digital and film, what differences in quality?

[aniMal]

I just wonder what you people out there think about the qualites of digital versus film.

I am NOT thinking in terms of handiness or economy, but purely in terms of quality. Also I am interested in colour film only.

I use an M8 a lot these days, and sometimes Nikon D200/300.

I also tend to put some sensia 100/200 through my R2A with the same optics as on the M8.

Often people claim that the amount of information in a 135mm frame amounts to maximum 12 megapixels. With the M8 however, I get VERY sharp files that I can easily interpolate up to somewhere around 15-16 megapixels. And also with some combinations of film & optics, I feel that a scanned chrome with 13 megapixels would lose some of the information if scanned at lower resolution.

At the time being I use an epson scanner, and I also believe that film would give me the option of later on scanning with a high-end scanner for better quality.

The other main issue is colour rendering and contrast of course. I feel a bit insecure on this actually, maybe I should do some practical tests... Anyway, there seems to be a downside with film in terms of contrast, at least with slides. The jobs I do on digital seem to be able to take a lot of tweaking of the shades whereas on film there is more of a definite threshold.

I also wonder if there is a point in terms of colours, is using film and scanning 16 bit superior to say a raw image from the M8?

It seems to me to be a complex matter, and of course it varies a lot with what gear one is using and what expression is intended...

So, when I find that perfect scene which I later on might make a project or exhib out of, should I go digital or film?

 

[minoltist7]

It depends from what you mean by "quality"? sharpness, contrast, tones ? it's very subjective, and depends from the application.
I was today on nature photography master class. and our teacher said - I prefer digital for macro/birds/animals photography , but film (slide) for landscapes. Film renders subtle tone changes in more gentle way, creating more pleasant tonal perspective in lanscapes. On the contrary, digital photo has better local contrast and sharpness, which is good for depicting fine texture of animal or bird's exterior (feather, hair, scales, etc).

 

[aniMal]

You are right I think... Just working on some slides from Budapest now - and although all scans need sharpening to approach a digital file, they still seem to lack a little in the respects that you mention.

The M8 seems to be very good on microcontrast, and the prints I get from it are just great in that respect.

I agree with it being subjective, especially when it comes to tone and colours.

Also I guess these things depend a lot on the optics used - both good film and digital take the most out of a lens in terms of resolution I guess...

 

[Steve Bellayr]

I was on the site www.cambridgeincolour.com and reading essays on digital sensors. Some of the issues with digital v. film have to do with the size & quality of the sensor in the digital camera as v. the quality of the lens/films in the film camera...at least that is my take. I'll probably need to reread the information at a later date and analyze it more carefully. Certainly, the 10 megapixels in a point & shoot camera are not the same as the ones in a Leica M8.

 

[aniMal]

Yes - the pixelsize is bigger than in a point-and-shoot.

Never thought of it actually, but the 1.33 crop factor on the Leica proves that I could get better resolution on film theoretically. On average I think the results after postproduction are sharper with the M8 than on film - although the area catching the image is smaller...

I think I know some tricks on sharpening in post, which helps a lot - but there is more work getting a scan to look sharp and fresh than with digital.

Which is another reason for going digital with clinical and vivid work - and film when its about tonality and colour?

 

[Ronald M]

They are so close today. I still like my film cameras and have not sold any. They do not see the use they used to see.

 

[aniMal]

I have picked up a lot of secondhand film gear lately, at a fraction of the price I would have to pay a few years ago...

(Sometimes I use Mamiya RB67 on film, which beats the hell out of any digital camera in an affordable price range... But that is another thing altogether, as the format is something like 5 times bigger)

It is also my impression that film & digital is very close now, and that it would perhaps be natural to choose medium according to what expression I want.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

why are people so intent on this rote discussion. who cares which is better? some people want to use a film camera. other people want to use a video camera. the end. digital cameras could take a huge leap backwards in evolution and people would still use them based upon economy, convenience and the work flow they've established for themselves. One format is really easy, the other isnt. This attracts different personality types. Many of the people using video cameras are not using them because they want to but using them because producers are demanding it. whatever. This debate is always missing too many of the extraneous factors that enter into someone's decision to use a camera as if its based on pixel or grain in a vaccum.

People should just be concerned with what looks cool and what fits their business model. An F16 is way the hell better than a DC10 but the impracticality of the situation demands I fly coach. If you guys can believe it, I dont even bum out about it...

 

[aniMal]

Well... Maybe I was not clear when asking - for me quality here has got to do with the final result.

I fully agree that it is what looks good that works - and for me that means sharp pictures. I just cannot get myself to work with soft focus, so that is just the way it is.... Which for me brings up things like microcontrast and resolution of a scanned image.

For my paid work, I never use film any more - there is just not the time or money for doing so. But when it comes to private work and projects, I simply feel better when using film - and I also enjoy keeping up the things I learnt from working on film for years before digital came around.

For me the main thing is getting more conscious of what the differences are, and then choose medium according to what I want the end result to look like.

 

[Al Patterson]

Neither is "better" or "worse", it's a preference thing. For Black and White I prefer to use Tri-X, and yes I can use software to get that "look" in digital, but I prefer not to.

 

[aniMal]

Hmmm... I must admit that I have written in other threads that all genres and modes of photography are by now established, and that one has to choose from them & work with them as one wants.

So, it is a choice, and when really a luxury!

My girlfriend is from Budapest, and I realized that I have never taken a digital camera when going there... Something to do with wanting to relax I believe, no money-job, no stress, and no expensive equipment that might break down or needs a backup of the card...

Feels like it will be a pure film-trip the next time as well!

 

[JTK]

I'm currently learning DSLR with a K20D Pentax, 14.6mp and prime lenses.

I'm good at scanning (CV, Canon, and Leica lenses) with Nikon @4000ppi, print all my own.

The Pentax will record at least as much detail...far more than film at 1600ei or 3200 and without nearly as much distracting noise as grain or dye clouds cause in many situations with 35 film at those speeds. In other words, 1600 and 3200 are fully useful with K20D . 1600 is attractive in some circumstances with film, but 3200 virtually never is, and film never has shadow detail to rival K20D at those speeds.

At 800ei B&W and color neg, things are more or less equal, with film seeming more sensual and attractively gritty, digital seeming cleaner, more crisp. Fuji Astia, because it's infinitely subtle, may beat digital in some evenly lit situations. Digital primes are probably better than film primes in terms of sharpness.

 

[sepiareverb]

Well after a long day spent shooting an M8 and looking at some files I'll say that they seem to lack something compared to my film images- not very scientific- I'm looking at screen images vs scans from prints. My gut tells me that it is the regularity of pixels vs the more variable look of grain that draws me to the film images. With careful work I can get prints of 16x20 from my 35mm films that I like the look of. I don't need to go bigger, so film works for me. I like the process of film better as well, so I'm happy where I am.

 

[hjfischer]

One question I have is how similar enlargements made from film and digital images compare; or how many mp's of resolution are necessary for a digital cam to equal a similar film camera using comparable lens? For instance, take a cropped 35mm negative, enlarge to ,say, 13 X 19 and compare with the same cropped, enlarged image taken with a 10mp digital cam. If anyone has done this what were the results?

 

[pachuco]

This is a very personal issue. The only thing I can say about color film is that I have not seen anything digital that can touch Velvia.........when seen as a slide. Once scanned it all goes to hell for me. Digital seems to have an advantage when it comes to color images viewed on a screen. Now, if you are talking B&W.... that is a different story.

 

[pvdhaar]

Digital is better for shooting brick walls!

And no, this time I'm not kidding. Seriously. I find that when the image contains bold lines and well demarkated rectangluar objects or very regular textures, then digital camera processing knows how to pull this out very well. Especially when the lines are completely aligned or at a sufficient angle away from the arrray on the sensor. Another thing digital is good at is colour consistency. Shoot something once and a year later, and the colours match 100%. Impossible with film.

But when it comes to shooting irregular patterns, at odd angles (e.g. grass), then the random distribution of the grain in film wins. No interference patterns, no artifacts, no mushing, no sharp resolution fall-off, no nothing. And of course there's the much better dynamic range, and non-linear response that avoids blowing out highlights.

 

[pinafore2]

A couple of interesting links you could check out:

http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm#

 

[mfogiel]

For me, digital is so good in colour, that unless you shoot MF or LF, it is just pointless to use film. In B&W it is the opposite - unless you want very contrasty shots, the digital lacks completely the tonality of good film. The other question is the effective DR - you can do HDR with digital, but hardly with a single shot, while film, especially B&W can give you a wider range, plus with good, compensating development, your highlights hardly ever get totally blown out. The important thing with film though, is careful development, good scanning technique, and abov all, the best scanner you can afford - if you use a flatbed, you should only shoot 4x5 or larger.

 

[2XLX2]

... And of course there's the much better dynamic range, and non-linear response that avoids blowing out highlights.

could you please elaborate this for [us] newbies?

also, one more question: does scanning lessen film's DR advantage any way?

thanks

 

[minoltist7]

Feels like it will be a pure film-trip the next time as well!

+1
When I was in Krakow(Poland) for a long business trip, I took only 2 film cameras with me. Because I didn't want to mess with backing up my flash cards to the hard disk very often. I shot only 5 rolls of film, but more valuable (for myself) then 6000+ digital pictures. Digital provokes me to make lot of crappy and unnecessary shots , because it seems "endless" .