Grossly Oversimplified

[Bill Pierce]

Bill, I suspect that is true. However, I doubt technology has much to do with that. Its more likely their sense of aesthetics and their experience which leads to this result.

I think what excites silver printers moving to computers is the fact that they now have more ways to effect and control the image, locally and overall, than they had in the past.

 

[Al Kaplan]

1)Or maybe that they can't just walk (or drive) over to the nearest photo supply/camera store and buy paper and chemicals?

2) You're welcome, Richard!

3) Do we have any tinkerers here who'd like to take a 35mm camera, bore a mess of little tiny holes through the pressure plate, and rig it up with a hose and rubber bulb arrangement? Instant vacuum back! FLAT FLAT FLAT!

 

[navilluspm]

3) Do we have any tinkerers here who'd like to take a 35mm camera, bore a mess of little tiny holes through the pressure plate, and rig it up with a hose and rubber bulb arrangement? Instant vacuum back! FLAT FLAT FLAT!

The Contax RTS III's claim to fame is having a vacuum back to keep the film plane flat.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I think Ken Rockwell was right when he said that 35mm film (velvia) resolves just under what a 25MP full frame DSLR will do. His tests seemed to prove that. Scroll down to the 6th picture in this link and you will see. The pictures are rated in order of sharpness from top to bottom: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison.htm

For the price of a Canon 5D MII body, I can buy a Contax G2 system with 28, 45, 90, a new Nikon supercoolscan 5000 and still have money $400 left over for for Velvia and processing. The amount I shoot, this would last me well over a year. And I am sure that the quality difference would not be all too noticeable.

I'm ignoring the Rockwell attribution, cuz he's an idiot.
But, i'll disagree with the assertion that a 5DMkII wouldn't be much different from a Contax G2 output. My 5D2 is at least equal to my Bronica RF645. Possibly better, but i've only had both for a limited time and only shot them on the same subject matter once.

The common testing methodology is to blow up similar portions of a negative and a digital file and see which contains the most 'information.' Film can record certain minute details that digital might not. But, the digital files are infinitely 'cleaner,' and the itty bitty bits in the film file that might be seen at 100%+ on a monitor are not so much visible on a print. My digital files always look sharper and more detailed than my film scans and i'm talking about medium format. I don't even bother to compare 35mm film to digital anymore.

But, that's not really important. Shoot film because you enjoy the tools and the experience and the aesthetic. As highly as i regard my 5DMkII, i rarely think about the camera, and when i'm going out to shoot something 'non-commercial,' i'll grab the Zeiss Ikon, FE2, R7 or Bronica.

 

[Svitantti]

But, i'll disagree with the assertion that a 5DMkII wouldn't be much different from a Contax G2 output. My 5D2 is at least equal to my Bronica RF645. Possibly better, but i've only had both for a limited time and only shot them on the same subject matter once.

The common testing methodology is to blow up similar portions of a negative and a digital file and see which contains the most 'information.' Film can record certain minute details that digital might not. But, the digital files are infinitely 'cleaner,' and the itty bitty bits in the film file that might be seen at 100%+ on a monitor are not so much visible on a print. My digital files always look sharper and more detailed than my film scans and i'm talking about medium format. I don't even bother to compare 35mm film to digital anymore.

Ok, you are probably making the comparison from scanned photos? This is a big deal actually, not least because of grain aliasing which happens pretty much always when film photos are scanned. Less with good scanners, more with lesser ones.

Also, you are saiying 5DMKII is equal, then you are saying film can record more detail but digital is cleaner. So they are not equal, but maybe about as clean, visually.
I am quite sure the Contax G2 reaches more or at least about same resolution as the Canon. The result will be different in any case, so if we want to test "which one is better" we need to choose the properties we are measuring.

Also, we cannot compare just a single ISO/ASA speed and make a conclusion by that. Sure the digital is much cleaner when shooting for example 1600 or higher, but are you sure digital matches slow B&W films of 50, 25, 20 ASA.. Or Astia 100F? Personally I dont really know and probably not even care, but I am guessing this is not directly compared.

Last you are saying your digital files look sharper... But sharpness is subjective and visually and psychologically observed. Digital scans can be sharpened easily and digital photos probably are processed inside the camera anyway if not in Photoshop or such, so it is just fair to do that to film scans too, when comparing.

