| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2006 10:27:43 PM · #76 |
is it just me, or is it true that film seems to be more sensitive than a digital sensor? I could usually get away with less lighting using the same settings on the camera.
what is your personal experience? |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 11:16:09 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Last time I checked the 1Ds mark II was somewhere around 120 lp/mm or less.
//www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/024b91f46d590a3fc125711c00693b3f
Scan the fim in and have it digitally printed to compare with digital at teh same size. Film has more tonal range and a more subtle tone transition.
I'm selling my Pentx 67's to get a 4x5 or an 8x10. Of coarse for most commercial or editorial jobs, I'll only shoot digital. ;o) |
So did anybody actually read this link? The 11mp 1ds files I upsize to 70mb are equal to the 35mm chromes I scan in at the same size. Film isn't dead, there is actually an uprise in MF & LF use of late.
Pitsaman,
I own a 1D Mark II, it's not as good as a 35mm velvia chrome scanned in @ 4000 dpi.
A 5D won't match MF chrome either.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 11:21:56 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It's funny that I see the arguments that "pros" use film, yet most of the photographers for AP and Reuters use digital exclusively. |
We're not talking about reportage shooting here. That's a whole different animal. Digital is a godsend to this field by allowing imediate upload to the wire. And they don't need more than 8mp for newsprint or most magazine printing.
Message edited by author 2006-03-06 23:23:40.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 11:24:28 PM · #79 |
| Surely, a ride with horse and carriage is more pleasurable and luxurious than one in a Honda, even a Benz? |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 11:42:50 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by scalvert:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that you only have ONE original with film. Make a copy of film and you lose a generation, but every copy of a digital file is every bit as good as the first (and won't fade over time). |
As i said, digital is better then film in every way other then quality. But a good scanner is cheaper then an L lens and solves that problem easily. |
What scanner have to do with L lens?
Photo taken with film camera and L lens will be better same as L lens and Digital body.
For film camera you have to buy 1500$ scanner ,3-5 $ film for every time you go shooting and development cost.
Digital camera photos are free unless you print them. |
I was simply comparing the price of the scanner. And, I was talking about MF and LF, which I haven't seen one that can use Canon lens.
Yes digital is cheaper, easier, faster... I'll say it again, digital is better then film in every aspect except quality.
Although, you can get a Fuji 617 for $2-3K and take better photos then anything Canon makes.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 01:57:50 AM · #81 |
I think the biggest thing is people are comparing digital prints over traditional prints. If you scan your film in and prin tit digitally you'll notice a major improvement.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 02:14:30 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by sofap:
Can any one tell me what you need to go to press with a DIGITAL photo? That is the real question. Digital photography is a great thing, I use it when it works, however when it comes to real world work it can not replace the LOOK and DEPTH of film. |
I don't know about all cases, but I can tell you how they go to press in a newspaper environment. I assume that magazines probalby work the same way...
The newspaper page designers are using programs like Quark Express for their page layout. The photos we provide them are 200dpi CMYK TIFF files (or GREYSCALE if the page has no color on it.) Once the page design is finished, it is sent to a printer which is actually a plate maker of some sort. I am not sure if it actually makes the plates or if it just produces the large negatives that the plates are made from. I haven't actually witnessed this process. For a color page, there are 4 plates made (C,M,Y,K) and for a black/white page just the K plate. This process is much more efficient than having to photograph a photograph and then create the color separations. Now that I am thinking about this, I'm going to make sure I watch the entire process happen the next time I'm at the newspaper office later this week. It would be fun to see.
As for this entire debate, as tired as it may be here on DPChallenge, I won't make another argument for which is better. I agree with a lot of what has been said here on both sides of the debate. The only thing that hasn't surfaced in these debates this time is the simple fact that we aren't qualified to judge which is really better :) We are photographers and we look at everything through different eyes. If we weren't photographers and we were just viewing the resulting images through unbiased eyes, the results of digital vs film prints, regardless of the size, are indistinguishable in most cases.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 02:15:16 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I own a 1D Mark II, it's not as good as a 35mm velvia chrome scanned in @ 4000 dpi.
A 5D won't match MF chrome either. |
That's funny, because to me the 5D and the 1D blow away....and I mean it's not even a close race...35mm Velvia.
I've been a photographer now for over 30 years and I went kicking and screaming into the digital world. But I didn't cross over until digital surpassed 35mm....and it's fast approaching MF now. The rise in quality has tapered off now somewhat, but now we have digital MF.
The only thing that I shoot that surpasses digital are on an 8x10 field camera and making platinum contact prints. But I don't have any clients requesting that anymore and the last time a client wanted a product shot in 4x5 was years ago.
The times are changing, I didn't want them to change, but they have. You will always see people saying how good film is over digital, but in my experience it just isn't true anymore and I feel they're in denial. But that's just my opinion. If you and others are shooting film and getting paid to shoot film, who am I to tell you you're wrong? It doesn't matter really how a shot is captured, they're all just tools. It's the photographer that matters.
Message edited by author 2006-03-07 02:16:39. |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 02:22:06 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It's funny that I see the arguments that "pros" use film, yet most of the photographers for AP and Reuters use digital exclusively. |
and so does most press photographers as the media demands to get the image within minutes of it being shot, but for all their private work most of them still use film..
one of the best press photographer in Iceland uses film for all his private work.. here's his gallery RAX
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 02:24:50 AM · #85 |
//www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2
This is the link to OnOne Software. They make "Genuine Fractals". I recently saw several 40x60 prints made from Olympus E20N macro shots of insects. They had been processed with this program and were astounding. They actually looked alive - crystal clear and sharp with incredible color.
I shot film for years but won't go back now. Technology is just too much fun.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 02:52:52 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by sofap:
Can any one tell me what you need to go to press with a DIGITAL photo? |
I'm a photo editor for a smallish local weekly paper, too low-budget to have our own photography equipment, so all our photographers are required to have their own. This year we stopped taking on non-DSLR shooters altogether - we only have one film photographer left. Aside from removing the pain of working with film when you have a tight deadline, and vastly simplifying our workflow, the main thing we've seen is a dramatic increase in quality. Not necessarily in photography skill, which has remained the same, but actual quality of the printed image.
In poor lighting our film department used to until recently have to go to high-iso black and white film because colour simply cannot provide printable clarity and resolution at anything over ISO800, and some colour casts would be too extreme to fix properly in post-processing. Our canon digital shooters have overturned both of those problems, with smooth and detailed ISO3200 performance as well as the ability to set custom white balance while shooting.
And having worked with our one remaining film photographer on assignment, you should see him fumbling with changing film every 36 frames, or when the light changes too dramatically, and cursing when he misses the action shots while i flick a switch and keep shooting :)
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 06:44:59 AM · #87 |
shouldn't the question be - who cares!!!! For most people digital is plenty good enough. I've never had to print anything above 10x8 myself, just cos I've not had the reason. I don't take photos to prove digital is better, I do it cos I like photography. I'm not the best photographer out there, and I do look at the screen - but so what! If I like the photo, I like the photo. Meduim format may be better - but I am lazy and don't want to lug a big heavy camera around with me. I also don't want the processing costs involved - so digital suits me better.
If you like shooting film over digital - do it, don't shout about it and make yourself sound like an ass! If digital floats your boat, use that.
I can't understand why people like to argue the point. It doesn't really matter, people will use what they want to use - doesn't matter if its better or not, PC - Mac, VHS - Beta max. ps I'm not saying film is better either - cos I don't care :)
rant over...
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 07:11:23 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by sofap:
When you shoot film it is more of a challange, I shoot trans (SLIDE FILM) with a Hasselblad 500ELM or 500CM with out TTL or even a meter in the camera. I use a hand held meter. With print film you have a 2 or 3 stop fudge with trans you only have a 1/3 ftop fudge. It is so easy to shoot DIGITAL that it takes away from the skill and tallent of photography. If you can shoot good with a DIGITAL that does not mean you can do the same with film, but if you can shoot good with film DIGITAL is a snap. Most of the time I set my DIGITAL on Manual and ust my hand haeld meter for exposutr. |
so how come u never score high then in these digital competition if you find it so easy? :-) |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 07:27:45 AM · #89 |
"Better" is a strange word to use. Superiority can be assessed in many ways (as anyone who has played Top Trumps will be able to attest!).
The ways in which sofap appears to be comparing film with digital appear (to me) to be:
(1) fine detail of print
(2) tonal range
(3) enforced slowness
(1) There is an abvious argument over (1) fine detail: the important factor is going to be the quality of your equipment (including lens). The best of one system may get slightly more detail than the best of the other, but at the very top end with MF digital backs v. film, there is a comparable level of detail. There are alternative methods for increasing levels of fine detail in digital (such as the relative ease with which images may be panoramically stitched).
(2) There are some fundamental restrictions with digital over analogue: there are invariably some restrictions on colour reproduction, but these are very much at the edge of perceptibility.
(3) Your method of working does tend to be reflected in the shots that you take. Certainly, to start with, I took a lot more photos than I did with film of the same subject in the hope that one would turn out, and sometimes none did where a more thoughtful approach would have yielded better results. But nowadays I recognise that there is a cost to digital (principally the cost of storage and the time it takes to back things up), which with RAW files and a "do not delete" mentality is not insignificant. I am much more careful with my shots and plan to take fewer, but better, photos in 2006 than 2005. At least I have the option of replicating the enforced slowness of working with film by self-enforced slowness.
There are a number of other ways of measuring superiority, not least of which are cost, speed and convenience when you want it, where digital outperforms film by a huge margin.
Horses for courses.
Message edited by author 2006-03-07 07:28:59.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 07:29:28 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
"Better" is a strange word to use. Superiority can be assessed in many ways (as anyone who has played Top Trumps will be able to attest!).
The ways in which sofap appears to be comparing film with digital appear (to me) to be:
(1) fine detail of print
(2) tonal range
(3) enforced slowness
(1) There is an abvious argument over (1) fine detail: the important factor is going to be the quality of your equipment (including lens). The best of one system may get slightly more detail than the best of the other, but at the very top end with MF digital backs v. film, there is a comparable level of detail. There are alternative methods for increasing levels of fine detail in digital (such as the relative ease with which images may be panoramically stitched).
(2) There are some fundamental restrictions with digital over analogue: there are invariably some restrictions on colour reproduction, but these are very much at the edge of perceptibility.
(3) Your method of working does tend to be reflected in the shots that you take. Certainly, to start with, I took a lot more photos than I did with film of the same subject in the hope that one would turn out, and sometimes none did where a more thoughtful approach would have yielded better results. But nowadays I recognise that there is a cost to digital (principally the cost of storage and the time it takes to back things up), which with RAW files and a "do not delete" mentality is not insignificant. I am much more careful with my shots and plan to take fewer, but better, photos in 2006 than 2005. At least I have the option of replicating the enforced slowness of working with film by self-enforced slowness.
There are a number of other ways of measuring superiority, not least of which are cost, speed and convenience when you want it, where digital outperforms film by a huge margin.
Horses for courses. |
well said!! |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 07:30:59 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by sofap:
When shooting DIGITAL how many of you look at the back of the camera and see what you got? If you could not see the image just after you shot it, if you had to process the film and then see the results, would you feel as confident with what you shot? I think not. That is what I as saying about being lazy. How can you compare shooting film with DIGITAL with out taking into account the fact that with DIGITAL you need not know how to control light, exposure and not relay on the instant view of what you shot. Try going out and shooting with only 12 exposures at your disposal and come back with 6 good images. That is what I am saying. With DIGITAL you need not be care about getting it right the first time. |
Shooting digital has been a steep learning curve for me simply because of this. I used to put far more thought into photos with film, and this really showed in the results. It's only now that I've begun to get similar results with digital (in terms of photographic merit, rather than clarity, tones etc). But I don't plan on giving up film any time soon. I am, however, (hopefully) gonna invest in a dSLR that can use my 35mm lenses, because there are ALWAYS situations where digital is more practical. But I'll be able to use whichever back is most appropriate at the time.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 07:41:24 AM · #92 |
I use both - recently bought a 2nd hand Canon EOS 5 on ebay. The other saturday i was up in Oxford - a freezing cold day - 2 fully charged batteries on my 300D lasted about 2-1/2 hours. So I come across an animal rights protest march - here I am shoulder to shoulder with all the pro photogs and the only camera Is still working is my Canon EOS 5! They are shooting away and replacing memory cards I am shooting away and loading film (i can do it quick). I did get some looks!
My point here is there is a time and place when you use both or one. I now compose my photos when I am using film a lot better since I have shot thousands and thousands of digital. Using digital has made me, i think, a better photographer.
Is one better than the other - no! They are different not better.
Boy does that Canon EOS 5 look badass with the grip on it and it has a nice feel to it because its build quality is solid! They are going cheap cheap now and if you can afford the extra the Canon EOS 3 is well worth looking at
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 11:10:11 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by ksgant:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I own a 1D Mark II, it's not as good as a 35mm velvia chrome scanned in @ 4000 dpi.
A 5D won't match MF chrome either. |
That's funny, because to me the 5D and the 1D blow away....and I mean it's not even a close race...35mm Velvia.
I've been a photographer now for over 30 years and I went kicking and screaming into the digital world. But I didn't cross over until digital surpassed 35mm....and it's fast approaching MF now. The rise in quality has tapered off now somewhat, but now we have digital MF.
The only thing that I shoot that surpasses digital are on an 8x10 field camera and making platinum contact prints. But I don't have any clients requesting that anymore and the last time a client wanted a product shot in 4x5 was years ago.
The times are changing, I didn't want them to change, but they have. You will always see people saying how good film is over digital, but in my experience it just isn't true anymore and I feel they're in denial. But that's just my opinion. If you and others are shooting film and getting paid to shoot film, who am I to tell you you're wrong? It doesn't matter really how a shot is captured, they're all just tools. It's the photographer that matters. |
If you only making 8x10 contact prints I bet the 5D matches it. Were are talking about printing big, like a 40x50. And printing digitally from a high quality scan. Also, a major lens manufaturer's latest test disagree with you. //www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/024b91f46d590a3fc125711c00693b3f
Message edited by author 2006-03-07 11:17:39.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 01:12:27 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by sofap:
When was the last time you had a 40x60 print made from your digital that was sharp and crisp. |
I like digital because I can get very high resolution photos, higher then I could get using film even 4x5. As an example here is snap shot photo of my carcar.jpgwarrning this is a fairly large photo and will take a long time to down load if you don't have high speed internet.
For those who don't have high speed here is a small version of the photo car small photo and a 100% crop from the photo crop
Here is a shot of the beach that would also be hard to match with a film camera, hit original at the bottom of the photo to see the full res version.
beach
When it come to hi-res you just can't beat digital.
Scott |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 01:21:30 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
and ofcourse NO postprocessing is allowed just straight out of the camera ! to say the digital "needs" sharpening is to say the film is simply better.. it's sharp straight out of the camera ;) |
No it's not. It's 4x5 and it's a negative... Why do you get to use chemicals if we can't use photoshop? Who is to keep you from cross processing, dodging, burning, or whatever? STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CAMERA is a piece of film, not a print.
Let's stick with the facts instead of bending the logic to give film a leg up. If film can be processed to bring out its good points, so can digital.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 01:22:10 PM · #96 |
I have a Canon 35mm as well as 2 Canon Digitals.... Alas, the 35mm spends most of it's time gathering dust these days. For me, it is about the versitility of software and cost savings being able to take many photographs, to get just the right one.
Ev |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 01:26:48 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
actually, i don't really review many images on the go. sometimes i do if i know it's a crucial shot for an assignment or something, but most often not.
but, my point remains: why is doing that bad?
|
Because there are some certain people here, as usual, who are on a "I'm better than you because I know how to shoot film" ego trip.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 01:30:47 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
I like digital because I can get very high resolution photos, higher then I could get using film even 4x5. |
Sorry to break it to you Scott, but those are not high res and they are no comparison to what you can get out of MF or LF.
I've seen photos from the Fuji 617 blown up to about 4 feet wide and you can take a magnifying glass to it and still see even more detail. Nothing digital can touch that other then maybe the MF digital backs.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 01:47:31 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Sometimes I'll show up at a place and not even bother taking my camera out at all if it doens't look good. |
That's a great example/piece of advice for amateurish snappers like me.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 01:47:37 PM · #100 |
Orange are better than apples and who eat apple get lazy by eating it, If you eat 12 orange it is more difficult job and you have to be accurate to peel it properly and think more accurate about the job. But in stead many just eat apple because thy are so lazy.
So also colors are diffrent and orange is 99999 % more beautiful
Ice
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by scottwilson:
I like digital because I can get very high resolution photos, higher then I could get using film even 4x5. |
Sorry to break it to you Scott, but those are not high res and they are no comparison to what you can get out of MF or LF.
I've seen photos from the Fuji 617 blown up to about 4 feet wide and you can take a magnifying glass to it and still see even more detail. Nothing digital can touch that other then maybe the MF digital backs. |
|
|
