CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I know it's a hijack, CK,
but The Philadelphia Story
is my all-time favorite movie
and so I smile every time I
see a post from you.
Sanders
And, i smile every time i see a photo from You.
The Philadelphia Story may be my Second favorite. I think i prefer Bringing Up Baby.... But, it's close!
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
It can and it has.
It can and it has.
Now, I still prefer the look of film to most of what *I* can do with digital, but look around you and you may notice that only a relatively small group of dedicated hobbiests and a few pros still use film. I've been on trips where I was the only person shooting film, out of 50 or so attendees. YMMV og course.
And I'll bet that most of us on RFF agree and prefer film to digital, but most of us have digital cameras also.
It can and it has.
Now, I still prefer the look of film to most of what *I* can do with digital, but look around you and you may notice that only a relatively small group of dedicated hobbiests and a few pros still use film. I've been on trips where I was the only person shooting film, out of 50 or so attendees. YMMV og course.
And I'll bet that most of us on RFF agree and prefer film to digital, but most of us have digital cameras also.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Because digital is cheaper, faster, more predictable, more repeatable, easier to manipulate, easier to store, easier to duplicate, and it lets me correct mistakes or benefit from my own inspiration on the spot....
That makes it seem like i prefer digital. In fact, the opposite is true. Film has got to be pretty special to overcome 'digital's advantages.'
pesphoto
Veteran
He's probably right ....only because nowadays the masses are told that grainless pictures are better pictures.:bang: And they dont know any better.
retro
Well-known
^ Both film and digital images can appear "grainless" or "grainy."
I doubt that the average person would pick one over the other if they
were all well done pics.
I doubt that the average person would pick one over the other if they
were all well done pics.
40oz
...
I think it's funny that a person starts a thread to say he likes his film shots better than his digital shots, and is suddenly buried by people working way to hard to justify their own choice to forgo film in favor of digital processing.
For starters, the film shot is a simple scan as far as I can tell from the posts. The digital capture has been manipulated to appear relatively comparable. More than one poster has re-processed the digital capture in an effort to prove that the digital capture is better, "if done right." Seems to me that digital takes more effort than film, if one has to try multiple times to come up with something that can compete with a simple scan of a frame of 35mm film.
And IMHO, the digital shots look worse because the white in the image over-powers the other tones. Even in color, the shot looks softer, with very little between bright and dark. Shaded areas quickly turn to black, while the film shot retains a gradual progression of tones without losing detail.
The argument that it isn't fair to compare a scan and a digital capture might be true, but all that means is a straight scan of a half-way decent film shot gives better results than a resized digital capture.
And the argument that "99 out of a 100 people would prefer the digital shot" is a load of BS, as if the random masses ever agree across the board on ANYTHING. I also think it's telling that the people who prefer the digital shot do so while suggesting it could be "fixed" to be even better, but don't think the film shot needs any work at all. Makes me laugh at the silliness people go through to justify their choice while denying the reality in their face. I mean, if the digital shot needed work to compete with the film scan, wouldn't that make it inferior to start with? I mean, it seems simple logic to me, but what do I know?
Don't get me wrong - I agree with another poster that there is room in the world for both film and digital. They are two different things that do not compete. But for the love of Pete, please don't bend over backwards attempting to argue that an infant technology somehow is better, cheaper, and more convenient when there is no dispute that a digital shot needs work before it can match a plain film scan. It's just embarassing to read.
Nice picture BTW, Nh3. I like the film shot for a lot of reasons, some of which reflect the inherent technical superiority of film. Let all the haters brood, and keep sharing. It at least gives them something to do with their computers when they aren't post-processing
For starters, the film shot is a simple scan as far as I can tell from the posts. The digital capture has been manipulated to appear relatively comparable. More than one poster has re-processed the digital capture in an effort to prove that the digital capture is better, "if done right." Seems to me that digital takes more effort than film, if one has to try multiple times to come up with something that can compete with a simple scan of a frame of 35mm film.
And IMHO, the digital shots look worse because the white in the image over-powers the other tones. Even in color, the shot looks softer, with very little between bright and dark. Shaded areas quickly turn to black, while the film shot retains a gradual progression of tones without losing detail.
The argument that it isn't fair to compare a scan and a digital capture might be true, but all that means is a straight scan of a half-way decent film shot gives better results than a resized digital capture.
And the argument that "99 out of a 100 people would prefer the digital shot" is a load of BS, as if the random masses ever agree across the board on ANYTHING. I also think it's telling that the people who prefer the digital shot do so while suggesting it could be "fixed" to be even better, but don't think the film shot needs any work at all. Makes me laugh at the silliness people go through to justify their choice while denying the reality in their face. I mean, if the digital shot needed work to compete with the film scan, wouldn't that make it inferior to start with? I mean, it seems simple logic to me, but what do I know?
Don't get me wrong - I agree with another poster that there is room in the world for both film and digital. They are two different things that do not compete. But for the love of Pete, please don't bend over backwards attempting to argue that an infant technology somehow is better, cheaper, and more convenient when there is no dispute that a digital shot needs work before it can match a plain film scan. It's just embarassing to read.
Nice picture BTW, Nh3. I like the film shot for a lot of reasons, some of which reflect the inherent technical superiority of film. Let all the haters brood, and keep sharing. It at least gives them something to do with their computers when they aren't post-processing
Ray Nalley
Well-known
Yeah, but you wouldn't be looking at that "technically superior" film here if it hadn't been converted to digital and manipulated by software in some way. Film and a darkroom are worthless if you want to post your photos on the internet.
George S.
How many is enough?
Put me in the camp that prefers the digital shot to the film one. The grain and fuzziness of the film shot makes it look terrible. Looks like it was taken in 1915. Digital already has replaced film in case you haven't noticed the film plants closing all over the world.
The real question is- has it surpassed film in quality? Probably not yet but its very close. It will someday probably a lot sooner than later.
A film vs. digital preference debate is probably not fair to have here on RFF. The majority of people here are probably middle aged males who shoot film. Maybe a lot also have a digital camera, but someone who shoots film with a Leica and also "has a digital camera" hasn't yet fully explored what digital can do.
The real question is- has it surpassed film in quality? Probably not yet but its very close. It will someday probably a lot sooner than later.
A film vs. digital preference debate is probably not fair to have here on RFF. The majority of people here are probably middle aged males who shoot film. Maybe a lot also have a digital camera, but someone who shoots film with a Leica and also "has a digital camera" hasn't yet fully explored what digital can do.
Nh3
Well-known
Thank you 40oz,
I'm not bothered at all by some people's reaction to this thread. I was excited at those film shots and I thought I share it, but it seems some people will go to any length so they can justify their own view of the world or simply inject their own inertia and negativity to those aspiring for something better in what they do.
I always keep the saying by Arthur Schopenhauer in mind when I come across such issues, he said:
Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.
kevin m
Veteran
When you walk into a crowded room with a chip on your shoulder, someone's bound to knock it off.
The film pic and the digital pic are both dull snapshots, so making hyperbolic claims about one over the other based on the capture medium used is just silly.
Nh3
Well-known
You're just being a troll with no sense of humor so I'm not going to waste my time by repeating what i posted so many other times in this thread.
Btw, I'm looking forward to see some of your masterpieces.
loneranger
Well-known
I dont know why every once in a while someone still wants to say film or digital is better; I guess in the late 19th century people had the same converstion about painting and film photorgraphy, but this topic is old. Lets just leave it. Cannot compare apples with oranges. Both film and digital will be around for a long time. People are even still doing deragotypes (spelling?). Please no more
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Usually I just nod my head, smile, say it's great and walk away....
marbrink
Established
I have to agree. I'm used to working with digital more than with film, but occasionaly I get the urge to shoot film. Most of the times it just doesn't feel right though, especially when comparing to digital shots.
Also, I think digital in many cases is a more personal process in the postprocessing. You start with a blank canvas and put your own touch on it, convert to b&w, adjust colour and white balance to your own liking, might add some grain/noise etc.. I like film and what it can do, but it just feel plain wrong sometimes to digitalize it with my scanner.
Luckily, photography is never about the medium or camera! It's all about final results for me.
Matt(1pt4)
Established
I prefer to shoot film, and I agree that digital will never replace film, but in this case, I like the digital shot better. In the film shot, the grain makes the tonal transitions quite harsh. The upper tones are also somewhat squashed; this is easiest to see in the difference between the way the wings are rendered in the two shots.
I've never liked TriX in rodinal at 1+50 for scanning. Too much grain, poor separation in the upper midtones and highlights and nothing special when it comes to shadow detail. Xtol 1+1 is far better choice for TriX.
At this point, I think film's only remaining image quality advantage is latitude, but even that is slipping away. It's real advantage is in the wide range of unique and useful cameras it allows you to use. I also think it's more fun to use, but I'm willing to accept that not everyone share that view.
I've never liked TriX in rodinal at 1+50 for scanning. Too much grain, poor separation in the upper midtones and highlights and nothing special when it comes to shadow detail. Xtol 1+1 is far better choice for TriX.
At this point, I think film's only remaining image quality advantage is latitude, but even that is slipping away. It's real advantage is in the wide range of unique and useful cameras it allows you to use. I also think it's more fun to use, but I'm willing to accept that not everyone share that view.
gns
Well-known
Film vs. Digital. This film vs. that film. Lens "A" vs. lens "B". Etc. Etc. Etc. This is what I think about all of it...
If the pictures are good, then it doesn't really matter. And if the pictures are bad, then it REALLY doesn't matter.
Which camera, which lens, which film, developer, paper, blah blah blah. Sure, all these things may make some difference in how your pictures look, but there is one thing that has a much much greater impact on how your pictures will look than all of them put together and that is...where you point the camera! Anyone ever want to talk about that?
Cheers,
Gary
If the pictures are good, then it doesn't really matter. And if the pictures are bad, then it REALLY doesn't matter.
Which camera, which lens, which film, developer, paper, blah blah blah. Sure, all these things may make some difference in how your pictures look, but there is one thing that has a much much greater impact on how your pictures will look than all of them put together and that is...where you point the camera! Anyone ever want to talk about that?
Cheers,
Gary
Digital has ALREADY replaced film.
Film is now a dilettante's hobby, or the last resort of the baffled with a disposable Kodak.
Think of the "old tyme" photographer in a period clown suit going around making sepia prints at a circus side show, or the guy who refuses to learn to use email. Or types on a manual typewriter.
That's you.
Film is now a dilettante's hobby, or the last resort of the baffled with a disposable Kodak.
Think of the "old tyme" photographer in a period clown suit going around making sepia prints at a circus side show, or the guy who refuses to learn to use email. Or types on a manual typewriter.
That's you.
Matt(1pt4)
Established
If you're a semi-retiree around 50 years of age or older who has nothing to do but post on forums, debate whether film is "better" than digital, or worry about slight defects on their recently accumulated collection of old, stinky, dusty cameras, it sure is.
Matt(1pt4)
Established
This is drifting pretty far off topic, but talking about where to point the camera, how to get better and all those other 'serious' things just doesn't work on an open forum. Too much noise, not enough trust, too little time to get to know all the participants. If you really want a valuable critique of your photos, you need a place like this.