Mr. Puts' opinion (2010) on film vs. digital (M7 vs. M9)

[Juan Valdenebro]

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page169/page169.html

 

[jan normandale]

Juan , I don't doubt the evidence put forward by Mr Puts. I'm sure he's right. This is not the important thing here.

Just as Beta was a better format for recording than VHS, the market went to VHS. People are not concerned with quality. 'Good enough' is just fine for 90 percent of the population if the price is less. The total "apparent cost" of shooting digital is zero after the initial outlay. Film seems to go on costing forever, another roll of film, processing, printing and cash and taxes paid each time.

People also are on an unstoppable bandwagon. What 'average' person will go looking for a film camera? Their friends all have digital cameras and they will likely purchase a camera like their friend's. The stores now sell digital P/S cameras as a commodity like iPods or LCD screens. Go ask for a camera and the sales rep shows you digital. If you go looking for film cameras, you will have to hunt for a store that sells them. So most buyers default to digital and good enough.

I'm still shooting film and intend to, but I'm not the average "taker of photographs" so I don't really count for market share. Therefore the companies will continue to drop film and film based cameras for what the "market" wants.

I like knowing that film still looks better "large sized" than digital because I shoot the stuff. Thanks for the link, it is a good one.

 

[maddoc]

+1 to what jan normandale said.

 

[mgd711]

There was a similar thread also today about Krazy Ken and Erwin Put's post.

As Jan said Beta replaced VHS just like the CD replaced vinyl. The digital camera thing is unstoppable regardless of quality. Good enough is close enough for most people, for some though the quality of film is worth the extra work, just like getting off the sofa to flip the L.P. over.

 

[tightsqueez]

Spur Nano Edge, the film he used in the comparison has a basic ISO value of 6. I sure hope it would have a better resolution than the M9.

Anyways, Spur makes some good stuff and is one of the few films I use nowadays.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Ok, at ISO 16 to ISO 20, film still may have an advantage over digital @ ISO160.

It would be interesting to see a similar comparison @ ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 1600, etc. 😉

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[jarski]

Mr. Puts is my favorite pixel peeper 😀

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan , I don't doubt the evidence put forward by Mr Puts. I'm sure he's right. This is not the important thing here.

Just as Beta was a better format for recording than VHS, the market went to VHS. People are not concerned with quality. 'Good enough' is just fine for 90 percent of the population if the price is less. The total "apparent cost" of shooting digital is zero after the initial outlay. Film seems to go on costing forever, another roll of film, processing, printing and cash and taxes paid each time.

People also are on an unstoppable bandwagon. What 'average' person will go looking for a film camera? Their friends all have digital cameras and they will likely purchase a camera like their friend's. The stores now sell digital P/S cameras as a commodity like iPods or LCD screens. Go ask for a camera and the sales rep shows you digital. If you go looking for film cameras, you will have to hunt for a store that sells them. So most buyers default to digital and good enough.

I'm still shooting film and intend to, but I'm not the average "taker of photographs" so I don't really count for market share. Therefore the companies will continue to drop film and film based cameras for what the "market" wants.

I like knowing that film still looks better "large sized" than digital because I shoot the stuff. Thanks for the link, it is a good one.

Jan, you're right. The world went digital long ago. I use digital too, because it's faster, cheaper, sometimes the best option and as you said, good enough. But as for image quality, I share Mr. Puts' opinion.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, I don't really care about resolution, but I do care about tone. I see a difference between file as original and film as original, even for small prints... And when I need a huge print, I like grain better than noise or pixels, and it can be ISO400 or ISO800 film... Maybe it's a taste I'm used to, because I like it when the grain can be seen, even in sky or skin...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Nikon Bob]

I agree with with what Jan said. I would add that comparing iso 20 film to normal iso settings on a digital camera makes little sense to me and proves or disproves nothing. When was the last time anyone used iso 20 film as their standard walk around film? All in all a pretty meaningless article to me.

Bob

 

[Axel]

Yes, the comparsion is a bit awkward when he compares ISO20 to ISO160.
It only makes sense when you want to see what maximum resolution you can
get from both Leicas.

Regards, Axel

 

[rxmd]

I agree with with what Jan said. I would add that comparing iso 20 film to normal iso settings on a digital camera makes little sense to me and proves or disproves nothing.

On the contrary, it proves that nowadays apparently you have to use an ISO 16 film if you want to compare it with an ISO 80 digital camera.

So it's just another film vs. digital article, with the author getting increasingly desperate to show that SOME film CAN be better in some respects if you choose extreme enough conditions.

So it says quite a lot actually.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The only real argument left in favor of film is a subjective one: if you like the "look" of film better than digital. And it's hard to argue with opinion.

 

[rxmd]

The only real argument left in favor of film is a subjective one: if you like the "look" of film better than digital. And it's hard to argue with opinion.

I agree completely, but people want objectivity. To a lot of people, "I like the look" does not have the same weight as "It has better resolution". So Puts caters to the substantial crowd of people who crave confirmation not that they like film better, but that it actually IS better.

Of course the result is absurd, but as long as people want to be told that film is better, I guess we'll see even more absurd comparisons.

Why can't people just stop these stupid film vs. digital comparisons and accept that for practical purposes, digital is technically better, and that it's OK to like film even if it's technically worse?

 

[dfoo]

Except as Puts demonstrated digital isn't even technically better.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, dfoo, if you want to shoot ISO 10 film in real life, I'll concede the point. 🙂

I used to do some amazing stuff with Tech Pan as well, but I don't want to shoot a rodeo with it.

 

[sjw617]

I think he should have compared them at the same ISO and given both either 100% or 400%. Comparing at different resolutions is an apple and oranges deal.
I was also surprised that Leica says that only 5% of their yearly production is film cameras. When something gets that small the chance of it disappearing gets real close.

Steve

 

[dfoo]

How do I print those digital files on my enlarger again? 😉

 

[rxmd]

Except as Puts demonstrated digital isn't even technically better.

Well that's why I put "for practical purposes" in there. I've been shooting microfilm myself. If I have to use ISO 16 film and put the Leica on a tripod, I might just as well use a view camera.

I find it's not the tool for the job. Unless the job is to show at all costs that film can be better if you just choose an extreme enough film. In which case it's really only proving my point.

 

[rxmd]

How do I print those digital files on my enlarger again? 😉

You don't. But Puts had to scan his prints.