shutter release.
     
  18. 3x

    3x New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    22,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    hella bro*cal
    I learned on my dad's AE-1 :o
     
  19. vwpilot

    vwpilot New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think there is a lot of ignorance in this thread and a lot of poeple holding on to myths rather than actual concrete results.

    Wrong and I'll put a 20x30 digital print against a 20x30 35mm print any day of the week and guarantee you that print quallity will be at least as good if not better in most situations.

    Certainly not the blanket truth you make it out to be. In very few situations film has a very narrow advantage, but in most cases its neck in neck, certainly not "much better" in any case.

    Not true. You can scan a negative/positive at as high a resolution as you want and your not capturing any more detail than the original negative/positive captured. And its been shown many times that current digital cameras can resolve as much detail as many negative films can. Some of the best slide films are better, you arent getting any more detail in the average film negative than you are in a digital capture. And in that case scanning at super high resolution just gives you a larger file of the same or less detail.

    The current crop of digital slrs, in amost all situations can capture and produce as good or better results as film. In some small instances, film still is better. In cases of extreme dynamic range and if your looking for the "feel" of film, such as with b&w work, film is still king, but it certainly is not BETTER as a whole and digital will win out in most circumstances these days.
     
  20. ohknaks

    ohknaks New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WA
  21. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0

    first..if you give us pixel dimensions, dpi doesn't mean anything. second, why would you make the comparison using the d50? it hardly represents what digital can do these days. Sure, if you take some 50 or 100 speed film, expose and develop it perfectly, and scan it using the best scanner in the world then maybe you will get some more detail than a canon 5d, but if you compare iso to iso, the 5d is going to destroy the film. I've been making 8x10 prints these past few months from 35mm iso 400 film (hp5) and I have found iso 1600 shots from the 5d printed at 11x14 look much better.
     

Share This Page