Rockwell: Digital Delivers Better Pix To Most People

W

wgerrard

Veteran
Local time
5:35 AM
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
2,451
View My Gallery
In a post today about the merits of film and digital, Mr. Rockwell, linking to Mr. Puts, says something I think is very interesting:

...with digital, the good news is that everyone pretty much gets the performance of which the system is capable. With film, you have to be good to wring it out to it's maximum potential. Every little misalignment with film degrades the image... That's why most people get better results most of the time with digital capture, but if you know what you're doing, you can go beyond on film, especially with color.

I think this has merit, but not necessarily because of any inherent advantages of a digital sensor over a piece of film. Digital cameras invariably are outfitted with all kinds of automation enabling the camera to determine aperture, lens speed, ISO, etc. The film cameras typically used around here don't do any of those things. The Average Guy very likely is not as good as a software program at determining a proper exposure.

Maybe a better comparison would be between a contemporary digital SLR and a highly automated film camera, like the Nikon F6.

Discuss and debate. It'll be on the test.
 
If you read Putt’s article before commenting on Krazy Ken it might make a bit more sense...

Putts M7 - M9 comparison


I like Krazy Ken for his wild statements he comes out with, sometimes though he has some interesting things to say.

As for this, yes there is more resolution on the Spur Ortho film and as a film lover I’d like to say that “once again film show’s it’s still better than digital” but in reality very few people require that degree of detail or resolution and that the convenience of digital will win over film just like the convenience of a CD beat the L.P. The L.P. Sounds better but we all got sick off getting off the sofa to flip the disk. So, I’ll say ‘interesting’ and no more than that.
 
Well, yeah, Pickett. 🙂

But, is that because a digital sensor is inherently more capable than film, or is it because a digital camera, apart from the sensor, is more capable than a typical film camera?
 
It's the weekend, I'm going outside before everyone starts trying to compare Apples and Oranges. Because I like Apples, not to fond of Oranges however, though strangely I've never bashed or insulted a person for liking them.
 
Awww, I am digging Ken these days. He seems to have become quite enamored with M mount glass, and he's doing nice write ups. Although he tends to really go down the slide/chrome preference path, especially with his not subtle gushing love for Velvia 50. I wish he would get into the nuances of Portra, or Fuji/Agfa negative B&W. I liked his write up on the fabled unicorn - Nikon ultra wide 13mm 5.6 AI. I don't mind Ken, I check his site daily.
 
Rockwell spaketh thus:
With film, you have to be good to wring it out to it's maximum potential. Every little misalignment with film degrades the image...
Click to expand...
I agree, plus I would add "you and the person developing your film have to be good."

In recent years, it seems that the weakest link are the dullards who have the opportunity to botch the processing in some respect.
 
Well, I really wasn't trying to start another boring film vs. digital fuss (honest), but do want to suggest that the real comparison is not so much between film and digital sensors as it is between the level of automation in a typical digital camera and the typical film camera, at least as used by folks here.

As Rockwell says, you probably need more skill to get a great shot with a film camera than a digital, but I question if that is due to any inherent characteristic of the film and the sensor, or, instead, to the film camera's lack of automation?. I think it's the latter.

In other words, swap the sensor for film in any popular DSLR, and -- ignoring the effect of using different films with different characteristics and the development process -- the quality of the photos would not change. Conversely, give a person used to a fully automated DSLR a camera like an RD-1 and they'd likely take poorer pictures until they figured out how to handle manual focus, manual aperture, etc.

It's not so much, then, the "digitalness" or the "filmness" of the medium that records the image as it is the automated tools packed into the typical digital.
 
Wow, Ken Rockwell (almost) agrees with Michael Reichmann🙂

As for comparing microfilm with an M9 - it's a nonsense really - for most of the people most of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom