Grossly Oversimplified

40oz, once you exceed the resolving power of the human eye, everything else is irrelevant. Neither film nor digital is continuous. Now you may like the look of film over the look of digital. That's a personal thing. I routinely print 400 ISO 19x22 prints from a 12mp dslr. I rarely did that from 35mm, because they looked like crap. The dslr print in just a knockout.

Different strokes for different folks.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
No, film breaks the image down not into perfect little squares but into clumps of grain. The continuous tone of both is an illusion. Just blow a 35mm negative up large enough if you don't believe that. The millions of little squares result in a cleaner image than the little clumps of grain. It ain't rocket science.
Click to expand...

The millions of 'little squares' tend to make flat, plastic-y images. But they are, I'll grant you, very clean. Clean as in clinical, yuck.

The irregular shape of grain makes for a much more appealing tone, continuous or otherwise. From Velvia to HP5 @ 1600iso printed at 16x20 - I like grain a lot more than clean, clean, clean digital images.

And then of course, there is noise...but I won't go into that!😀
 
Do you use photoshop on your DSLR images? Things like unsharp mask, or contrast adjustments? White balance? All those are available with film. I've not used unsharp mask outside of phtoshop, but I'm thinking it's how you make big enlargements from 35mm look as sharp as from a DSLR. If you print your DSLR shots untouched at 19x22, are they satisfactory?

I can't afford 19x22 paper, BTW, but I can make better wet 5x7's than the local kiosk digital printers.

And for what it's worth, a shot of Chicago from the El platform at North and Milwaukee from a 3MP Fuji trumps anything I shot with it's 6MP replacement. I don't know what that means other than the 3MP model had a better lens/circuitry. As has been said, it's all good 🙂
 
Last edited:
Real people don't squint at prints from a point so close that they can't see the entire picture. I only see other photographers doing that at exhibitions. Some of the strongest images over the years aren't really all that sharp, and the sharpness didn't really matter anyway.They were strong images. Dynamic composition. interesting subjects, good lighting, perfect timing, all things that have little bearing on the capture medium, film or digital. What does have a bearing is the amount of f-stop range you get to work with. Digital is linear. Film gives you a toe and shoulder to play with. You can use them to extend your range or you can use them for creative reasons.

On the other hand 8x10 film is 8x10 film, changing the plane of focus can't be properly duplicated in post prcessing, and a camera that lends itself to quick, often one handed, operation can capture things a big DSLR wouldn't be suitable for. Sunday morning I'm photographing a brunch. The woman throwing the party knows how I work. I'm pretty sure that afterwards, on the way to getting to our cars, somebody will remark "I never saw you taking any pictures!" That's what Leicas are for.
 
As a consumer/amateur I sometimes have to remind myself that my lenses are different than the ones I see tested by Puts or otherwise. Sample variation you can expect from any modern lens (including Leica) feels disappointing.

Also, the last few years have seen a big step forward in lens resolution. Amazing what a modern Leica asph or ZM Biogon can do. Even when using tripod and high-res film, it is impossible to translate this resolution into the final picture unless captured on a sensor. 35mm Film is just not flat enough. While not too relevant in practice, there is a reason that focus shift and vignetting have become more important internet gear subjects than a few years ago ...

Last, it's funny how abused well defined information theory terms have become through the marketing and consumer use of digital sensors. I'm always amazed, for instance, how you can get 14bit dynamic range from an 8-bit communication channel - in information theory this is equivalent to the creation of a perpetuum mobile 🙂

My personal gross over-simplification is to compare analog and digital images to LPs and CDs. Or when we compared transistor vs tube amplifiers 20 years ago .... I was building tube amps and it felt similar to shooting film today 🙂

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I've heard that 6-10 MP is the maximum resolution of handheld photography, due to the inevitable vibrations that will occur while the shutter is open (even if only for 1/250th second).

So in that respect, digital has already caught up to film

However, like a few posters have mentioned, film seems to have better tonality. For example, here's a good MF shot that displays amazing tonality:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jms_march/2887005527/

The interesting thing is that the medium format "look" is visible even when viewed as a 500 pixel wide image.

And since it seems that 99.9% of pictures are shown on the internet at 0.5 MP resolution, what's the point of multi-megapixel pictures anyways? 🙂
 
I've been thinking about the "tonality" thing, comparing TriX in 120 vs 135 and seeing such a big difference in look regardless of pixel count.

I guess the original has so much more grain per inch it can produce finer gradients. Sound ok?
 
that pic demonstrates how gracefully it's possible for highlights to blow out with film. digital blows out highlights more harshly. jpeg artifacts get in the way of making any judgement about other aspects of tonality.

i went to the vanity fair exhibit a while ago, and one thing i noticed was that the big digital prints looked very smooth, free of noise, and generally looked sharp, but closeup the fine detail just wasn't there. i guess that's what they're talking about when they say digital has very good microcontrast up until it cuts off abruptly. the quality of the color wasn't quite as rich, either, and these prints were probably made by danguin.
 
Black and white negatives actually have the most resolution, not slide films. They might have less visible grain, but they are not as good at resolving details. Velvia 50 or Astia 100F (with RMS granularity value of 7, lower than Velvia's 9 probably because of lower contrast) can be really smooth but also the details are more blurred than with those 100 ASA black and white negatives.

Theres some info in here on page 14:
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf
... and probably some more interesting stuff also
More films listed here: http://www.cacreeks.com/films.htm

From the first link you get some information about grain too and heres some more links if you really are interested (thanks to some RFF-member on the other thread some time ago):
http://tinyurl.com/dheh4y
http://tinyurl.com/dmojd7

BTW I think it is not very easy to make a digital photo look like Velvia or any other film. Sure it can be done to some extent but to make it really look like some specific film, especially color ones, is hard.

What comes to resolution vs. format, is that good 35mm lenses usually reach much higher than just 60 lpm, I think Contax G series is said to be able to reach even several hundreds, where good 6x6 and 6x7 lenses get up to about 100 (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html). 4x5 lenses usually draw less, 60-70 or less, except for some new (probably very expensive) Schneider lenses (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html).
 
ferider said:
Also, the last few years have seen a big step forward in lens resolution. Amazing what a modern Leica asph or ZM Biogon can do. Even when using tripod and high-res film, it is impossible to translate this resolution into the final picture unless captured on a sensor. 35mm Film is just not flat enough. While not too relevant in practice, there is a reason that focus shift and vignetting have become more important internet gear subjects than a few years ago ...
Click to expand...

Thats funny because I've read that Zeiss still uses film for testing because it resolves better, and of "Leica-people", Puts also talks about this. It is also a fact that most digital cameras have an anti-aliasing filter in them...

The sensor is probably not much flatter than film and there is some tolerance (depth of field) anyway.
 
I have a friend who is also a great photographer (amateur like me but I totally dig their work) and they went digital pretty much from the get go with a Canon D60 and have since worked their way though a 30D and now a 5D Mk II. His photos are just brilliant.

I can't deny the sharpness and clarity of his shots as well. He does a lot of black and white and it's clean as a whistle even at high ISOs (or what I consider high at 1600 and 3200) -- admittedly we were looking at this on his new MacBook -- very nice too but too expensive for my tastes!

Seeing as I basically only shoot film (mostly B&W and slide, with some C41 in the form of Portra NC, Reala and Ektar) we leafed through my prints too over a couple of beers as you do and without saying anything on my part he lamented that film does really suffice for what anybody needs. I mean, 11x14 isn't exactly small, it takes up a decent amount of wall space if you don't live in a gallery! Most of my prints are 6x4's, with the better ones up to 10x8 and 11x14.

I also have a MF camera (C330F) and for that I have so far had printd up to 16x16" -- and that's a big print for me. Huge in fact as about 6 of those and all my wall space would be gone.

He resolved that actually he could have kept a film camera and likely been pretty much satisifed with that for most things but also said that digital had opened up opportunities he hadn't had before which I can see.

That said, he was pretty impressed with the work and said that the one thing he missed most about digital is that the sharing of prints and looking at prints had been replaced with looking at it on a computer (the whole raison d'etre for digital from my over simplified view) and that there was something about hand prints he missed.

Couple of days ago we went down the pub and he was carrying a Canon AE-1 he bought off eBay loaded up some Neopan 1600 and said it was refreshing to shoot something that whilst on the face of it restrictive compared to all the comforts of digital, the challenge was something he relished.

And that summarises it for me really. Yes high ISO performance is great and sure at some gigs I really wish I could go beyond 3200 and have the skills to process it decently but what I get is good enough for me. But that high ISO performance means little in daytime or good light, most of the time I walk about with ISO 100 film loaded and it's more than good enough for much of daylight in my M2. And no I don't have anti-shake lenses or bodies, but I've learnt to hold my camera and stabilise myself down to 1/15th.

For me and Mike (my friend with the 5DII an AE1), I guess we have found what we are happy with regardless of what is better (however that is assessed) -- because for most things, we're talking 6x4, 5x7's to share, and 8x10s and 11x14s for the more special photos -- and 35mm is fine for all of that. And sometimes more, but that's very rare, I don't have the money or room to store 16x12's or 20x16s!

Of course it depends what you shoot, I shoot landscapes and some portraiture, and some gig photography but none of it is time orientated. I'll get it done in my own sweet time but for a press photographer, digital is a god-send.
 
Fact is:
1. Sensors are much more flat than film. Testing resolution can be greatly affected by the film/sensor plane flatness.
2. It is much more difficult to make a film shot look sharp and smooth on the screen, than a digital shot.
3. Which one gives a "better image" has nothing to do with 1 and 2. And if i take statistics, i've seen much much more messed-up digital shots than film ones.
 
Bill Pierce said:
......Film can deliver higher resolutions than sensors, but in typical day-to-day shooting digital may look "sharper."
......
Bill
Click to expand...


Hi Bill,

I would like to ask, without any kind of insinuation but out of pure curiousity, if your point applyies to a paper print of let's say 20x24".

And then I have a second question, of less importance to me, but still, and it concers the resolution race digital and film, in cameras much cheaper than the M8.

Thanks,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My main concern with film, and the reason I am now almost 100% digital, is not resolution, it's the unreliable nature of film processing. Problems like stains mainly. I shoot 100% color. I've thought of doing my own but just cannot justify the hassle. When shooting film (mostly fast negative) I scan myself. This is not too laborious as I have the Nikon 5000 with roll adapter, and ICE takes care of most of the scratches, which would otherwise be another issue.
 
To some extent it seems to me we are oversimplifacting the main thing: versatility.

Versatility is not an absolute value or icon, but a very personal issue: Versatility for me, versatility for you - can be very contradictory issues. The only constant is that digital is widening our options, enabling both of us to find our comfortable corners.

I would like to bring to your attention that at Amazon, an Epson 3800 printer costs $1,171 - a fairly good price if compared to the hurt of buying a good enlarger some 20 years ago.

Now, this same enlarger is being sold in Israel at $1920 without any competition by a single Epson authorized seller. Had I been a US citizen, the temptation for me would be great. I am a big size print seeker. But many of us, perhaps most of us, are not and will be happy with quite a lesser level printer.

The nice personal inside story is that all my photographic life I have been collecting color film negatives and not printing due to the labs screwing either here or there (for Gabriel I will add that the options of higher cost labs are non-existent in Jerusalem.).

But now after filling my duty with color film, digital printers are on their way to be affordable to me. Not today, but not so far is the day when this same printer will cost in the US Amazon half its price and I will have it at home by your US price today.

Now we all are quite inside an economic recession, so I don't expect even US folks will be flocking Epson with requests for high level printers - Again the law of versatility applyies - and those among us having BW wet analog darkroom facilities will be able to maintain our heads afloat.

So amidst this terrific dispute, let me be the one who reminds all of us the discussion is not done in a void among super rich capricious people, nor being all of us similar soldiers of the same unit devoid of personal circumstances, angles of view, different conveniencies, etc.

Times for a fourth home mortgage are gone, I think. Times for the highest consumer personal creativity are back.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Epson 3800 printer, to stray off-thread for a moment, is just an amazing printer. I've churned 17x22's out of it by the dozens and it constantly amazes me. Maybe not cheap, but neither was the first Beselar 45MCRX that I bought back in the stone age.
 
Svitantti said:
Thats funny because I've read that Zeiss still uses film for testing because it resolves better, and of "Leica-people", Puts also talks about this. It is also a fact that most digital cameras have an anti-aliasing filter in them...

The sensor is probably not much flatter than film and there is some tolerance (depth of field) anyway.
Click to expand...

A couple of additional comments:

- I am guessing that the tests that Zeiss does are not done with a consumer camera, but special equipment; at least using a vacuum pressure plate. Of course, (for marketing reasons) nobody speaks about this, but I can't see anybody measuring > 400 l/mm with a standard consumer film setup.
- Variation in registration distance, the strange as it sounds, has more impact on wide angle resolution than on longer lenses.
- The sensor is much, much "flatter" than film (several orders of magnitude). To a point where its thickness variation doesn't matter.

Best,

Roland.
 
ruben said:
Hi Bill,

I would like to ask, without any kind of insinuation but out of pure curiousity, if your point applyies to a paper print of let's say 20x24".

Thanks,
Ruben
Click to expand...

In practice there are so many, many other factors outside of "film vs. digital" that it's impossible to say. I wasn't kidding when I stated this thread was gross oversimplification. "Sharpness," unlike MTF or resolution isn't a measurable, specific quality. It's more a viewer response. "Geez, is that sharp!!" It's your response to a mix of MTF, resolution, overall contrast, local contrast, adjacency effect or masking and on and on and on.

My guess is that the various sharpening tools available to digital image makers that go far beyond "unsharp mask" make it possible for a computer to enhance this thing we call sharpness where as most enlargers have a fight to preserve it.

(If you think that puts digital cameras ahead of film cameras, remember, if you have the equipment, you can make an excellent scan of a film negative.)

Once you have a digital image, you have more tools for enhancing "sharpness." I don't think any group of folks were more excited about the potential of Photoshop and inkjet printing than the top tier of silver printers. The best silver printers that I knew are now the best computer printers.

Once you get to the point that the negative or the digital record are overkill, maybe the argument is between enlargers and computers.

How's that for an overly complicated non-answer to your question?

Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom