Resolution of Film Versus Digital

[RattyMouse]

I recently visited an exhibition where the prints were done by my local pro lab. A mixture of 35mm Velvia and digital captures (17mp 1Ds2) printed at 120x180 cm. I was surprised to see that film prints looked so much better. The problem I see is that you need to spend a lot of money to get such results (drum scans, pro labs ... etc.)

Exactly. That's a problem that film will never overcome it seems.

 

[loquax ludens]

I recently visited an exhibition where the prints were done by my local pro lab. A mixture of 35mm Velvia and digital captures (17mp 1Ds2) printed at 120x180 cm. I was surprised to see that film prints looked so much better. The problem I see is that you need to spend a lot of money to get such results (drum scans, pro labs ... etc.)

Exactly. That's a problem that film will never overcome it seems.

You make it sound like it has always been this way. I would suggest instead that there is really nothing to overcome, depending on your choice of film.

The problem you say that (transparency) film will never overcome did not even exist until recently. Up until 2003 or 2004 you could make prints from slides on Kodak color positive paper using R-3 / R-3000 process. And until quite recently, Cibachrome was another option for producing prints from color positive materials. Both methods were far less expensive than a drum scan and chromogenic or inkjet print.

For negative materials, you don't need to scan the film at all in order to print it. You can produce optically enlarged RA-4 prints inexpensively.

If a print is the intended final display format and you are shooting film, then you should use color negative film, not slide film. That's why they call it "print film".

 

[cepwin]

I think the high end DSLRs like the Nikon D800 are at the point that the fine art folks are looking at them seriously. I will say if I really want to make sure I capture the image the DSLR wins as I can see what I've got immediately and have the opportunity to adjust and not miss the moment. However, I got a Nikon FG at the end of May and love shooting with it as I'm sure I will the Yashica Electro GS that I just picked up on ebay. (yeah!!!) I'd think 35mm film would out resolve a crop sensor based DSLR....medium format even more so.

 

[moreammo]

IMO
with film it isn't so much resolution as it is how clean the print looks at the size i want to print it... i don;t consider this resolution even though it is.

with Digital resolution only matters because at some point you will get a digital look; by this mean that the further you drill into the digital file the more blocky the pixels look, because they are square. this does not happen with film because the further you blow it up... the lines still look smooth, because it is a chemical reaction. other factors may limit going bigger, contrast, sharpness etc. as someone already said it has a lot to do with the photographer as well.

how much resolution digital needs for me is simple... enough to over come the digitized, blocky pixels being visible at the size i want to view it; either on a monitor or on a print. For me that happened with my D300 at 12MP. but all pixels are not created equal the 10MP M8 can go further (lack of an AA filter).

right now i have an M9 and 5DmkII and no problems; i'm good with resolutions i get.

for me the reasons for digital have far more to do with work flow and time than anything else. Just my opinion.

and the reasons for film with... well can't give a reason but there is one, enjoyment i guess.

-Jon

 

[Stuart John]

Thats pretty much the same conclusion I came to. I usually like my prints to be pretty clean so I am not that interested in making large prints that show up noise or grain. I used to print my 6x6 medium format negs at 7x7 inches sometimes smaller. Much of my 35mm B&W prints I printed on 3.5x5 or 5x7 inch paper. I just like the tonality that comes with small traditionally enlarged prints. The small prints from medium format have an almost jewel like quality tack sharp, full of tiny details with great tonality. Digital looks different to me. I can't recreate that look I got by printing MF small but I can do other things with digital that I would have struggled to do in a traditional darkroom. Having both available is a win win situation.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thats pretty much the same conclusion I came to. I usually like my prints to be pretty clean so I am not that interested in making large prints that show up noise or grain. I used to print my 6x6 medium format negs at 7x7 inches sometimes smaller. Much of my 35mm B&W prints I printed on 3.5x5 or 5x7 inch paper. I just like the tonality that comes with small traditionally enlarged prints. The small prints from medium format have an almost jewel like quality tack sharp, full of tiny details with great tonality. Digital looks different to me. I can't recreate that look I got by printing MF small but I can do other things with digital that I would have struggled to do in a traditional darkroom. Having both available is a win win situation.

Exactly. I have a weakness for 3x enlargements off Linhof's 56 x 72mm 'ideal format', which look very much like whole plate (6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inch, 165 x 216mm) contact prints. Well, all right, 3-up off 56 x 72mm is 168 x 316 mm instead of , but 3mm on one side seems OK to me.

But that's B+W. In colour, I'm happy enough with 18 megapixels. As you say, why not take advantage of both?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

To answer the question, all the evidence I have seen suggests that in terms of realistically achievable resolution (i.e. at ISO ranges that people actually shoot), digital wins in resolution, but the reality is that triumph does not matter a bit.

The factors that I think matter are:

The 'look'. They do look different. Most people have a preference.
Workflow. They are a very different experience.
Process Cost. Cost of the whole process is much lower for digital most of the time, but can be cheaper for film if you are an expert printer. The cost of having digital files worked on by a master printer can be astonishingly high. If you do a low print run, digital is not necessarily cheaper.
Capital Outlay. The price of digital cameras is much higher.

I shoot both and frankly resolution is the last thing I think about. Quite often the look of film, specifically the lower resolution examples, are the very reason I shoot the stuff!

 

[Red Robin]

To answer the question, all the evidence I have seen suggests that in terms of realistically achievable resolution (i.e. at ISO ranges that people actually shoot), digital wins in resolution, but the reality is that triumph does not matter a bit.

The factors that I think matter are:

The 'look'. They do look different. Most people have a preference.
Workflow. They are a very different experience.
Process Cost. Cost of the whole process is much lower for digital most of the time, but can be cheaper for film if you are an expert printer. The cost of having digital files worked on by a master printer can be astonishingly high. If you do a low print run, digital is not necessarily cheaper.
Capital Outlay. The price of digital cameras is much higher.

I shoot both and frankly resolution is the last thing I think about. Quite often the look of film, specifically the lower resolution examples, are the very reason I shoot the stuff!

Me, Well I'm a piker compared to most of you guys. Right now I'm using relatively old cameras(Canon P), only having my film processed at the drug store/scanned to a disk . Then I fix them at home. Any good ones get taked to Wallie world for that big-----big 8x10 treatment!!!!! My home "wet room" still needs the timer, light, chemicals, and lots and lots of experience. Well maybe a lot of photo paper too! Anyway nobody's lining up to buy my work , that being said, by the time I learn to use the eguiptment I have a top of the line scanner& a M9 ought to be selling for peanuts🙄.