Digital photography vs. film photography: which do you prefer?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by donkeypoodle, Dec 8, 2005.

  1. donkeypoodle

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    Consumer grade film, makes good 4X6 prints

    I like Kodak E100G, Extremely fine grain and very affordable. There are
    other that are even better.
    Don't doubt it. However, Exposure, processing and scanner have everything
    to do with the outcome.


    The 8MP Rebel XT Largest file size is in image raw 3456 x 2304

    300dpi print = 11.5" x 7.68"


    Konica Minolta Scan Elite 5400 5232 x 7800 (5400dpi) Dynamic Range 4.8

    300dpi print = 17.44" x 26"


    The 20D 8.25MP 3504x2336

    300dpi print = 11.68" x 7.78"


    Konica Minolta Dual Scan IV (3200dpi) 3,120 x 4,680 Dynamic range 4.8

    300dpi print = 10.4" x 15.6"


    Some numbers to think about anyway, I think if you are shooting Consumer
    film and processing at your local 1Hr lab you will be disappointed with
    either scanner. But E100G or some other fine grain pro film and processed
    by a quality lab or in my kitchen :) and scanned with digital ice at 16X,
    Well, pretty dam good!!

    Now, I have neither of these digi cams but I am sure they are pretty quiet
    when used properly and can probably make some really nice prints at less
    than 300dpi. I didn't bother to look up specs on any 6MP cameras but you
    can infer from the number that there file sizes would be proportionately
    smaller.

    BTW, A little grain never hurt anybody. I was a broadcast engineer for 20
    years. I was around when the first CCD video cameras came out.
    Videographers, Some, would stretch pantyhose over there lens hoods to get
    some texture back.....
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Dec 15, 2005
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. donkeypoodle

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    And what medium will this 10,000 year old file be stored on. Perhaps we can
    scratch the 1's and 0's onto a wall of a cave somewhere?

    Really, Mag tape, CD, DVD, Hard Drive, Laser disc... Which one do you think
    will be viable in 10,000 years.

    Ever head of a film scanner?
    Where are you going to store you cd,dvd,laser disk,hard drive or mag tape?

    Look, time it the master photo editor. if the image is worth saving it will
    be saved. Davinci's, Last Supper, for example. Your snap shots of last
    years vacation will fall victim to Time's editorial review. The Mona Lisa,
    well, something tells me she might still be around in one form or another
    in, well, at east a few more hundred years, 10,000 , Boy that's a reach.
    I can't tell you if humans will be around in 10,000.
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Dec 15, 2005
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. donkeypoodle

    Scott W Guest

    You don't really believe you are even getting close to a range of 4.8
    from film, that would be like 16 stops. And do you believe you are
    getting anything buy very soft pixels at 5400 ppi.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 15, 2005
    #43
  4. donkeypoodle

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    Ask Minolta.
    Lol..
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Dec 15, 2005
    #44
  5. Per Carlos Moreno:
    A point well taken.

    In my defense, may the court note that in the OP, I said "Somebody,
    somewhere...." and not myself...-)
     
    (PeteCresswell), Dec 15, 2005
    #45
  6. The cost for me to convert to digital is too great if I ever got interested
    anyway.

    I like having no less than two camera bodies when I go shooting. I just like
    the peace of mind from having back ups.

    Here is a basic line up of the lenses I shoot: Canon FL lenses (remember
    them? I love shooting them old things.) I have a complete FL macro set
    including pristine bellows, macro 50 mm, plus a half dozen adapters, an old
    but perfectly clear 28mm FL that gets used a bunch, an absolute wonderful f2.
    8 135mm FL and an FL 200 3.5 which is getting along in the tooth.

    Add to this a wonderful 2.8 FD 200mm and an f4 300 and f4 400 FD lenses along
    with the always versatile 50 FD and 28-90 Vivatar and 70-210 old promaster
    that I bought when I bought my 1st canon AE1 in 1981 which is really a clear
    lenses and still shoots with the FD canon glass.

