Film versus Digital

[ahockenberry]

Hi folks,

Is digital always better than film?

I just got back from a trip to Alberta, where I took numerous photos at Banff and Jasper. Also, I had a chance to meet an impressive Wildlife photographer, who explained to me that he has stayed with film over the years as he believes it gives him better quality of image for printing larger prints, which he sells.

Perhaps I have been brainwashed into thinking that digital is always superior to film no matter what. I know it gives everyone a lot more control over post-processing, however, his post-processing was very minimal and he felt very strongly about keeping an original image and not tampering with the background of any shot, or using layers, which he felt compromised the whole integrity of the image.

Also, I noticed that a number of landscape photographers still use film.

In any case, it was an education for me. Any comments, especially from those who have used both?

Thanks

Ashley

[Rudi]

Digital is now superior to 35mm film, IMO. My 5D files will look better, print better, and manipulate much easier than any of my 35mm slides or negatives. There is much more detail, and this is even if I scan the film on a professional drum scanner. Past a certain resolution, all you are scanning is film grain, not more detail...

With MF, again, digital is superior to film, except in the portability stakes (some digital backs require to be tethered), and you need to carry around a lot more battery power with digital. Other than that, for pure image quality, digital wins again, IMO.

For larger formats, digital would be way too expensive, so film is still the way to go (but for how long???).

There is a reason that Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, etc. film divisions folded in the last few years. Digital is that good! :)

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Ashley, we fondly refer to these folks as filmasaurse. They just won't let go, and what most don't realize is that when they take their beloved film in for processing at their favorite lab it is digitally processed anyway. A digitally remaster 35mm to 20x30 poster is actually much better then a conventionally enlarged print but, I might add, is not as good as posters from my 8mp 1DmkII.

I have two Older bird photographers in the neighborhood who are having a hard time letting go of film, but their photo stock agencies are pushing them to digital. The excuses are alway the same. This bit about tampering with the original image. Processing time (they don't want to learn the PP work).

[Rudi]

Ashley, we fondly refer to these folks as filmasaurse.
:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

They just won't let go, and what most don't realize is that when they take their beloved film in for processing at their favorite lab it is digitally processed anyway. A digitally remaster 35mm to 20x30 poster is actually much better then a conventionally enlarged print[/B]
Good point! It has been that way for 10 years or more now, too! Digital processing and (chemical) printing from negatives has been around longer than most people realize...

[Peter]

So where are all your wonderful shots:biggrin: Hope to see some and yes digital is much better now then film. :)

[ahockenberry]

Thanks. I will be posting a few today. Look at the Landscapes section.
Cheers

Ashlehy

[MiriamJ]

Just wondering, doesn't film still have a wider dynamic range than digital? In other words, for the same exposure on a digital camera, doesn't film collect more information in both the shadows and highlights?

(Not that I'm going to give up my beloved digital SLR for anything else.)

[JaredB]

Just wondering, doesn't film still have a wider dynamic range than digital? In other words, for the same exposure on a digital camera, doesn't film collect more information in both the shadows and highlights?

(Not that I'm going to give up my beloved digital SLR for anything else.)

I would agree with this statement and have read various articles stating basically the same thing - more exposure latitude still exists with film....more room for error for those shadow details and those highlights.

[Rudi]

Just wondering, doesn't film still have a wider dynamic range than digital?

Only with B+W and most color negative film. Transparencies can be worse than digital, and the latest digital SLRs such as the 5D and 1DIII are catching up to color negative films.

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Actually if you follow all the latest documentation of the last few years you will find that Digital actually has wider latitude then B&W film and that is why tools like Highlight/Shadow recovery work. The difference with digital is in the processing. For instance a RAW 1DmkII file can cover a latitude of approx. 11 - 13 stops, but it is up to the processor to be able to process that image and compress that latitude to fit the latitude capabilities of the paper we use or the monitor we view on, neither of which can portray the full latitude digital is capable of.

I have done my own comparisons to prove this, however this article http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/ pretty much sums it up with comparative photos and explanations. And page 2 http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange/

[Rudi]

Agreed! What I was referring, to, Jeff, is a properly exposed RAW file out of a modern DSLR (without further tweaking). With tweaking, it has been proven that digital has already surpassed film... unless you want to print it, in which case you run up against the same problem that you have with film - even the best papers and prints do not have high-enough dynamic range to take full advantage of what is being presented to them! That appears to be the limitation of the (reflective) medium though...

[MiriamJ]

Interesting studies. I hadn't realized that a modern digital sensor could cover that great of a range.

Of course printing is far behind what a digital camera can record. I was trying last night to put a bright yellow caption onto a photo, then soft-proof it to my local Costco's printer where I get my printing done. The difference between what I wanted and what I could get was much greater than I would have expected.