Film vs. Digital Debates - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

08/29/2004 02:05:16 PM · #1

Greetings...

What are some of the common arguments that film photographers use to support their arguments that film is better than digital?

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

08/29/2004 02:14:56 PM · #2

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Greetings...

What are some of the common arguments that film photographers use to support their arguments that film is better than digital?

I've only heard the old "Film still looks truer to life than digital", especially for large format printing.

Other than that, I haven't really heard to much debating. Most of the photographers I know use both.

f-32

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

08/29/2004 02:28:16 PM · #3

At an Epson Print Academy, Vincent Versace said, "Isn't film what you get on your teeth when you don't brush them?"

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

08/29/2004 02:34:09 PM · #4

The argument I find most persuasive is that film has a wider dynamic range than digital. Can't remember where but I read in a forum that the Mk II and the 20D will put that idea to rest. Maybe so but the S3 Pro is supposed to go a long way down that path too. I'm looking forward to full reviews of all the new models promised for this fall, including the Minolta DSLR.

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/29/2004 02:48:32 PM · #5

Me Tarzan, You Jane. Shoot Film. ugh ugh ugh. Something like that.

08/29/2004 02:56:09 PM · #6

Originally posted by coolhar:

I think the dynamic range of film may be the most significant argument...

movieman

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/29/2004 03:06:19 PM · #7

Well, this really isn't a reason, but I enjoy being in the darkroom much more than on the computer.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

08/29/2004 03:10:59 PM · #8

Originally posted by movieman:

Well, this really isn't a reason, but I enjoy being in the darkroom much more than on the computer.

That's a perfectly valid reason for choosing film over digital, but it is not a reason that the end results of one or the other are 'better'. This is one reason I have avoided learning darkroom film processing. All I have learned how to do so far is process my black and white film in my bathroom... I would get addicted to darkroom work quickly, I think. I don't want to get into that because of the time involved with it. I would rather produce more images in the time I would spend in the darkroom...

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

08/29/2004 03:26:18 PM · #9

Film still shows less flaws than even the best digital cameras.

Even if you spend thousands, you still get pixelation - which in my book can never look good. It's not like film and grain is it.

Depends what you use it for I guess. For many digital is so much more flexible.

A few of the brave who went from digital from film are returning again from what i hear - more money and better class of jobs.

Chiqui

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

08/29/2004 03:27:20 PM · #10

Well, the only film photgraphs I ever took were the causual family snap shots. However, lately I've gotten the itch to experiment with film. I just won a 1968 Yashica G Electro 35 rangefinder camera that is supposed to be in excellent working condition. I can't wait to get it and try it out. I plan on using it mostly for black and white and IR. I'm also bidding on an old medium format TLR just because I want to experiment plus they make good collector items. However, as of right now I have no interest in doing my own developing and I will stay mostly digital.

June

PS. I actually forgot to state my point: I will give you my opinion on film vs. digital when I get my hands on the film cameras.

Message edited by author 2004-08-29 15:29:39.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

08/29/2004 03:40:06 PM · #11

Originally posted by jonpink:

At what point do these 'flaws' become relevant? I suppose that also depends on what the photo will be used for. Let's assume that it would be used for what most people use them for.... wall art, magazine/periodical publication, etc....

cghubbell

Nikon D300

08/29/2004 09:46:54 PM · #12

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by jonpink:
Film still shows less flaws than even the best digital cameras.

Even if you spend thousands, you still get pixelation - which in my book can never look good. It's not like film and grain is it.

Depends what you use it for I guess. For many digital is so much more flexible.

A few of the brave who went from digital from film are returning again from what i hear - more money and better class of jobs.

At what point do these 'flaws' become relevant? I suppose that also depends on what the photo will be used for. Let's assume that it would be used for what most people use them for.... wall art, magazine/periodical publication, etc....

I would think that the relevancy of flaws in many cases would be related to how impactful the composition is. For example, in photojournalism it's common to have busy scenes trying to capture as much as possible in a moment. Here, composition is less critical and the eye spends more time digesting the image than it does drilling on the details. In a still life there may be simpler design elements, but the placement of the elements in the frame are more significant. In this case the eye may send more time trying to pick out textures and subtleties. Just a thought.

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

08/29/2004 09:52:54 PM · #13

Originally posted by coolhar:

Not sure were you read about the 20D and Mk II but CMOS sensors have less dynamic range then then CCD's. From what I have read, the 14N has the higest and the E-1 is not far behind. The E-1 is a full stop more then the 10D can't really say about the 20D but since it is a CMOS I think it will be much the same. As far as film goes, none of the digitals have as much dynamic range as film. Just my 2 cents.

Message edited by author 2004-08-29 21:54:23.

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

08/29/2004 09:53:41 PM · #14

The Kodak Professional web site explains that a 3072x2048 scan "captures all the image data 35 mm film has to offer." This is a 6 megapixel image.

Digital cameras will match Fujichrome Velvia 35mm film when they reach more than about 10 megapixels.

Digital cameras do not have the dynamic range capabilities of film, and dynamic range can vary greatly among different digital cameras. When dynamic range specifications can be found for given cameras, they are most often useless for comparison purposes because different criteria and measurement methods were used. Low dynamic range results in a higher contrast image with less subtle tonal detail. Digital has the inherent potential to outperform film in this category, but such performance capability is not yet present in mass market cameras. New technologies promise to solve this point of disparity between film and digital cameras.
- from LTL IMAGERY - DIGITAL IMAGING SERVICES FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS & PHOTO ENTHUSIASTS

Message edited by author 2004-08-29 21:57:50.

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

08/29/2004 10:00:42 PM · #15

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Digital cameras will match Fujichrome Velvia 35mm film when they reach more than about 10 megapixels.

This is true about resolution only. Not true about dynamic range.

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

08/29/2004 10:09:41 PM · #16

Originally posted by TomH1000:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Digital cameras will match Fujichrome Velvia 35mm film when they reach more than about 10 megapixels.

This is true about resolution only. Not true about dynamic range.

Your absolutely correct, thats the big issue with transparency film. Hence the only BW tansparency you can buy is Scala. You don't get Ansel's whole grey chart. (You might as well buy color slide film and just scan it)

Message edited by author 2004-08-29 22:10:50.

nborton

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/29/2004 10:14:17 PM · #17

it won't be long before the dynamic range for digital will be solved. film wasn't always the greatest either at the start.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/29/2004 10:15:34 PM · #18

One place the dynamic range issues of digital are most obvious is in digital highlights, particularly catchlights.

It isn't so much that the majority of the dynamic range is the same digital vs film, but that in digital, particularly at the highlights, there is an abrupt cutoff, whereas film demonstrates a more graceful, analog degredation as it falls off to a blown out area.

There is a certain spontaneity that is removed when, for example shooting for a gritty, grainy film stock feel if you shoot it in colour/ digital and convert in photoshop. Yes you have a whole lot more control with digital, but in some ways this can almost limit the creative results by providing too many choices (ref. "The paradox of choice: why more is less by Barry Schwartz" for reasons why that isn't always a great thing)

Similar arguments can be made for certain types of colour film stock too. Each film has a particular look. You may or may not be able to post process digital files to get there, but it is more work.

There are some areas where film is in many ways better than digital : infrared, black and white, multiple exposures.

The immediacy of digital is a huge boon. As is the generally much lower grain/ noise than the majority of film. There is a vague environmental argument for not using so many chemicals in development, but semiconductor manufacture isn't entirely spotless in that regard either.

Higher frames per 'roll' for digital is obviously an advantage. Having EXIF is a great autodocumentation. The ability to send images quickly and get to production more quickly is also very compelling. Cost is a big issue in favour of film in some eyes. No problems with dust/ dirt on a sensor with film - you get a brand new, clean sensor every shot.

A lot of these represent differences in approach, rather than an complete 'better' capture media in either direction. In fact, I don't believe digital is better than film. Nor do I believe film is better than digital. Ask me what in particular I might be trying to achieve, then I'd pick the particular capture format that best suits the required end results.

Message edited by author 2004-08-29 22:29:04.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II M.Zuiko ED

08/29/2004 11:11:08 PM · #19

For a couple of film photographers that I have talked to, they are hesitant to take the plunge to digital because

a) they've always used film
b) they're not sure they can get the same quality of pics from digi.
c) cost factor -- to get a digi slr is much more than an "equal" film camera. When the cost of film and processing is compared to the price of "printing," they admitted they are considering digital, but really don't want to give up their film
d) they have an older film camera with lots of stuff and don't want to replace it.

Then there was the guy who didn't say it but was like, "Digital? Who would ever consider himself a professional with digital?"

Rgarcia

Olympus OM-D E-M1

08/29/2004 11:22:18 PM · #20

Let me see... Working in a confined space with a dim red light, breathing harmful chemical fumes.... It isn't really appealing to me.

Specially thinking what those chemicals do to Earth's ecosystem, I think that there's no stopping digital taking over film, as technology will equal and even top film quality pictures. It is just a matter of time.

nborton

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

08/30/2004 12:42:47 AM · #21

Originally posted by Gordon:

No problems with dust/ dirt on a sensor with film - you get a brand new, clean sensor every shot.

dust is always a problem. plenty of shots using film have been victims of dust problems. dust can always get in the camera back while loading film.

this isn't to say that film isn't a little better in this case, because it is true sensors attract dust like a magnet.

lentil

Canon EOS-5D

08/30/2004 12:46:34 AM · #22

I actually love my SLR. It is a canon eos500n, and compared to my digital nikon, it takes way better photos and I have just recently decided to try my hand at that again, instead of digital all the time. I am sure the more expensive digital slr's are the way to go but I can only play with what i got and at the moment I am playing with film.

luv2photo

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical(IF)Macro

08/30/2004 01:16:57 AM · #23

I shoot with film (Canon EOS Elan II) 99% of the time. I've really only begun to pick up the digital camera and test my limits some for DPChallenge. I personally like film because I think it offers more of a challenge and a more true to life image. It is a challenge because you do not have that on the spot option to decide "oh, I don't like that one, let me redo it." You better be getting it right the first time, or it's going to cost you! This is also what makes it more true to life. You captured the moment exactly as it appeared through the lens...good or bad.