Scanned 35mm. VS full frame DSLR 12MP ?

[JPS]

Sorry if the question has been asked before (I haven't found it with the SEARCH function) !

Very roughly, considering that one can't use the exact same lens on a 35mm. FILM camera and a full frame DSLR... what is the difference in dynamic range, "grain" or "noise", etc... ?

Is it really still "worth" using film -apart from the pleasure of working in a real dark-room (!?!)- now that the "average" DSLR has more than 12 MP ?

TIA for your opinions...

Best,
J-P.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The debate over which is "better" is pretty much over. It's just what look you like best.

 

[petronius]

This question is very close to "Is photography art?":-(

 

[Merkin]

Very roughly, considering that one can't use the exact same lens on a 35mm. FILM camera and a full frame DSLR... what is the difference in dynamic range, "grain" or "noise", etc... ?

Is it really still "worth" using film -apart from the pleasure of working in a real dark-room (!?!)- now that the "average" DSLR has more than 12 MP ?

Depending on what DSLR brand you use, you certainly can use the exact same lenses on 35mm film cameras and full frame DSLRs, assuming you shoot either Nikon or EF mount Canon.

Both film and digital involve trade-offs. Film is still more forgiving of highlights than Digital, although sensors have certainly gotten better in that regard over the last few years. Digital allows for higher useable ISOs than film these days, however. You can also get higher quality LARGE prints out of digital than 35mm film these days. With digital, you are stuck with one sensor, but you have a wide variety of choices when it comes to film. With digital, you pay more up front, but with film, you pay more in the long run. Digital doesn't smell as good as film. With film, the process of making the print is as rewarding for many people as the final print. With digital, post-processing is a lot faster.

I have gone back and forth from film to digital to film and finally back to digital over the years, and I know I have made the right decision for me. There are plenty of others here and elsewhere who have flip flopped like I did and come to the conclusion that film is the right decision for them. At least at this point, I don't think that one is demonstrably better than the other. I wouldn't be surprised if, in another decade, digital becomes demonstrably better than film, but that is just speculation on my part.

 

[andrewteee]

It does come down to what you prefer or what you want to do. I love the look of film, and side by side with digital I almost always prefer a film image. But film and scanning require a good scanner and careful scanning! Would you be doing your own scanning? Relying on a lab can be inconsistent and you lose control over the scan. Doing it yourself takes time, a lot of time.

 

[JPS]

The debate over which is "better" is pretty much over. It's just what look you like best.

That's precisely what I would like to know:what are the differences, looked at on a monitor, between a "digital" shot and a "digitized" one ? I mean, when you scan your negative and go thru Photoshop, it becomes "digitized" IMHO ?

...so, what would be the difference (if there is one) in "grain" and highlightd/shadows rendering ?

;=)
J-P.

 

[JPS]

This question is very close to "Is photography art?":-(

Sorry... nothing to see with my questions ! ...I was talking about IQ !

;=)
J-P.

 

[kxl]

Among other variables, your "wet" darkroom skills (or the lab's) and your scanner (and scanning skills) come into play. As do your Photoshop skills and knowhow.

What seems ironic to me is the availability of Photoshop plug-ins that simulate film.

 

[Merkin]

That's precisely what I would like to know:what are the differences, looked at on a monitor, between a "digital" shot and a "digitized" one ? I mean, when you scan your negative and go thru Photoshop, it becomes "digitized" IMHO ?

...so, what would be the difference (if there is one) in "grain" and highlightd/shadows rendering ?

;=)
J-P.

Personally, I can get more shadow detail out of digital, but more highlight detail out of film. As far as grain goes, if you are scanning film, you have the grain you would have in the darkroom. There are ways to reduce and enhance it though. With digital, you can add film grain if you want, and some digital slr's high iso noise looks more like film grain than others. IMO, if you are solely shooting film to scan and manipulate/print digitally, you might as well shoot a digital camera. It is extremely easy to make digital images look nearly indistinguishable from film images as far as grain goes these days, down to being able to choose grain profiles of different films.

here is an example of a digital image I added film grain to in post: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deac0nb1ues/3908392792/in/set-72157622208779849/

 

[Turtle]

on a computer screen it would all depend on the skill of the person using PS and doing the scanning. If you are interested only in on screen images, shoot digital. There is no point in shooting film if your criteria are computer images.

 

[JPS]

Depending on what DSLR brand you use, you certainly can use the exact same lenses on 35mm film cameras and full frame DSLRs, assuming you shoot either Nikon or EF mount Canon.

Here's a constructive and interesting answer ! Wouldn't it be fun to compare two images, shot at the same place/time and NOT post-processed... of course, apart from converting from RAW to TIF and scanned the film image into TIF too !

Both film and digital involve trade-offs. Film is still more forgiving of highlights than Digital, although sensors have certainly gotten better in that regard over the last few years. Digital allows for higher useable ISOs than film these days, however. You can also get higher quality LARGE prints out of digital than 35mm film these days. With digital, you are stuck with one sensor, but you have a wide variety of choices when it comes to film. With digital, you pay more up front, but with film, you pay more in the long run. Digital doesn't smell as good as film. With film, the process of making the print is as rewarding for many people as the final print. With digital, post-processing is a lot faster.

Right ! That's what I thought ! In fact, it seems that using film, with all the "darkroom" processus involved, PLUS the post-process in a computer, is more a question of "fun" than an REAL gain in image quality, right ?

I have gone back and forth from film to digital to film and finally back to digital over the years, and I know I have made the right decision for me. There are plenty of others here and elsewhere who have flip flopped like I did and come to the conclusion that film is the right decision for them. At least at this point, I don't think that one is demonstrably better than the other. I wouldn't be surprised if, in another decade, digital becomes demonstrably better than film, but that is just speculation on my part.

Thanks a lot for answering !

Cheers,
J-P.

 

[mfogiel]

To make this simple: if you shoot colour, the reasons for using film are getting ever more scant. If you shoot B&W, the reasons for using digital are always scant.

 

[degruyl]

You can also get higher quality LARGE prints out of digital than 35mm film these days.

At least you said 35mm...

Medium format is a completely different story: without spending $45K, you are not getting the same thing digital as film.

I don't actually agree with this statement, I would rather say "you can get the same quality"... but that is just me.

High ISO quality, however, is much better in digital.

If you do B&W, however, there is no comparison between the look of Tri-X and the results of a digital transformation. Even with simulated grain.

Film, even scanned, looks different from digital. This is not a condemnation of either, just a statement about "grain" vs "pixels".

I think I might as well reiterate: use what you prefer.

 

[JPS]

Among other variables, your "wet" darkroom skills (or the lab's) and your scanner (and scanning skills) come into play. As do your Photoshop skills and knowhow.

You're right !

What seems ironic to me is the availability of Photoshop plug-ins that simulate film.

...only because the "film-makers" never thought of simulating DIGITAL, when they started it all, LOL !

;=¢
J-P.

 

[robinsonphotography]

When I compare something from my D700 vs. a scan from my coolscan 4000ED, it's not much of a contest....but that doesn't mean I don't love to shoot film because of the character it has, and the discreteness of an M2. But pure "technical" quality wise, I think the good 12 mp full frame dslr is gonna win every day of the week.

 

[Merkin]

Here's a constructive and interesting answer ! Wouldn't it be fun to compare two images, shot at the same place/time and NOT post-processed... of course, apart from converting from RAW to TIF and scanned the film image into TIF too !


Right ! That's what I thought ! In fact, it seems that using film, with all the "darkroom" processus involved, PLUS the post-process in a computer, is more a question of "fun" than an REAL gain in image quality, right ?


Thanks a lot for answering !

Cheers,
J-P.

I am of the opinion that post processing, both in the darkroom and in the computer, is an inseparable part of the photographic process. I believe in making any given image look as good as it is possible, whether that requires five seconds or five years. I do not think photoshopping is inherently evil, just like I don't think dodging and burning is inherently evil. You will find plenty of people out there that vehemently disagree with me on this, and I believe on getting it as right as possible in camera as much as the next guy, but the editing process is crucial to producing a great image. If anything, a fair test would be something like this in my eyes: Take a Nikon F5, and a Nikon D3. Both should use a 50mm f1.8 nikkor. Make the best possible 11x14 black and white print with each.

To me, the advantage of shooting 35mm black and white film is in making silver gelatin darkroom prints. The advantage of shooting digital is in the convenience and speed.

 

[crusius]

Sorry if the question has been asked before (I haven't found it with the SEARCH function) !

Very roughly, considering that one can't use the exact same lens on a 35mm. FILM camera and a full frame DSLR... what is the difference in dynamic range, "grain" or "noise", etc... ?

Is it really still "worth" using film -apart from the pleasure of working in a real dark-room (!?!)- now that the "average" DSLR has more than 12 MP ?

TIA for your opinions...

Best,
J-P.

This thread is going to go on forever, but here are the reasons I went digital completely, even without a full frame digital camera...

• Printing from film on a darkroom was too expensive and time-consuming, not to mention it is not completely trivial to repeat a print after a few days.
• Color printing on a darkroom is, sorry, a royal pain. So I got a scanner.
• Scanning negatives, for me, was way too time-consuming, not to mention very frustrating: dust, scratched negatives, etc. The files produced (around 40MP) were good, but very big and thus harder to process and store.
• Once I had a nice printing setup and a decent digital camera (canon 10D, 6MP), I realized that, up to 13x19, there was little to chose from each. 6MP can produce beautiful 13x19 prints. A 12MP can produce outstanding prints at that size.

At that point, gone was the film setup. Digital was easier and produced, for my intents and purposes, better image quality (less noise/grain, no dust, from smaller files) from more good images (because digital sets you free to take a picture without regard for "how many exposures left" and things like that). The workflow is so much better.

Once I got my R-D1 the SLR started to gather dust. I still keep it, but only for macro and other things. 13x19 prints from the R-D1 (again, 6MP) are hanging on many walls.

I got an M8 and will sell the R-D1 shortly. I do not think I could tell, with my workflow, the difference between a 13x19 print from M8 files and one from scanned medium format film. So now, for all my intents and purposes, I have a medium format camera in an M body.

Summary, then, of my experience: digital has won the IQ battle in both 35mm and medium format, and has won a long time ago. Inkjet printing has surpassed wet printing for my intents and purposes, especially with papers like the Harman Gloss. The Lightroom workflow is better and easier than the darkroom workflow. The whole thing is much better, on all aspects. And I don't even have a full frame camera. A 12MP modern camera will, in terms of image quality, be able to trounce 35mm film.

Of course, only you can decide, etc. A co-worker is still with film, both in 35mm and medium format, and just got a Bessa 4A and a Voigtlander 50/1.1. I showed him some of my 13x19 prints from the 6MP R-D1 and he concedes that the quality is better than what he can get in his darkroom from 35mm film. We'll see with the 10MP M8 and medium format, but I bet I'll win again. And he sees that. (And we're not competing: just comparing.) Still: he is not going digital. Why? Because he likes to work in a darkroom. He likes the process and, to him, the difference in IQ doesn't make up for it.

To each his own.

PS:

I think that this 6-year old article is still very relevant to this type of discussions:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Dynamic range is the only "problem" with digital, but a problem that is easily made up for from all its advantages.

 

[nobbylon]

i've been using my d700 a lot since purchase and also using the same lenses on my F100 film Nikon and comparing the same shots taken within seconds of each other. My take is that the image quality ie sharpness, colour and dynamic range is far easier to control than with film. The D700 pics are definately more detailed however in certain lighting situations you have to be carefull not to blow the highlights. It's easily corrected with an exposure correction and a bit of selective post process in NX2 though. The only situation so far where the film was so much nicer was with sunrise pics. With film the sun is a perfect round and crisp, with digital it's not and is probably just the sensor not coping with the range of light in the scene.
For me, the Nikon full frame wins by a mile over film when using the same lens. It's just so much more convenient.
I will also add though that in certain situations, my Leica pics do have something that the Nikon's don't. It's usually close quarter, shallow depth of field people pics and this probably has more to do with the Leica glass more than anything else. I've looked at Flickr for m8 and m9 digital but I would say that so far I haven't seen anything that would make me think that even with the Leica glass they are any better than the Nikon digital pics. Confusing I know and that's why I'm using d700 for most stuff but when I want a pic of say my kids that I look at and just think WOW, I pick up the M2 and the Summicrons, 35 or 50, doesn't matter, they just have something. I recently reviewed my Leica SLR pics and found myself thinking WOW too so maybe it's just a glass thing combined with the film. Anyone else got any thoughts?

 

[bwcolor]

Digital wins when time involved and ease of workflow are considered.

Which one looks better is up to your eye and your skills.

IMHO: Nothing that I can afford beats medium format (ie. Mamiya 7) at lower ISO.

Both will go on for a long time, but for the general public, digital will prevail.

So, why do you post this question? Have the answers changed what you will be doing in the future?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

At least you said 35mm...

Medium format is a completely different story: without spending $45K, you are not getting the same thing digital as film.

I don't actually agree with this statement, I would rather say "you can get the same quality"... but that is just me.

High ISO quality, however, is much better in digital.

If you do B&W, however, there is no comparison between the look of Tri-X and the results of a digital transformation. Even with simulated grain.

Film, even scanned, looks different from digital. This is not a condemnation of either, just a statement about "grain" vs "pixels".

I think I might as well reiterate: use what you prefer.

Right. Those are the points.

I have a strong tendency to film. Most of all talking about direct prints.

I have a print (from the 90s) from a Velvia shot of a small frog (less than an inch) and its feet fingers are amazingly sharp, and just haven't been able to print it again with that quality, not even after a drum scan of 100Mb or more. I think one of the main limits of digital imaging and printing is, also, the 300dpi thing... Fine art reproductions with higher dpi printing give another feeling.

Anyway, to go to the OP point, I think that if 100 of the best photogrphers in the world are asked to get involved in a project with no hurries at all, and with lots of money for it, most of them would go with film.

Then another factor comes: some people really don't know how to get the best from film... As someone said, with digital you get a shot and do a lot of things to make it better, and with film you must make a perfect original when you fire, and then do a lot of things trying not to lose all that beauty...