    Now I know many of these lenses overlap and could be consolidated into a few
    lenses but my bellows and macro stuff and macro lenses would be very
    expensive to replace and all the other telephoto lenses would be very
    expensive to replace in auto focus stuff for a digital camera.

    I figured it up that even if buying Canon 20D's (two of them) and to replace
    the lenses I use for wildlife would cost me as much as a new car ro nearly so.
    This is why I say it is cheaper for me to shoot film. Even so, I prefer film.


    F1
     
    Canon F1 via PhotoKB.com, Dec 16, 2005
    #46
  7. So, makes sense to compare these against the "consumer grade"
    Nikon D70 or the lower-end Canon DSLR cameras.
    This math is absolutely wrong -- an enlargement to 30" by 20" gives
    you more than 100dpi -- less than 0.25mm pixel; that's finer than
    anything I've seen when enlarging 35mm to 30x20... Sure, you don't
    print it directly, with little squares of 0.25mm; with some
    filtering and/or processing to smooth the pixels, you're more
    than ok.

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Dec 16, 2005
    #47
  8. Either one -- just make a *perfect* copy every few years...

    Not saying that this is practical for the average person (or
    even for the far-above-average person), but the thing is: it
    is feasable; the technology does allow for the same image,
    absolutely unaltered and with the *exact* same level of details
    from every possible point of view, to be preserved for any
    arbitrary amount of time.
    I thought we were defending film vs. all the evil digital
    technology...
    I store copies of the images -- that way, I don't depend on
    *one* place, so I don't need a fire-safe, burglary-safe, etc.
    place to store *my only* copy of things.
    Exactly -- but then, if you want to convince me not to use the
    argument of preserving photos in favor of digital photography,
    then at least let's make sure that no-one uses it in favor of
    film photography, where if anything, they're getting it utterly
    and absolutely backwards.

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Dec 16, 2005
    #48
  9. donkeypoodle

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    How are you going to insure that happens. AS you get older it will become
    less and less important to you.
    I thought we where talking about film "Cameras" Vs. digital "Cameras" Most
    film guys these days will scan the slides or negs or prints. I do. Haven't
    had a dark room for years. Film images can be archived digitally with
    amazing quality. But, it has to be done right. And in 200 years if the file
    is lost which is most likely, Hopefully, there will still be a print and a
    slide hidden away in a trunk in the attic.

    I get a little defensive when people say my work is crap because it was shot
    on film. That is pure bullshit and anyone who says so is a bullshitter.

    As for the argument that Kodak royal gold should be the benchmark film to
    compare against an 8MP Camera, I aint buying it. E100G can be purchased
    from BH for less than you can pickup a can of Kodak gold at your local drug
    store. When you use the word film, you are generalizing.

    And as for the math. It's the same math that has been use in every
    article,discussion and tutorial I have ever been exposed including this news
    group. Are you telling me that 100dpi is the benchmark print resolution for
    digital photography?

    Hey, I could shoot an image of a pure white wall and print it huge at
    50dpi......

    I have nothing against digital cameras. Just aint gonna buy one until I can
    afford the one I want. But I find it hilarious how digital only guys turn
    against film shooters. I think it has a bit to do with defending the
    decision to write out that huge check. Hey, you don't have to defend that
    decision to me.

    Too much emphasis, in this discussion, is place on how many pixels can dance
    on the end of a pin.


    I attended a Nat Geo Photo workshop some time ago. One of the things that
    stuck in my head was, Its not the gear its the man behind the gear. So,
    very true. I have an 8X10 print hanging on my wall that I took with a 125
    Kodak instamatic when I was 10years old at Yellowstone National Park. It's
    won three awards and still today this day gets the most attention and
    comments from visitors.

    If film was crap medium, This debate wouldn't have lasted the number of
    years that it has...
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Dec 16, 2005
    #49
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.