Telling film from digital ...

[Socke]

To the question how many MPixels film equates to, it is 8.2! That's what I get from my old Canon FS2710 scanner the labs here don't do more than 6 Mpixel and usualy you get no more than 1.5 MPixel 🙂

Then to the overprocessed prints without character, I don't like overprocessing and it is only easyer with a computer but it could be done looooong befor computers where invented.

Then to the look of digital and film based webimages, I fooled people who claim to see the differences between a Leica 2nd version and 2rd version 50mm 'cron with a picture from my Canon D60 and non USM 75-300 into believing it was made with a 135 Hector on Tri-X 🙂

What I like on digital is the multipurpose fine grain "film" which can be exposed from EI 100 to EI 800 in my D60, what I don't like is the size of the camera and lenses.
So I shoot much Fujipress 800 in a Contax TVS and Tri-X or HP5 and Sensia 100 in a Contax G2. Now that the days are longer I shoot one or two rolls of cheap ISO 200 print film a week IN ADITION to some 100 pictures with my dSLR.

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

I wish to propose a question. If the photo is taken with a film camera but the print is produced from a scanned negative, is it digital or a traditional photo. I took the picture below with a Mamiya Sekor C330f, 55mm Sekor wideangle, Tri X, but the local photo shop accepted the CD I scanned it on and made a fantastic 8X8 print. I couldn't image it better if done in a dark room. Thus my question! 😀

Well... not sure I would call it a traditional photo, but I wouldn't call it a digital photo. To me, that's a film shot. I would think it's the initial capture mode that defines what type it is.

 

[sf]

film vs CCD images

film vs CCD images

film is better than digital.


Unless you have money for the D2x or better resolution DSLRs . . . or a 22 megapixel digital back. Or perhaps the Gigapixel camera. Then, digital is better (than 35mm). For clarity. ANd then only from the money standpoint. Because medium is a personal thing, like sheets for your bed or the origin of the coffee beans in your freezer.

I notice 35mm film beats the digital capture until about 12 clean megapixels. Of course, that is talking about Velvia in a camera mounted on a tripod and mirror locked up for zero shake. With a digital, you can shoot an image with really nice clarity even handheld because you can go up to ISO 1600 and the push of a button and maintain the pixel count. So, the new 12 megapixel cameras - maybe the S3pro, are going to be 'better' than film because they offer similar image quality without the overhead. But they are only better from a fiscal standpoint. I went in today and dropped off 6 rolls of film from my R3A. That will cost me about 40 bucks. The film cost about 40 bucks too. So, 80 dollars for 6 rolls. 80 dollars for 200 pictures. Using a D2x, you'd get those 200, plus an infinite many more for zero cost - and the quality would be about the same. Twenty five shoots later - twenty five days out on the town taking pictures, the digital would have paid for itself. Every single day I fight off the GAS for a really snazzy digital like the 1Ds or the D2x. I just stroke my Cambo and everything is alright.

DSLRs are big, bulky, and get stares and frowns, suck space and batteries, and scream sellout. And I really love picking up my film from the shop. It's like Christmas morning, and i get to feel the excitement of the moment all over again as I see the shots for the first time in tangible, beautiful, traditional film.

You know what though? No digital will ever come close to MY camera. My main man. The Cambo with that sweet 75 SWD Fujinon. Not even for fifty thousand bucks will it come close. So I sold the digital, and anything traditional (except my R3A - because it is pocketable and produces 12 megapixel images), that might be soon overtaken by digital technology, and am wallowing in large format ecstasy.

 

[Kin Lau]

DSLRs are big, bulky, and get stares and frowns, suck space and batteries, and scream sellout. And I really love picking up my film from the shop. It's like Christmas morning, and i get to feel the excitement of the moment all over again as I see the shots for the first time in tangible, beautiful, traditional film.

You know what though? No digital will ever come close to MY camera. My main man. The Cambo with that sweet 75 SWD Fujinon. Not even for fifty thousand bucks will it come close. So I sold the digital, and anything traditional (except my R3A - because it is pocketable and produces 12 megapixel images), that might be soon overtaken by digital technology, and am wallowing in large format ecstasy.

DSLR's aren't that big anymore, my 350D/XT is very compact, and the same size as any of my compact SLRs s(except the Contaflex... now that's one small SLR) and larger RF's such as the Konica S2, Minolta Hi-Matic 7S etc. I also have my 4x6 prints done at the lab... it's cheaper than doing it at home, and I end up with exactly the same quality prints as my film..... probably better since there's never any dust 🙂

I'm still looking for an affordable wide angle for my Calumet, only 150 & 210 lenses right now. The whole kit was given to me, so I haven't had a chance to shoot with it yet... too bad Yosemite is so far away. But scanning backs are available for 4x5 aren't they?

 

[Andy K]

It is easy to tell film from digital.
You can hold negatives and transparencies up to a light and see what is on them. You can't do that with a CDr.
Film is simpler too. Take the photo, develop the negs, file them, make the prints you want with your enlarger.
Digital puts me off because I have 'lost' too many files because of corrupted files/hard drives/serious system errors etc. to trust my photographs to electronics. Once a digital file has the slightest bit of 'corruption' it is lost. I have never lost a negative.
Also I prefer photographing with film and making real photographs than sitting in front of a computer watching it spit out inkjet prints.
Some want the instant and fleeting satisfaction of digital. Others prefer the satisfaction of a job well done when that silver print is hanging to dry.
It's all personal preference.

Ps, Socke, nice try at a fake neg strip, you forgot something though, negatives are called negatives for a reason! 😉

 

[Allen Gilman]

"Also I prefer photographing with film and making real photographs than sitting in front of a computer watching it spit out inkjet prints."

Wow - you mean there are fake photographs? Where do you find em?

 

[solane]

the other thing that makes it hard for me to tell images that started out on film vs. straight digital images is that i see all of them on my computer monitor. the images have been compressed to save hard drive space and be quick uploads and downloads. i can see the jpg degradation.

i can sometimes tell digital from film in a 4x6 print. but i can almost always tell in an 8x10 or larger. that's when the subtleties of film outperform digital. today. a year from now... maybe not so much. i do agree that most digicams sensors are too small to get a range of DOF or capture detail in highlights and shadows. i think those itty bitty digicams have comparable quality to disc film! but most people who buy those cameras use them to post online at 72DPI so the finest detail ends up getting lost in file compression anyway.

the dSLRs are less noticable because of better glass, larger sensors, more control, etc and will probably only get better in terms of image quality. from a user experience standpoint though, i get completely annoyed that i cannot turn the lens to adjust aperture but have to use a little thumb wheel. since i grew up with manual cameras, the experience of thumbing back and forth to find the shutter speed or aperture is just annoying.

sorry, got a bit off-topic. in the great film vs. digital debate, i think the finished print is where its easiest to see the difference.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

"Also I prefer photographing with film and making real photographs than sitting in front of a computer watching it spit out inkjet prints."

Wow - you mean there are fake photographs? Where do you find em?

The National Inquisitor, The Sun, Nooseweak... 😉

 

[Allen Gilman]

Ahh okay, got it... 😛

 

[fotografz]

" My question, how do people think they can tell, and can you really tell?"

Am up to my eyeballs in digital capture. 2 MF backs, including the latest greatest, 1DsMKII using Canon L and Zeiss glass.

Yes I can tell. How? Look for the Dupont logo somewhere on the skin of people in a digital image ; -)

They were right in the Movie "The Graduate". The future is in Plastics.

 

[Kin Lau]

Ps, Socke, nice try at a fake neg strip, you forgot something though, negatives are called negatives for a reason! 😉

Ever look at a strip of unmount slides? That's exactly what my last roll of Sensia looks like. Actually, since Socke mentioned he shoots Sensia, that exactly what I thought it was until I took a closer look.

ps. it's easy to scan a full strip like that if you're using a flatbed scanner.

 

[Socke]

Ever look at a strip of unmount slides? That's exactly what my last roll of Sensia looks like. Actually, since Socke mentioned he shoots Sensia, that exactly what I thought it was until I took a closer look.

ps. it's easy to scan a full strip like that if you're using a flatbed scanner.

I was inspired by one of my Sensia strips, it was a lot of work but I thought it was the best way to present the tuned up Fiat.

My Audi TT was shot on Sensia in a Contax 167MT with a Yashica 75-150/f4 zoom, the singer is on Tri-X pushed to 1600 in a Contax G2 with the 45, and the Fiat with a Canon D60 and Sigma 28-70/f2.8 EX

If film weren't so expensive! I just payed 40 Euros for development, prints and scans from four rolls :-(

Scanning slides is even more expensive, they charge 61 cents per picture :bang:

 

[Kin Lau]

I was inspired by one of my Sensia strips, it was a lot of work but I thought it was the best way to present the tuned up Fiat.

I would have just scanned a strip of Sensia, probably leave the codes as is 🙂, and then cut and paste the digital pics in.

BTW, why are you paying to have your slides scanned instead of DIY? Or are you doing drum scans?

 

[Socke]

I would have just scanned a strip of Sensia, probably leave the codes as is 🙂, and then cut and paste the digital pics in.

BTW, why are you paying to have your slides scanned instead of DIY? Or are you doing drum scans?

I have a Canon FS2710 slide scanner which is good enough for my needs, but it takes me an hour or two to scan my films.

So when I came from Cuba with 20 rolls in my bag I asked what they charge for scanning slides.

Then I spent the next four weekends scanning 🙂

 

[fotografz]

I think using film and scanning should be viewed like dark room work used to be viewed. You didn't shoot 5 rolls of film and then laboriously wet print every frame. You made contact sheets, selected from that and made key prints.

I simply let the lab make proofs and only scan those frames I consider worth enlarging. Or, to avoid proofing costs, use a flat-bed scanner to make my own contact sheets to store with the negs.

Just because digital technology lets us do every shot we take doesn't mean we should.

 

[tetrisattack]

Not to resurrect this thread, but I'm going to throw in my two cents. I stopped using film cameras over a year ago when the rebel came out.

Don't look at a p&s digital picture and conclude that digital tech sucks. Most of us here are using very good gear, not the stuff aimed at consumers.

Now, suffer through the next paragraph:
I rarely bother to shoot color film anymore. It's expensive and requires just as much manipulation in photoshop as a clean file from my digital rebel. I'll shoot color in 120 but not 35mm. The rebel's got it cornered, for sure, except for the issue of dynamic range. And the lab prints from the rebel look better than the lab prints straight from film.

Except the damn thing hides under my bed with the rest of my photo detritus, because it's hateful to use! The point being that I barely shoot color at all anymore, because my attention and energies are now concentrated on b&w, and the rebel has NOTHING on that. There is so much versatility, so much discipline, so much history. I have never studied a more engrossing photographic topic.

I feel like a lot of creativity is eroded with newer equipment. Sure, you can put the rebel into full-manual mode, but it's not designed to be used that way, unlike, say, a nikkormat. Using manual equipment I have no training wheels. I lay my signature all over my product; the subject, framing, focus, aperture, shutter, film choice, development procedure, printing parameters and paper choice... the results are unquestionably something that I created by my own hand every step of the way. I would coat my own glass plates if b&w scarcity comes to that. 😉

 

[solane]

tetris, i was just talking to a friend today. she asked me "do you still like your dSLR?" and i said "funny you should ask because i've been reading and talking about this very subject for awhile now." i complained that yeah, sure, the images from the D70 were comparable to the results from a modern SLR but i run into the same issues you do... they are a drag to operate. i don't like thumb wheels, i like aperture rings. it still feels sluggish in comparison to my RF and SLR and i'm learning to loathe the damned AF. its noisy and sloppy and slow and it is always trying to take over.

i also talked about the absence of black and white with digital. (i'm sure someone will mention that its possible to convert images in photoshop or use a b/w mode in some digicams) but the quality is not the same and the ability to choose a range of film speeds and control some levels of contrast and grain just by choosing a certain type of film is so liberating. i don't have to think about what post-processing i will have to do in photoshop to simulate tri-x when i can just SHOOT tri-x in the first place.

yes, i'm swerving off-topic a bit and, for that, i apologize. i do think user-experience is an intrinsic part of the creative process and if i have to fight with my tools then i am taking energy away from the creative process. i think i no longer have the energy to fight. (anyone want to buy a slightly used D70? 😉 )

 

[tetrisattack]

I guess a more terse way of putting it would be:

B&W photography is a traditional art/craft that is being steamrolled by an industry upheaval fueled by mass-market consumption.

Even if the prints look the same, there's no substitute for the method, and that's the part I most enjoy.

 

[Kevin]

My opinion is that photographs usually become more interesting over long periods of time and for this reason archiving becomes a very important variable in the film-digital debate.

I believe film has important long-term archival advantages over digital and this advantage is not so insignificant that it should be ignored. Film is an archive all by its lonesome self. With digital photography, you have to continuously make copies onto other hard disks and/or CD-RWs to reduce the risk of long-term loss.

To illustrate the point, I researched and performed some maths.

I researched that a frame of Fuji Velvia converts to 25 Megapixels (35mm), 100 Megapixels (6x6) and 150 Megapixels (6x9). These numbers depend on this particular film type and represent the maximum amout of information the film can resolve and store under ideal conditions.

Converting megapixels to actual storage space on your hard disk, this becomes approximately 70MB (35mm), 300MB (6x6) and 450MB (6x9) per frame.

36 perfectly-exposed frames on 35mm film converts to roughly 2.5GB.
12 (6x6) or 8 (6x9) perfectly-exposed frames on 120 film converts to roughly 3.5GB.

If you desire that your digital pictures have a resolution as close to film as possible (so that you cannot tell if your large printed pictures are film-based or digital), you have to shoot in RAW format and then subsequently archive those image files. You will probably want to store them on external hard disks or CDs. CDs are more stable than DVDs yet have an expected lifetime of only 5 years.

If your typical CD-RW has 700MB storage space, you can fit 10 full-resolution 35mm Fuji Velvia pictures or the RAW equivalent on it. A 35mm role of 36 frames therefore equals 4 CD-RWs for full archival RAW storage for the same amount of pictures. For security measures, I would personally make duplicate copies, so double the amount of CD-RWs to 8.

With this comparison I have not even considered the time involved for making the archival backups now and in 5 years, the cost of purchasing many memory cards versus many rolls of film + processing, the particular risks of data loss when storing images electronically or the questionable manner in which copyright can be proven with digital images only.

The way I see it, shooting digital in RAW mode is a lot slower, costs more, takes more time to archive and introduces more image loss risk than when shooting film. Film images are stored using light (asynchronously, in milliseconds), require no computer hardware or CDs, are archived when processed and can only be destroyed if burned or improperly stored.

All of that extra archiving work that most digital photographers postpone or never do has its own dear price. We analog photographers archive from the start, at the moment we shoot film and process it. You digital photographers wait until some later time or just never do it because it takes too much time to do it right.

Kevin

 

[Socke]

Kevin I understand your reasoning!

That's why I'm against this newly created contraption, I think it is called "Automobile".

Horses and cariages are much better!

1) Horses feed from the environment and don't produce toxic waste
2) Horses reproduce themselves
3) Cariages are much easyer to maintain as Automobiles, you don't even need spezial tools
4) Horses on a cariage can be easyly replaced by the operator
5) you can easyly double the performance of a cariage with more horses

And for long term storage I prefer pyramids! See what happend to all that papyrus stuff in the library of Alexandria

:angel: