Bill Pierce
Well-known
It’s impossible to make direct comparisons between pixels and grain or even two different ways of interpreting color and brightness range, but most folks accept that current full frame and APS-C sensors at somewhere between 10 and 16 megapixels outperform 35mm film in sharpness and brightness range.
Is there a way for film to outperform these popular digitals? Go by an old 4x5 sheet film camera and some holders. Mount it on a tripod and stop the lens down until its performance peaks. An economical Epson 750 scanner working at 2400 dpi produces a color scan my Mac tells me is 591 mg. And with film of that size and proper sharpening in your imaging program, it is essentially impossible to tell the difference between that scan and a scan from my much more expensive Imacon. Once again, just counting megapixels from a scanned negative and comparing them to the megapixels of a digital camera is not really meaningful. But, believe me, when properly used, 4x5 film kicks butt and equals or perhaps even surpasses the 6 x 4.5 cm digital sensors.
My first “professional” camera was a 4x5 Speed Graphic. Washed cars and mowed lawn for one summer in high school to afford it. One just a bit newer along with some lenses that rarely find their way onto a Graphic sit in my studio and sometimes make it out into the daylight. Someday I’ll buy myself one of those medium format digitals, but for now I’m going with the old fashioned, but infinitely more affordable, solution. Your thoughts?
Is there a way for film to outperform these popular digitals? Go by an old 4x5 sheet film camera and some holders. Mount it on a tripod and stop the lens down until its performance peaks. An economical Epson 750 scanner working at 2400 dpi produces a color scan my Mac tells me is 591 mg. And with film of that size and proper sharpening in your imaging program, it is essentially impossible to tell the difference between that scan and a scan from my much more expensive Imacon. Once again, just counting megapixels from a scanned negative and comparing them to the megapixels of a digital camera is not really meaningful. But, believe me, when properly used, 4x5 film kicks butt and equals or perhaps even surpasses the 6 x 4.5 cm digital sensors.
My first “professional” camera was a 4x5 Speed Graphic. Washed cars and mowed lawn for one summer in high school to afford it. One just a bit newer along with some lenses that rarely find their way onto a Graphic sit in my studio and sometimes make it out into the daylight. Someday I’ll buy myself one of those medium format digitals, but for now I’m going with the old fashioned, but infinitely more affordable, solution. Your thoughts?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
While I can't really argue pixels and sharpness, I still like the tonal qualities I get out of black and white film. Looking for a Medalist with a decent lens for my "big negative" fix. I can scan the 6x9 negs in my Coolscan 9000 (the biggest size film negatives it can handle). Don't really have a way to scan 4 X 5.
A director of photography told me years ago, and I still think it applies these days, the reason he still shot on film (while the studios were pushing digital) is that film handled the huge dynamic range of life better than digital. Once an image was captured on film, and then scanned to be used for digital post production, the digital medium could handle the dynamic range of the film negative. So Huge Dynamic Range of Life -> Large Dynamic Range of Film -> More Limited Dynamic Range of Digital.
And again, I like film for the subtle tonal gradations that I get with it.
Best,
-Tim
A director of photography told me years ago, and I still think it applies these days, the reason he still shot on film (while the studios were pushing digital) is that film handled the huge dynamic range of life better than digital. Once an image was captured on film, and then scanned to be used for digital post production, the digital medium could handle the dynamic range of the film negative. So Huge Dynamic Range of Life -> Large Dynamic Range of Film -> More Limited Dynamic Range of Digital.
And again, I like film for the subtle tonal gradations that I get with it.
Best,
-Tim
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I've been shooting cameras with 120 film for quite a long time. The bulk of my photographic experience, which is almost 30 years. My recent go-to cameras are a pair of Mamiya 6 bodies. I got into the system because of the 50mm lens which is spectacular.
Over the last 15 years I've owned and shot a few 4x5 cameras, all Crown or Speed Graphics. One I turned into a severely modified 4x5 point & shoot with a 65mm Super Angulon hanging off the front.
Last year I took an old cigar box and put a laser etched .35mm pinhole on one side then fabbed up a way to stick standard film holders on the back. I've been taking some photos with it at The Woodlands Cemetery here in Philadelphia and the results are stunning. I don't have a scanner for large format yet but I built myself a little rig to digitize the negatives and hobble them with the capture range of a Nikon D300s. That said, the negatives themselves are outstanding. Even with the pinhole, little can touch it with regard to the sheer tonal gamut that 4x5 film has.
Even my old Type 55 and 57 polaroids had tonality that the Mamiya 6 can't match.
Now I recently got myself a "real" field camera for landscape use with 4x5 film and can't wait to make some huge negatives.
My next purchase is going to be a Microtek i900 scanner for the large format negs.
...and after that, a faster computer with 10TB of NAS storage...
So yes, the winner is certainly large format film.
Phil Forrest
Over the last 15 years I've owned and shot a few 4x5 cameras, all Crown or Speed Graphics. One I turned into a severely modified 4x5 point & shoot with a 65mm Super Angulon hanging off the front.
Last year I took an old cigar box and put a laser etched .35mm pinhole on one side then fabbed up a way to stick standard film holders on the back. I've been taking some photos with it at The Woodlands Cemetery here in Philadelphia and the results are stunning. I don't have a scanner for large format yet but I built myself a little rig to digitize the negatives and hobble them with the capture range of a Nikon D300s. That said, the negatives themselves are outstanding. Even with the pinhole, little can touch it with regard to the sheer tonal gamut that 4x5 film has.
Even my old Type 55 and 57 polaroids had tonality that the Mamiya 6 can't match.
Now I recently got myself a "real" field camera for landscape use with 4x5 film and can't wait to make some huge negatives.
My next purchase is going to be a Microtek i900 scanner for the large format negs.
...and after that, a faster computer with 10TB of NAS storage...
So yes, the winner is certainly large format film.
Phil Forrest
dmr
Registered Abuser
Of course.
I KNOW that medium format is higher-definition than 35mm (or close to) digital or film cameras. The largest I have is a Yashica TLR and I know it is capable of stunning resolution.
However, for convenience (and what I'm simply used to) the 35mms and the digitals are the ones I carry and use regularly.
Ranchu
Veteran
Digital certainly does not outperform film in 'brightness range'. My thoughts are because of that, film is superior as a photographic medium.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Over the years this has changed. From an ariticle in Petapixel -
"Most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range. Today’s modern digital cameras all average around 14 stops of dynamic range, with high-end units such as the Nikon D810 reaching almost 15 stops. Film continuous to deliver incredible dynamic range, but today’s digital technology can easy match it."
And
Tests conducted by Roger N. Clark, showed that high-end digital cameras in 2005 began to show “huge dynamic range compared to [scans of] either print or slide film”. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#dynamic_range
gavinlg
Veteran
I honestly don't think digital matches film in resolution or dynamic range. 35mm film vs full frame, there's not a chance in hell of digital cameras matching the dynamic range on offer from film in a natural way. Shoot a roll of 400h or portrait 400 5 stops overexposed and you'll still get details in the highlights and creamy correct skin tones, albeit more pastel. Digital 5 stops over is a white frame. Sure you can boost the hell out of shadows, but without exception it looks unnatural and garish.
Ranchu
Veteran
Hype. Digital can only record a 1 to 1 ratio of the scene contrast to the contrast recorded, c41 records .7 stop difference on film for every 1 stop difference in the scene. Then an s curve is added to the digital file so it looks decent, increasing the midtone contrast from 1:1, while the film has the s curve built in, giving more tone compression in the highlights/shadows and keeping the .7:1 ratio in the midtones.
benlees
Well-known
In terms of tactile experience and value, MF film (cameras) is (are) hard to be beat- provided there is restraint in the number of frames exposed. For the dilettante, then.
In terms of quality I would say digital surpassed 35mm awhile a go, whatever that might mean. That might mean you have to be a photoshop master, or not. Get it right the first time will always be, well, timeless... You can print any size from almost any medium. It is simply up to you; there are, actually, no rules.
Film now, marketing wise, offers a "new" experience, a "new" look. It is quite interesting.
In terms of quality I would say digital surpassed 35mm awhile a go, whatever that might mean. That might mean you have to be a photoshop master, or not. Get it right the first time will always be, well, timeless... You can print any size from almost any medium. It is simply up to you; there are, actually, no rules.
Film now, marketing wise, offers a "new" experience, a "new" look. It is quite interesting.
CMur12
Veteran
I would like to ask a question that I think relates to the original intent of this thread. (Note that I still have no personal experience with digital.)
When I read about larger digital formats and higher capacity, I read about more megapixels/more data/more detail/larger files.
In the case of film, larger format means more detail/less grain/better tonality.
In discussions of larger digital formats, I don't see reference to improved tonality. Why is that? (Have I just missed it in the conversation or is there no significant improvement in digital tonality with more pixels or larger sensors?
Thanks -
- Murray
When I read about larger digital formats and higher capacity, I read about more megapixels/more data/more detail/larger files.
In the case of film, larger format means more detail/less grain/better tonality.
In discussions of larger digital formats, I don't see reference to improved tonality. Why is that? (Have I just missed it in the conversation or is there no significant improvement in digital tonality with more pixels or larger sensors?
Thanks -
- Murray
Freakscene
Obscure member
That assumes colour film and no dodging and burning of the film image. The difference is that those ~14 stops in your digital image is all there is. Below, pure black, above, pure white. In a film image the part of the density curve you can get into a print might only be 12 stops, but there is a huge amount of information either side that that which you can squeeze into the final image by a variety of methods.
There is also the question of how the recording medium shows the transition from the brightest recordable details to pure white, and from the darkest recordable details to pure black. This still tends to look uglier and more of an abrupt change in digital but more smoothly transitional on film.
But the noise and sharpness is miles ahead with digital, and the available speed is incomparable. I miss how Plus-X with a yellow filter looks, but I don't miss shooting it, especially in marginal light.
Marty
Richard G
Veteran
The Leica Monochrom.
Kevcaster
Well-known
Hang up your boots
Hang up your boots
This forum continues to be the home of some of the best discussions in photography and never fails to provoke thought and debate, bravo to those who contribute. Here are some of my thoughts.
Digital quality and convenience has won in almost all but a few esoteric applications. It strikes me that users at both ends of the photography spectrum, full time professionals at one end and consumers (who may not identify themselves as photographers) at the other, have embraced digital completely. Why would they change from that position? The sheer convenience, the immediate feedback and the facility for instant sharing and distribution trumps film in every way possible, even if there was still a case for higher quality images from film - and there is not a case for this.
Film still offers an alternative medium with special qualities other than sharpness and tonal range in the same way that painter might choose Goache or Acrylic paints for certain subjects. If artistic vision stretches to the use of the special qualities then, as many of you have one or two, the film camera can do the job and produce wonderful, sharp, tonally satisfying images that, additionally, play on the nostalgic and romantic senses of the viewer. Some professionals can exploit these qualities for some assignments and projects, again this choice is unlikely to be based on the search for sharper or tonally dynamic images.
If we consider those who identify themselves as photographers, not professionals, and are still practicing their craft with film then the picture is quite different. In this group the motivations for using film might include many other factors in addition to the search for the sharpest image or dynamic tonal quality. The romance, nostalgia, the craft, making something, the relationship with their machines, the challenges, the tactile result; all of these factors may outweigh their interests in pure image quality measured in pixels and LPM.
I belong to this group and in the game that played out between film and digital for image quality, I hung up my boots a long time ago and abandoned digital.
Good pictures are good pictures whatever the medium, some are sharper than others and some cope better with that black doorway in the desert sun.
Kevin
Hang up your boots
This forum continues to be the home of some of the best discussions in photography and never fails to provoke thought and debate, bravo to those who contribute. Here are some of my thoughts.
Digital quality and convenience has won in almost all but a few esoteric applications. It strikes me that users at both ends of the photography spectrum, full time professionals at one end and consumers (who may not identify themselves as photographers) at the other, have embraced digital completely. Why would they change from that position? The sheer convenience, the immediate feedback and the facility for instant sharing and distribution trumps film in every way possible, even if there was still a case for higher quality images from film - and there is not a case for this.
Film still offers an alternative medium with special qualities other than sharpness and tonal range in the same way that painter might choose Goache or Acrylic paints for certain subjects. If artistic vision stretches to the use of the special qualities then, as many of you have one or two, the film camera can do the job and produce wonderful, sharp, tonally satisfying images that, additionally, play on the nostalgic and romantic senses of the viewer. Some professionals can exploit these qualities for some assignments and projects, again this choice is unlikely to be based on the search for sharper or tonally dynamic images.
If we consider those who identify themselves as photographers, not professionals, and are still practicing their craft with film then the picture is quite different. In this group the motivations for using film might include many other factors in addition to the search for the sharpest image or dynamic tonal quality. The romance, nostalgia, the craft, making something, the relationship with their machines, the challenges, the tactile result; all of these factors may outweigh their interests in pure image quality measured in pixels and LPM.
I belong to this group and in the game that played out between film and digital for image quality, I hung up my boots a long time ago and abandoned digital.
Good pictures are good pictures whatever the medium, some are sharper than others and some cope better with that black doorway in the desert sun.
Kevin
willie_901
Veteran
As far as I can tell, for rather large prints large format film is the way to go.
A corollary would be 135 format film has no advantage for normal sized prints. From an objective point of view (in other words... show me the data) right now many still 135 format and even APS-C format digital cameras outperform film in every way. Years ago I bristled at a simple fact. In skilled hands a raw file can be rendered and printed to have the same aesthetic as an 100% analog 135 format photograph. But that's the way it is. The reverse is not true.
Subjective preferences for film and for using cameras that use film are authentic. Happiness in photography is more important than objective differences in media performance.
The thing is – subjectivity also includes the possibility of a preference for digital imaging. A preference for digital imaging is tainted by its convenience. But scanning film media can be convenient as well.
A corollary would be 135 format film has no advantage for normal sized prints. From an objective point of view (in other words... show me the data) right now many still 135 format and even APS-C format digital cameras outperform film in every way. Years ago I bristled at a simple fact. In skilled hands a raw file can be rendered and printed to have the same aesthetic as an 100% analog 135 format photograph. But that's the way it is. The reverse is not true.
Subjective preferences for film and for using cameras that use film are authentic. Happiness in photography is more important than objective differences in media performance.
The thing is – subjectivity also includes the possibility of a preference for digital imaging. A preference for digital imaging is tainted by its convenience. But scanning film media can be convenient as well.
charjohncarter
Veteran
My problem, with the 14 trillion photos taken with digital, is I still haven't found anybody that I like that is shooting digital. I use to like Martin Parr but now his stuff just looks like my brother took it. Any suggestions? Where are the AAs, HBCs, Man Rays, James Ravilious(es).
maggieo
More Deadly
IME, film has more range in the highlights and digital in the shadows.
Digital can't bring out the detail in these flames:
Bathtub, Minneapolis, MN, 1987 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Digital can't bring out the detail in these flames:
Bathtub, Minneapolis, MN, 1987 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Maggie is right. You can not overexpose digital highlights. In a sense, digital is like transparency film. And digital is certainly good at holding shadow detail when compared to silver prints. Whenever we have threads like this, there is always the comment that digital black-and-white images don’t look the same as silver. That’s usually true if you simply set levels and contrast. Both silver negatives and the silver enlarging paper have curves. Most digital programs will allow you to create curves the mimic this, but it takes experimentation, a lot of test prints and throwing away some of the precious shadow detail that digital images can hold. But you can reach the point where photo friends will look at prints and ask is that digital or silver.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Marty
Maggie - not so sure that digital cannot bring out sufficient highlight details, even when shooting directly into bright sunlight...
Leica M10 | Summicron 35v4 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/180 sec
Paris
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Leica M10 | Summicron 35v4 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/180 sec
Paris
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine