sper
Well-known
This is an ultimately silly comparison but I couldn't resist. I know very well how many flaws there are here, but lets do this anyways!
In the Digital Corner: Nikon D3X and Carl Zeiss ZF 85mm Planar 1.4 (all images shot at 2.8).
In the Ektar Corner: Bessa R4A, Ektar 100, Voigtlander 50mm 1.5 & Leica 28mm 2.8 Elmarit (pre-asph), Nikon Coolscan V.
The ref: Aperture 3.
Nikon/Zeiss vs Voigtlander 50mm Nokton
100%
Nikon/Zeiss vs Leica 28mm 2.8
100%
My thoughts: Digital and film are different. Big surprise. Digital is 'smoother' than film, film has grain. A digital file on screen will also always be sharper than a scan. However our most modern high resolution film clearly as similar resolving power to a 24.whatever megapixel sensor and a class leading Zeiss lens. Plus my darkroom C-print of the first image looks way better than the scan. It's also important to remember that beyond a 13x20 inch print you have to up res the D3X, where as the negative will hold up far better under extreme enlargement.
In the end it makes me excited to know I'm not really missing anything by sticking with my Voigtlander rangefinder, and Voigtlander lenses.
In the Digital Corner: Nikon D3X and Carl Zeiss ZF 85mm Planar 1.4 (all images shot at 2.8).
In the Ektar Corner: Bessa R4A, Ektar 100, Voigtlander 50mm 1.5 & Leica 28mm 2.8 Elmarit (pre-asph), Nikon Coolscan V.
The ref: Aperture 3.
Nikon/Zeiss vs Voigtlander 50mm Nokton
100%
Nikon/Zeiss vs Leica 28mm 2.8
100%
My thoughts: Digital and film are different. Big surprise. Digital is 'smoother' than film, film has grain. A digital file on screen will also always be sharper than a scan. However our most modern high resolution film clearly as similar resolving power to a 24.whatever megapixel sensor and a class leading Zeiss lens. Plus my darkroom C-print of the first image looks way better than the scan. It's also important to remember that beyond a 13x20 inch print you have to up res the D3X, where as the negative will hold up far better under extreme enlargement.
In the end it makes me excited to know I'm not really missing anything by sticking with my Voigtlander rangefinder, and Voigtlander lenses.
Fujitsu
Well-known
Skin tones look worlds better on film. I dont care about resolution. I care about color.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
auto color temperature sucks in digital. not sure how it was measured on film but indoor and low night are no-go for me.
sper
Well-known
These D3X images show bad color because of a mix of tungsten and florescent lighting, and I didn't really correct the color too much in Aperture. I'm sure that with more patients you could get closer to the saturation and contrast of the Ektar. Film has innate character right out of the box. A digital image must be adjusted from it's capture to look good. There are advantages and disadvantages there.
Last edited:
historicist
Well-known
Wow, that D3X has got a crazy amount of resolution, but the film just looks good - despite losing by a mile in objective terms.
Like a record sounding as good as a CD, there's so many reasons why it shouldn't, but it can.
Like a record sounding as good as a CD, there's so many reasons why it shouldn't, but it can.
nikku
Well-known
You've just summed up in two sentences why I still shoot film. Because I'm too lazy to spend hours in front of a computer screen trying to adjust a raw capture to get it to look like my favorite film. I'd rather just shoot my favorite film.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
That's why I prefer film....color and skin tones right.....right out of the box. The amount of work that goes into making digital images of a wedding have good skintones is crazy compared to my Fuji 400H and 160S right from the scan.
In resolution, it's obvious the D3X wins here....but not by very much. Now, where is that Luminous Landscape article about the 3mp Canon D30 beating 35mm Provia on an Imacon?
In resolution, it's obvious the D3X wins here....but not by very much. Now, where is that Luminous Landscape article about the 3mp Canon D30 beating 35mm Provia on an Imacon?
sper
Well-known
I don't know what those Luminous Landscape guys are smoking. Their articles are so bad.
I prefer film because now I have both a high res file to do with as I please, and I lovely little negative sitting in my catalogue. I trust film to last, and it gives me the most options. I don't believe digital files made today will survive the rapidly advancing technology, though I love what my D700 can do.
I prefer film because now I have both a high res file to do with as I please, and I lovely little negative sitting in my catalogue. I trust film to last, and it gives me the most options. I don't believe digital files made today will survive the rapidly advancing technology, though I love what my D700 can do.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
I love my D700 for low light, high ISO indoor work, but when shooting out and about in decent light, I prefer film in most cases.
sig
Well-known
Off topic, but thanks for making me smile. I would love to see some reasons for why digital files made today will not survive the rapidly advancing technology....:angel:
sper
Well-known
Sure, whats the stable medium? Hard drives: No. CDs/DVDs: No. Where are they going to be stored? How long will our current Inputs/outputs even be viable were a hard drive to somehow last 20, 30, 40+ years? Will ANY piece of software know what a TIFF is at that time? Or how about a CR2 or NEF for that matter? And I'm not even going to mention catastrophe's because film isn't invincible...however my negatives don't disappear if they get too close to a magnet...or the house gets struck by lightning.
How many non photographers do you know that are rigorous with their digital archiving? All those baby photos saved as jpgs from a Coolpix in iPhoto...where are they going to be when that kid graduates from College, or has a kid of his own?
Digital prints are archival yes, but we know we don't print everything.
How about you tell me one way all my raw images ARE archival? The only way to save them at this point is to frequently update the format they're saved in and the medium they're saved on, which is fine for a few thousand images. But when considering a photographer's entire back catalog that practice gets ridiculous. I didn't re-do my video collection to dvd, and I'm not in the process of replacing my dvds with Blu-Rays. I don't even know where I could play an audio cassette tape. At least we still have vinyl...
All I'm saying is with film you get a digital picture and a tangible original. With digital you get a file type and a maybe.
How many non photographers do you know that are rigorous with their digital archiving? All those baby photos saved as jpgs from a Coolpix in iPhoto...where are they going to be when that kid graduates from College, or has a kid of his own?
Digital prints are archival yes, but we know we don't print everything.
How about you tell me one way all my raw images ARE archival? The only way to save them at this point is to frequently update the format they're saved in and the medium they're saved on, which is fine for a few thousand images. But when considering a photographer's entire back catalog that practice gets ridiculous. I didn't re-do my video collection to dvd, and I'm not in the process of replacing my dvds with Blu-Rays. I don't even know where I could play an audio cassette tape. At least we still have vinyl...
All I'm saying is with film you get a digital picture and a tangible original. With digital you get a file type and a maybe.
sanmich
Veteran
A lip contest??
sig
Well-known
Google 'backup' and I am pretty sure you will get some good 'how to'.
Also call your bank manager, your payroll officer, the IT department in your company (I assume these are non-photographers). Ask if they take backup.
All file formats we have today have a specification on how to read them and display the result. That is what is used when creating software that can use the file formats.
Anyways, if you do not trust digital storage and the possibility to read a file format in the future that is OK. Not very informed but OK. There are a lot of better arguments for film (personally I use 'I like it' and that is good enough for me).
katgut@earthlink.net
Established
You're not comparing the same photo. How can anyone possibly judge?
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Proves definitely that I need to get some Ektar and a better scanner. I am tired of cheaply made Nikon digital cameras. Replaced a dead D70 - only shot upside down, with an Olympus OM1n. I can use it at any angle!
Now for the Ektar...
Now for the Ektar...
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
sig
Well-known
I have a negative that melted.... if you store your negatives/digital files correctly you can use them later. Anyways, my intention was not to make this into a negatives vs digital storage tread, please continue to discuss the digital nikon vs the scanned file.
And if I have offended anybody, Sorry.
user237428934
User deletion pending
This is my thought too. And I thing you made it quite complicated to see which photo was taken with which equipment.
user237428934
User deletion pending
My wife being in bank IT, I can at least tell you what major international banks do regarding the mandatory backup of long term data: They send their data (via network, on tape or DVD) to a service who prints it to microfilm.
Sevo
That's because they didn't invest in a modern IT solution I suppose. I don't know any regulatory requirement for a bank for backup on microfilm or for data storage longer than 10 years.