If you want to compare film to digital sensor, you have to remember that you would have to scan the film, which means you will have the properties of the scanner (usually not a drum scanner with great resolution and these times often a not-very-good flatbed) included in the test. Or you could choose to print the digital file, when you will have the properties of the printer...
A wet print is affected by the printing optics and other limitations, but what to do with the film if it isn't enlarged? Anyway I'm quite sure that a wet print out of film is much less grainy than a film scan.
When compared resolution and graininess with suitable (good) methods, at slower ASA speeds, I think 35mm film will still hold its ground quite well vs. digital cameras. I dont know which one actually "wins" (not that I care) but the 35mm is not way back yet.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Svitantti, have you ever seen the output from a 5DMkII? If not, you really do need to see it before making generalizations about it. Even very big prints from it are amazing.

It's impossible to declare a winner in the digital vs film debate. If you just must have a roll of film in your hand and the "look" of film, you will never be satisfied with digital. Never. At this point, with cameras like the 5DmkII, the debate is over. It's now a matter of personal choice.

 

[redpony]

This is such a huge can of worms, however this debate reminds me of a scene from Bela Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies where one of the characters, a composer, laments the standardization of the tempered scale--and how it ruined people's ability to really hear music. Pure fourths and fiths were sacrificed at the altar of convenience. Sometimes I think mp3s and digital images are doing the same sort of thing to us. How's that for gross oversimplification?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This may take the cake for gross oversimplification of a complex subject.

Indeed. I insist that film and "digital" are only "better" than one another depending on oversimplified criteria. The main, base, common denominator is this "sharpness" obsession. In this respect, Digital is far above and beyond Film in consumer applications.

If I want clean shadows and clean highlights, there is still only Film. There is no possible way to salvage shadows from a Digital image, whereas with Film there are ways of getting around it (with a thorough "analog" workflow).

There is no possible way to salvage blown highlights in a Digital image. When you shoot Film and you know you overexposed, there are ways to get around this. Not without making sacrifices elsewhere, but you'd still get an image rather than a big blown white frame with Digital.

For speed, versatility, portability and reproduction, you cannot beat Digital. For everything else, Film has decades and decades and decades of engineering, research and collective empirical knowledge that cannot be beat.

Chemicals are more uniform than the various computing advances, changes and anarchy still being perpetrated year after year.

But that doesn't mean Digital is "inferior". It's simply different. Stating otherwise is a gross oversimplification.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is such a huge can of worms, however this debate reminds me of a scene from Bela Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies where one of the characters, a composer, laments the standardization of the tempered scale--and how it ruined people's ability to really hear music. Pure fourths and fiths were sacrificed at the altar of convenience. Sometimes I think mp3s and digital images are doing the same sort of thing to us. How's that for gross oversimplification?

Very well put.

And to make it even worse, there's this ill-guided school of interpretation where they use what I call "ancient" tuning to play pieces that were not composed with that tuning in mind, and viceversa. It's like Ted Turner's colorization of Casablanca. A travesty to think that one advance will improve something that didn't call for it.

It would also be a sin to desaturate "Gone With The Wind" or "clean" Jimmy Hendrix's chords.

 

[dfoo]

I use both digital and film. However, going from exclusively film, to exclusively digital, I've swung back to only film again. I haven't take an shot with my 5d, except for some pics of a lens I sold a couple of weeks ago since mid summer. Digital is cleaner, but film has character and a look that I love that I cannot replicate with the 5d. Then there is the size. The 5d and those monsterous Canon lenses are beasts!

 

[navilluspm]

My former reference with the 5DII was not saying that film was better. Actually the Kenrockwell link showed that when it comes to percieved sharpness and resolution, the 5DII out did the Pentax 645 and Leica summicron with Velvia. But it was not that far ahead. For what I need, it is overkill - especially on price. I am not a professional photog. Having said that, the 5DII is probably (I don't have one, but can assume) miles ahead of faster film. It is just too bad it is so big and so expensive (for me). I have Contax lenses that I am saving to adapt to one when I can afford (if that ever happens). (Not the "G" series, but just three SLR lenses).