 Blanca Acosta |
Digital Vs. Film: The Facts of Life :) I have my own answer, but I'd like to see what professionals say. Is the best digital equipment capable of taking the high quality photos of a conventional camera? I think not; films have had 100 years of improvement; digital imaging is in its infancy. My Nikon Coolpix (good, cheap camera) doesn't take the photos I can take with a disposable camera. But, then, I have never had a high- quality digital camera, whereas I had a Russian Leika, extremely cumbersome, but excellent camera; I also had another Russian camera; I have forgotten its name, but it was also excellent ... and cumbersome. My brother has an ancient Nikon (from the '70s), and I still cannot compete with him, especially in b/w.< Of course, none of us are pros; he's a shrink and I'm an English & Sp, professor. We play "by ear".
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Andrea L. Akin |
Blanca, I agree with you that digital is not quite there yet to meet with film cameras, but I believe that it is getting pretty close. Look at my gallery: All of the photos in it have been taken with my digital camera.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Yes, it can - just maybe not with what you have.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
I also agree that the high-end digitals can rival the detail and clarity of their film counterparts ... but only to a degree. For Web use ... absolutely. Looking at some of the images here and on other sites, the technical quality of digital cameras over film really shows ... especially with those equipped with high-quality lenses. For printing, though, I would have to give an edge to the fine-grain films over digital for overall sharpness and clarity ... but that's just me. One aspect of film that's often overlooked is the variety of different "flavors" of films available. Such as: .Fuji Velvia for the vibrant colors of fall scenics. Kodak Portra for natural skin tones. Etc. These interpretations of color nuances can be either subtle and dramatic, and can vary greatly, dependant upon the photographer's choice of brand or film type. I personally shoot for possible publication ... but also for fun ... and since most of the editors with whom I correspond still prefer film transparencies, I'll keep using them. Later on, who knows?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Derek Holyhead |
Hi All, Look here:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml A long review, but worth it, make sure you read it all to get the full picture (so to speak). Regards< Del
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter K. Burian |
I have tested over a dozen digital SLR cameras, including the new Nikon D70. Are the images as good as those made with film? Depends. 1) How good are your film images? Do you use the highest quality films and serious shooting techniques? 2) How large a print do you need? An 8x12 print from film or a digital file should be superb! 3) If you make 16x24 prints from your best 35mm negatives, they will probably be better in some respects. BUT ... that's assuming you are using a pro lab or a lab that prints from a high resolution drum scan. A lot of labs cannot make decent prints that large from a 35mm negative. 4) A print from a digital capture looks different than a print from film. For one thing, there is no grain. Many viewers prefer the print from a digital image when done well. The switch to digital SLR cameras is moving at an incredible pace - among serious photo enthusiasts and professional photographers. One reason is the superior image quality produced by today's digital cameras, plus improved speed, autofocus performance, etc. The best images made with a Nikon D70 (for example) make stunning 11x15 prints. (Of course, you need a large format printer or a lab that makes large prints from digital files.) Even a 13x19 print looks great when viewed from a typical distance of 6 feet. I switched to digital a couple of years ago and am happy with the quality of my images. Many stock agencies (photo libraries marketing images for publication) now accept images made with 6 megapixel SLR cameras - because their clients are happy with the image quality ... for most applications ... not necessarily for billboard use. (Of course, most huge reproductions are not made from 35mm film, either.) For advertising use, the agencies generally demand that the images be made with an 11+ megapixel camera, like the EOS 1Ds. ($8000.) The larger files allow for much larger reproduction. (Just as they prefer medium format film images for such use.) So, the bottom line: Yes, digital capture is as good or better in some respects, although film can still make larger prints of superior quality (than a 6 MP camera) - if using pro-caliber methods for scanning and print making. Most mass market photofinishers will not be able to match that level of quality in a large print. Cheers!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Karen-Jane Dudley |
I was given some advice by a fellow photgrapher just over a year ago " if you don't want to be part of the tarmac get on the steam roller" I was very reluctant at first to take the jump to fully digital , but I invested in my Fuji S2 Pro ( I hear the S3 is on its way !!! ) and can honestly say it is an awesome piece of photographic equipment. you will see by the definition of some of my recent close up work on my gallery with the Tigers the results are breath taking ,even the smallest loose hairs are quite clearly visible and colour contrast is superb . The main advantage I have personally found is in the situation of being able to change my iso settings at the flick of a switch which has helped out on numerous occasions , and the camera stands up to every testing situation I have ever thrown its way and has come through with flying colours . Yes I do still carry my faithful Minolta Dynax in my camera bag and carry rolls of film , but am finding I am using it less and less now My only advice I can give if anyone is thinking of investing in the S2 is battery comsumption it drinks them like water and I now find studio work is best completed through mains power , so invest in some very heavy duty re chargables but even this small element can be forgiven through the results the S2 achieves . Myself personally I am a total digital convert now .K-J
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Roberts, Jr. |
I have made photographs with Minolta 35mm camaras since 1982. I finally decided to try digital last August and bought a Canon G3. I haven't shot a roll of film since. I get 8x10's that are as good or better than anything I ever got from 35mm negatives. Maybe film still has an advantage for really big enlargements, but for the kind of photography I do, digital HAS arrived.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Scott Pedersen |
Film's got the digital both in quality and price. However, a camera is only as good as the photographer. You need to take the time and also learn to see the photo and transfer what you see into adjusting the camera for what you are seeing.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Scott Pedersen |
I want to add by the quality I am refering to what you are getting for a camera. In digital you cannot even get a SLR unless you want to go up to 900 bucks. You can get into a film vesion for slightly over 200 Pentax and Cannon both have entry level SLRS at that price and both are excellent cameras. A digital point and shoot that is considered decent is priced more than that. And look how much more camera you are getting with the film ones. Also when you are in the low megapixal cameras the film walks all over them in terms of photo quality. Software just cannont make up for good work to start with. I think people get led to believe that instead of making adjustments that a couple of mouse clicks will do it and thats simply not the case. Oh, I do use both film and digital in case anyone is wondering.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Scott: Yeah, switching to digital (especially an SLR) is expensive. Plus memory cards, etc. etc. Not horrendous if one already owns compatible lenses. (I sold off some of my 35mm equipment on e-bay and that saved some money too.) And the 5 megapixel compact cameras are dropping in price (about $500). Few people want prints larger than 8.5x11" and these cameras are great for that: excellent quality. I switched to digital (SLR) completely about 2 years ago and cannot imagine why I would ever shoot film again. Or spend hundreds of dollars on film and processing. (OK, inkjet paper and cartridges are not cheap, but I only print the very best images, not all 36 on a roll of film.) When I first bought a computer, I thought that was expensive too but I have certainly gotten good value. And I think that's the key: a good camera and a good printer (plus a bit of know-how in enhancing images in software) provides good value and a lot of enjoyment too. (I cannot believe how much I enjoy enhancing images and making beautiful prints.) Cheers! Peter Burian, Contributing Editor
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
roberthambleyphoto.com - Robert Hambley Contact Robert Hambley Robert Hambley's Gallery |
Just adding my 2cents. I recently printed a 16x20 of a lion from a zoo for my daughter to hang on her wall. Taken with Digital Rebel in RAW mode. It turned out perfect. You wouldn't be able to tell that it was a digital camera image vs film, IMHO.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
We are still comparing digital to film for quality and reproduction,when we are at the stage that we are comparing film to digital quality it will be time for me to make a move.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
S J. Campbell |
Digital vs Film... Digital being used in an ''electronic'' format, ie, web, email, is probably better than film. But for traditional image capture and paper re-creation, Film can never be outdone... A pixel has a long way to go to ever be as small as a molecule of silver halide or a photon of light!! So I guess one has to decide, 'what end-point format one really wants, ultimate quality, and how long they want it to last'.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
x |
SC, I agree. But, I wouldn't say never. Film probably will be outdone. I don't know. Digital has a really long way to go to surpass or even match film quality. It doesn't depend on anything, as people seem to suggest. Digital is not there, period. Whether you make a 24x30 or a 4x6, the quality of film is superior. The reason I have not gone digital is due to cost and the excrutiating work of digital. On the cost: Digital costs more. In a year or two, all you digital folks (pros) will have to go out and get all new bodies. The film guys don't. Your computers and software and cards and storage media will all have to be updated, increased and kept up with. For me, I just put negs in a file drawer and I'm done. I can use my bodies for 50 years with no degradation in quality, as long as I properly care for them. As far as quality, from an appearance standpoint, yes the digital prints look every bit as good, or better. But, looks cand deceive. The actual quality is less. For those pros using a 6 megapixel camera, you must be crapping your pants about now having to go invest in the latest 11 MP, or should you wait for the 15's? Hmmm. It's a marketing blitz. And it's technology at it's finest. Problem is, I can't really find very many advantages. The advantages digital has, I don't need, like immediate gratification. It's okay for testing, I guess. But, the problem I see is many people just pointing and shooting. How do you learn from that. My opinion is that if you have to spend money, you are far more likely to understand and learn. In the old days, people used to buy a camera and keep it for a long time. I still have an old 35mm Mamyia Sekor camera and all the lenses that my uncle bought in Vietnam in the 60's. People who are into digital are always having to upgrade, even consumers. My friends are always asking me which brand or type is best. They bought one a couple of years ago, btu the want higher resolution. I tell them to go buy a film camera. Jerry
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I've never heard of an actual pro complain about needing to get a camera with more mp's. Actually, it seems like they look forward to it. But everything goes through upgrades. Anybody still using the same kind of film from several years ago? What about paper? Or has your favorite lab ever changed to a new machine, better paper? Some actual pros use digital exclusively, some don't. The ones that use digital love it, the ones that use film love film. And even pros who use film end up using scanners to change them into large mg files. So use what works for you. The ones that complain the most about digital/film thing are mostly neighbor hood wedding photogs. And people just pointing and shooting didn't start with digital. Film and digital users are running into the same problems, and asking the same questions.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
x |
I know Gregory. I didn't mean to belittle pros who use digital. I know that there are many pros using all digital and getting fantastic results - better than me, actually. And, it does depend on what you do. I have personal issues with digital that I am trying to work through. I see the issue as inevitable - digital is going to take over because there are tremendous advantages. I would love to sit down with a digital photographer and discuss this some day. But, there are many aspects that I don't understand. Like high volume work. I've gotten the quick reply's about just do this and that. But, I need to really sit down with someone who understands what needs to be done to make the switch and explain it. I don't really have the time or inclination to stumble through it blindly. Plus, I'm just not ready. But, as a side note, it is interesting that I was getting ready to invest a little in some film equipment, and sort of pulled back at the last minute. I was thinking that maybe I should start putting my money in digital equipment. I hate to sound like I'm flip flopping, but as an artist, I am very interested. But, on the technical side, there are some issues. But, I have been reading articles about professional studios selling all their Medium Format equipment and going 100% digital. I'm thinking, WOW! It's that good? I'm just not sure. I can see many ways of saving money, but I would spend more time at my computer, and that is exactly the reason I got out of the corporate life. So, here I am again at a cross-roads. And, on top of all that, I do believe that digital is still way behind in terms of quality. But, I'm watching and listening. To address the equipment issue, I believe that digital cameras are where computers were when we used to think that 286's were great PC's. So, I'm not closed-minded about it, and I didn't mean to argue about it - I have to watch myself sometimes. I do have one digital SLR that I am enjoying. And I even am throwing it into my portrait sessions now and then just to make comparisons with my film. I also, just between you and me, hate this debate. My main problem is that I can't figure out how, professionally, digital benefits ME. And, on top of all that, ALL of my clients request film. I think I stated it here before, but my clients view digital as a sort of toy. And when they want "real" photography, they want tradtional film. Now, that's just my market, I'm sure it differs widely. But, that's what I hear. I know because I always ask them because they always ask me if I shoot digital or film. As soon as I have more clients asking for digital, that's probably when I'll switch. I read your bio and enjoyed your bit about kicking and screaming all the way. But, then once you began using it, you have never turned back. I hear this alot. So, I'm listening. Can you recommend a book or other resource that can discuss the ins-and-outs of digital photography? Respectfully,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I don't know what you mean about kicking and screaming. But anyway. If you read about a studio leaving all meduim format for digital, then it's not if it's good, it's that it's probably good for them. It's because of the reasons they shoot and who they shoot for. Are they doing portraits for the general public or weddings where whoever's paying expects and can wait a week or two for prints to be made? Doubt it. They may be shooting for something where the only time that image will be made to be seen is in a magazine or advertisement some where. And if it is your typical wedding/portrait studio, then either they think they need to take a gamble, or they know that it will work. Either way, they'll either need to make it work for them, or it will work for them. Don't think you'll find a book that will discuss which you should use. You'll probably find yourself back to where you started. Two guys named Seth Resnik, and Mark Turner have switch to all digital. Google them and I'm sure their web sites will come up. At www.studiomark.com, there's some guy who does head shots and promo shots for celebs out in L.A. He also does product and commercial. He does film and digital. Depends on who needs what. There's a guy named Douglas Dupler who helps epson with their product development. He shot their new ad campaign, and he said film all the way. He did have to scan them, but the point he only wanted to use film. A friend of mine has a sister who's getting married, so I'll going to use film for that. I could use digital, but because I'm friends with her sister and how I worked it out with her mother to do it, it's going to be film. From those who travel the world all the way down to senior portrait takers. Their choice of film or digital is going to be out of necessity or preference.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Jerry: I don't know if any clients ever ask for digital. In portrait/wedding, they want prints. (From film OR digital) In advertising a lot of studios use the Fuji 680 with a digital back and the art directors are fine with that. There are lots of advantages to a studio re: digital and some for the client as well. e.g. Proofs on a CD or a Web page. A couple of years ago, I wrote an article for MSN.com about weddings, including some issues re: studios using digital photography. http://photos.msn.com/Editorial/Article.phpx?aid=HowToChooseWeddingPhotographer Includes interviews with several pros. Some of the concepts may apply to other pros as well - or not. Cheers! Peter Burian, Author, Mastering Digital Photography and Imaging, Sybex (Feb. 2004)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Dan |
Purchase a good digital camera, 3.2 megapixel and up... good photo printer and photo paper You'll have a very good photo quality print, up to 8 X 10
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
Film is still tops with low light shooting,or extreme weather conditions,every 6 mths.digital is changing maybe agood thing as it really hasn't reached its full capabilities,I personally love the effect of grain at times I feel digital has a very plastic look just too clean these are just my humble opinions oh and also I have a Nikon F80,Minolta XE5,Minolta SRT 101,and a Minolta Autocord,all for under the cost of a fair digital system!!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter K. Burian |
A few additional thoughts. Many inkjet printers make prints with a 25 year lightfast rating, while one HP model (7960) can make prints with a 75 year rating. Some Epson printers (R800, 2200, etc.) make prints with an 80 or 100 year rating, thanks to pigment based inks. These outlast conventional prints! Yes, digital has reached its full capabilities. Like any technology, it will get better, but when you can make a gallery quality 11x17" print (or a nice 13x19") print from a $900 camera like the Nikon D70, there's no need to wait for the technology to improve. "Plastic look"? Heck the F80 or N80 is just as plastic as the D70. Price: Sure, nobody ever debated that. Obsolescence: Oh, I suppose you may one day need to "update" some accessories, but a CompactFlash card will be standard for many years, as will TIFF and CD's, etc. (Anyone who worries about obsolesence should never buy a computer either.) Prints: "The actual quality is less." If they look just as good, the acutal quality is at least as good. Frankly, the 11x17" prints that I make are a lot better than the 11x14" prints (from film) that I got from the local mini lab or a wholesale photofinisher. Did we debate analog vs. digital when fast, high capacity computers first became available? i.e. "Pad of paper and calculator" vs. an IBM computer? Cheers! Peter Burian
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
In responce I did mean the images themselves can have a plastic look,compare portraits done with digital and film and you will see what I mean by this!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
The guys name might be David Turner in case somebody looks him up but can't find it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Hi Blanca, I'm certainly not a professional - but I thought I'd give my 2 cents anyways... It sounds like you are a hobbyist. So am I... Film is fine, but I'm so glad I moved on to digital... It helps if you have computer skills, a good computer and printer, but you could always get your best photos printed by a lab - which is what I do because I don't have a good printer. The advantages of seeing the photo immediately, and being able to make adjustments until you get it just right outways just about anything else for me. The frustration of getting film developed and finding I don't like half of the pictures is frustrating and expensive. Especially trip pictures, or once in the lifetime opportunities. I'm not going back!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Hi Blanca, I'm certainly not a professional - but I thought I'd give my 2 cents anyways... It sounds like you are a hobbyist. So am I... Film is fine, but I'm so glad I moved on to digital... It helps if you have computer skills, a good computer and printer, but you could always get your best photos printed by a lab - which is what I do because I don't have a good printer. The advantages of seeing the photo immediately, and being able to make adjustments until you get it just right outways just about anything else for me. The frustration of getting film developed and finding I don't like half of the pictures is frustrating and expensive. Especially trip pictures, or once in the lifetime opportunities. I'm not going back!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Gregg Vieregge |
In a recent Shutterbug magazine it was announced that Kodak has stopped the development and research of new film. That should say something. The next generation of digital will be here in the fall with the Fuji S3 pro. The fuji s20 has the technology now. The debate is soon to be over
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
x |
Gregg V., I looked all over both Shutter Bugs website and Kodaks, and nothing. I think this would be a pretty major announcement that would be found fairly easily. I'm not saying you're not right, I'm just sayin... If Fuji, Agfa, Ilford, all follow in this direction, then I'll switch. I think, as has been said, digital is not a replacement of film, at least that my pretty strong opinion. To me, it is another medium. One day, maybe soon, it will be more prevelant than film, but I believe film will always be around. And, as I said before, every client that walks into my office wants me to shoot film. They specifically say, "You don't shoot digital, do you?" That tells me something. I'm not making a judgement about either art form, I'm just saying that film is still very valid and very real, and is not going away. Kodak could be making a decision like that for a great many other business reasons. Jerry
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mike J. Horen |
I think film is superior in low-light performance. You don't have to worry about noise from your CCD by bumping up your ISO in a film camera. Film is much more effective in low-light shooting. To me that is the ultimate limitation of a digital camera. That aside, the difference between film and digital in normal everyday shooting is non-existent. The control and immediate options from a nice digital camera and the picture quality that is equivalent to film in all but extremely large prints shows that a nice digital camera certainly warrants the value (especially since every picture you take you know is a good one). Just a thought.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Scott Pedersen |
Kodak is still developing new film and will be for some time. All film companys are still also for that matter. Pop Photo runs tests on all film and publishes the results. They just had one a couple of months ago. Although I am quick to take up new technology, just do not see any advantage to do so in this case. 35mm is cheap and relieable. Digital is 3,4,5,6 times more invetment but not 3,4,5,6 times more return.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Derek Holyhead |
Hi Scott, Maybe the return for you isn't enough, but Pro's who have changed think differently, see here for an example:http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Interviews/Lichfield_interview.htm Patrick Lichfield saved 76,000 UK pounds in the first year alone! So I think that it all depends on your usage etc. Anyone in the US should get a copy of Digital Photo Pro magazine and see what other Pro's are producing and saying about digital. I actually have nothing against film, I think that we have reached the end of the processingand printing stage, new film still gets processed the same way as before and in theory film as so much more quality potential than the current methods of processing allow. I see the main advantage for me in digital is I now control that part rather than relying on someone else to print what is essentially in my mind. Just my 2 pennies worth. Regards, Del
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
doug Nelson |
Are your pictures worth saving? Do you mean for your family photos of your children growing up to be kept for them in their old age? Do you want them to know what their grandparents looked like? Until the technology improves, don't count on much in the way of permanence from digital images. Professional archivists are quite alarmed over the lack of permanence in digital media. Hard drives and servers crash with disastrous results. Jim's handling of the betterphoto server crisis a while back was masterful, but all servers don't have the benefit of expert care. Reports are coming in of CD's being rendered unreadable after 2 years or less, because the layers separate, the dyes fade, or newer readers simply can't read them. Iomega has been sued by people who have lost valuable data on Zip discs that refuse to open. The best archive is STILL a negative, slide, or silver-based print, properly stored away from heat, light, and moisture. Color prints fade badly; people have lost wedding pictures permanently because they fade and the negative was discarded when the photographer went out of business or died. Until the industry shapes up and solves this problem, be very careful of pictures you care about saving. So far, Mitsui and Taiho Yuden CD's are considered the best. Anyone read any reports or claims of archival storage media?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
x |
Excellent point Doug. I lost my entire hard drive once, and since then decided that I would not go digital. And, yes, I had a back up CD, but as you suggested, for some reason it is unreadable. I still have it hoping that someday, I will figure out a way to read the data. I lost many pic's of my son as a baby. All the film pics I had in a box are still there, wonderfully preserved. Jerry
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Gregg Vieregge |
I shoot all my weddings digitally. I burn 10 cds of each file and store them in various spots and locations. I use imation/sony/memorex CD's and have never had a problem. With film I had one negative of each pose. I feel much safer having that much backup with digital. Your thoughts...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
A squirrel hiding nuts, and an easter egg hunt is what I'm thinking of now. But the real reason I came back to this is it's Pete Turner and Douglas Dubler.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
x |
During my day job I work in IT. Knowing too much about it causes me to mostly distrust it. I use manual everything at home because I experience too often that people who rely on technology have complete meltdowns when the technology fails. That's just me. I have friends who have back-up plans, etc. You're right about film. The funny thing is about all of this is that I have all my film scanned in case the negative gets lost or destroyed somehow. So, although I don't use technology exclusively, I do to the extent I feel it is reasonable to do so. Jerry
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Gregg Vieregge |
Larry la Grand You make a great case for film. Stay with it. Digital is moving far ahead of what the market is asking for. Let's retire this discussion and let the film/digital debate come up again after this summers busy shooting. New realizations should arise and a new opinion by many could surface a new discussion.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
x |
Thanks Gregory for the references. Until now, I hadn't seen such fabulous work. I wasn't aware that digital could look that great. Being the cynic that I am though, this is the web. But, I'll give these guys the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to see their work in person. I especially liked Mark Robert Halper's stuff. Although, he's not fully digital. Jerry
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Seth Resnic does all digital. Name might be spelled with a z or a k. But last point on this. Nobody who uses film or digital has ever given me a reason for me to say that they should switch to the other. But a point about the cost of using digital with computer and printer to make prints with $500 for a printer, maybe a $1000 for the comp. To look at it another way, what's required to get prints from film? Maybe a $15,000 morijitsu machine, plus cost of chemicals. Just that you're using somebody else's machine. With the cost deferred by other people using the same machine.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
x |
Well Gregory, that's true. Not only that, but you have no control. That's the main thing I read about digital photographers, total control.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter K. Burian |
For anyone who is not convinced that a high quality digital camera + Photo printer can produce superlative image quality, I make the following offer. To the first three people who send me a postal mailing address. I will send (free of any charge) three 8.5x11" prints from images made with: 1. A high quality 3 megapixel compact Pentax camera. 2. A 6 megapixel digital SLR camera. 3. An 8 megapixel camera with built-in zoom lens. Printed with an Epson Stylus Photo or the HP Photosmart 7960 printer that I am currently testing. Of course, any image is only as good as the lens, shooting technique, Photoshop technique (to optimize the image for printing, etc.) I will select three images that do not need much work in Photoshop: just Auto Levels and Unsharp Mask, for example. Cheers! Peter Burian
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter K. Burian |
My e-mail address is pkburian@hotmail.com P.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Patrick |
Print permanence is a non issue as you can have digital images printed professionaly on a system that prints them on traditional photo paper. There are also inkjet printers that can print with better permanence than traditional prints. Many high level Pros are using digital. Seth Resnick, Barbara Bordnick, Denis Reggie, George Lepp, James Nachtwey, Rick Billings Greg Gorman, Stephen Wilkes, Rod Evans, Scott Alexander and Michel Tcherevkoff to name a few. Here are some links to explore on this subject. http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/faqs/equipment.html http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/explorers/lobby.html I have a digital SLR and love it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
I must say I'm more than impressed with the new Canon Mark2 truly amazing but at a price tag of double a Nikon F5 is it worth it well I really don't think so I can scan my negatives shot with my F80 and get 20-30 mega pixels of resolution at 4000dpi,why wouldn't I go digital right now the answers are obvious too danm expensive and highly overated!!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Patrick |
Expensive, Yes. Overrated depends on your circumstances. A lot of Pros are switching because they actually end up saving a lot of money. No film to buy, have developed, archive. For example if you are a pro wedding photographer (or any pro for that matter) you shoot a lot of film for each job. With digital it is a onetime expense. For a Pro who shoots massive amounts of film each year that alone can pay for the switch. There is also the instant feedback to clients and knowing you have the shot. The quality really is there NOW. There are digital backs for medium format that are currently up to 22 MP or maybe higher now, which produce enormous files and detail. I haven't checked in awhile. Yes they are very expensive but for the reasons stated above they make more money by switching. Pros are also able to provide more services and convenience to their clients with digital. Some wedding photographers are able to have a large screen slide show ready for the reception. Also Graphic Designers who do their own photography are able to do work faster without the processing lab time and screw-ups. More work equals more money. The last point is true for all pros. For an amateur or enthusiast it is expensive, so each person has to decide for themselves, although it can speed an amateurs learning of photography.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Derek Holyhead |
Hi Patrick, You are right about the Pro's saving money, see here: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Interviews/Lichfield_interview.htm Patrick Lichfield saved £76,000 in his first year alone on film and processing. I have recently moved to a digital SLR and would never go back to film. Regards, Del
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
Pro's are mentioned alot in the last two responses,I'm semi-professional ,don't make the majority of my money from photography but do do alright by it.Pro's make up a very small percentage of photographers and digital I'm sure appeals to the budget is no problem Pro,what about the others who want the same quality,it is available with film very much so,but not the same with digital!!!!!Still really admire the new Canon mark2,but I can only do so at a distance,too bad!!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
Pro's are mentioned alot in the last two responses,I'm semi-professional ,don't make the majority of my money from photography but do do alright by it.Pro's make up a very small percentage of photographers and digital I'm sure appeals to the budget is no problem Pro,what about the others who want the same quality,it is available with film very much so,but not the same with digital!!!!!Still really admire the new Canon mark2,but I can only do so at a distance,too bad!!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Patrick |
I mentioned Pro's because the question that started this post mention them. "Digital Vs. Film: The Facts of Life :) The information I gave directly contradicts the opening thought. The pros I listed are some of the top in their field and would not be using digital if it was not there yet. In fact a lot of them say they would never go back to film.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter K. Burian |
My two cents worth. Quality? Depends on the level you need. A large format camera, using film that's 4x5-inches in size, will produce images of higher quality than a 6 or 8 megapixel digital camera. Of course, studios often use a 16MP or 25MP digital back and that certainly comes close. But outside of studio work, where 35mm SLR cameras are the norm, an 11MP camera like the EOS 1Ds produces image quality that meets or exceeds most needs. Even commercial stock agencies like Corbis accept EOS 1Ds image files. For editorial use, they accept images made with 6 MP digital SLR's. And even a 6 or 8 megapixel camera produces images suitable for a 13x19 (or perhaps larger) print of excellent quality. Cheers! Peter Burian
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
The Eos 1Ds can produce great images but at a cost of over 10,000 dollars it certainly should at least be able to equal a 400 film speed image,just my 2cents!!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Michael: In the US, the EOS 1Ds costs about $7000, expensive, but it's probably the best D SLR camera. My printer cannot make prints larger than 13x19", but I know that some pros routinely make 16x24 (or similar size) prints from their 1Ds files. In my estimation, it equals an ISO 100 film for most purposes. How large a print can you get from a 35mm film frame (ISO 100) while maintaining high quality? Cheers! Peter Burian
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Blanca Acosta |
I'm not a pro, but I think that the simple process of the light "impressing a film" is very efective. Even cheap cameras have good films. Whereas the process of digital impression, in my experience, is still to be perfected. If you enlarge a conventional photo, there're more colors and nuances, whereas when you elnagrge a digital photo, there're too many gray areas. And another fact. Even with the cheapest conventinal camera you can take a fairly good close up. I haven't been able to do that with my digital camera. I will show a young leaf I tried to catch (digital), and it turned out awful. And I will also include a close up with a disposable camera, decent.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Blanca Acosta |
Well, I deleted the bad close ups. Sorry.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
Peter Burian closed with: "How large a print can you get from a 35mm film frame (ISO 100) while maintaining high quality?" It depends: It's driven primarily by the MTF of the *entire* system, not just film, not just camera lens, but includes all of that plus enlarger lens and print material (or projection optics for slides). That's assuming accurate focusing, consideration of DOF for the enlargement (magnification of film to print or projection) that will be made, and not kicking the tripod while the shutter is open. Use a horridly low MTF film such as Kodak Gold (AKA Bright Sun and ???) and expect much less enlargement capability. Use something like Provia 100F, Kodachrome 64 (OK it's 2/3rd stop slower than 100) or Velvia 100, and the film supports much greater enlargement. Use a horrid MTF lens such as one of the vast, vast majority of current consumer grade zooms and that inhibits enlargement. Use an excellent MTF lens (very likely pro grade) and it supports much greater enlargement. Entrust enlargement to a consumer lab that doesn't care for its equipment well and hires minimum wage people who know little or nothing about photographic processes and printing (and don't care) and expect poor results. Entrust it to a professional lab that maintains its enlargers in peak condition and cares about making optical prints, and expect great enlargements to be optimal for the chip of film handed to them. Project slides onto glass bead screen using a consumer projector lens with poor MTF (e.g. the abysmal Kodak ones) and expect fuzzy projection with lack of detail. Project slides onto matte screen using an excellent MTF lens (e.g. Schneider-Kreuznach) and expect accurate projection of all the detail contained in the slide. "How large a print can you get from a 35mm film frame (ISO 100) while maintaining high quality?" It depends . . . -- John Lind
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
I was of the asumtion by a test in a popular magazine that the latest Kodak 13+ mega pixel camera could just beat 400 speed film,but did not yet have the resolution or detail obtained in 100 speed film,this is the highest mega pixel 35mm.camera offerd today,oh and here in Canada the Eos 1Ds is about 12,000 Canadian,without lenses!!!!this leads me to conclude anybody can build any technoligy for a cost,which will leave me shooting in a traditional manner for many years by the look of it,and enjoying film as well!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Patrick |
First let me say that I am not trying to convert anyone to digital, use what you like best. In Blanca's original post Blanca said "I have my own answer, but I'd like to see what professionals say. Is the best digital equipment capable of taking the high quality photos of a conventional camera? I think not". Notice the words "best digital equipment". Now in Blanca's latest post Blanca says "My camera is a Nikon Cool Pix 2500; not an expensive camera, but not a lemmon either, yet, the quality of the prints is far worse than the ones I took with a cheap disposbale camera.". So first Blanca says that even the best digital equipment can't match film and now Blanca says that his or her own cheap digital camera cannot match film. Blancas cheap camera may not match film but Blanca should not then assume that Pro digital equipment can't because Blanca's cheap camera can't. My point in posting was to say that yes pro digital equipment does equal films quality. Many pro's, who use pro digital equipment, have even said it surpasses film quality. The difference between cheap consumer digital and pro digital is huge. Cheap consumer cameras use a lot smaller CCD or CMOS sensor with smaller photosites and pro models use a much larger one with larger photosites or pixels that gather much more detail and produce a lot less noise or grain in film speak. As far as the ISO range my Canon 10D has a range from ISO 100 - 3200 and is very low noise up to 800. My point is you can't really talk about something with authority unless you have used it and are knowlegable about it. To say just because my cheap point and shoot consumer grade camera does not match film therefore all pro digital cameras don't either is not wise. And to end I would like to say I have no ill feelings toward you and have enjoyed the conversation. I would encourage you if you are interested to look into this more. Later, Patrick
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Peter K. Burian |
A few more thoughts ... Yes, I know, Popular Photography said that a 14 megapixel camera matches only ISO 400 film. And that with the right techniques, you can make massive prints out of a 35mm negative or slide. On the other hand, how many of us need massive prints? And how good are most large prints made from most people's slides and negatives? I was not happy with 90% of the large prints I got from labs, until I went to a custom lab that used sophisticated digital scanning and printing. But extremly expensive. Now, I can make gorgeous prints myself. Very few of my friends can believe they are from digital cameras. (Including 4 to 6 megapixel cameras that I regularly test.) Frankly, I don't care if digital matches film but an excellent 4 megapixel camera can produce images that will make for exhibition quality 8.5x11" (and very nice larger) prints, while the higher res cameras are even better. And the images have no grain, a major advantage over high res scanning of film. Sure, I have a film scanner, but honestly, I prefer the look of images made with digital capture. I wish you could all see the 12x18" and 13x19" prints hanging on my wall. (Granted these are from 6 + megapixel Digital SLR cameras.) These comments are simply based on my own experiences. The debate over "Is digital as good as film" is never ending but to me, it's really an academic discussion because digital is SO good. I cannot imagine ever shooting film again (except for a film test report assignment from a magazine.) Cheers! Peter Burian
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||