DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> advantages to film cameras over digital
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 136 of 136, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/20/2007 01:30:02 PM · #126
Originally posted by lament:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

You can order digital prints right now up to about 30x40 inches -- that's as big as most home enlargers would go anyway.

I can get a 12x18 inch print on Fuji Crystal Archive Lustre-finish paper for $3.00 USD. If the print comes out the way I saw it on the screen, then I consider that "I've printed it" even though I don't have to change the chemicals myself.
I'm not saying digital prints don't exist; I'm saying they usually have poor archival properties. Can you order a print done on fiber-based black-and-white paper, carefully processed with excessive washing and toned with selenium?

Not at Costco for $3, but there are some places which will provide a service like this -- probably closer to between $30-300 though.

Seems to me though, that the archival quality of a print primarily depended on how long it was wash, and how thoroughly the chemical processes were halted/slowed. Seems it should be possible to re-wash/re-dry any of these processor prints and improve their archival quality.

Even a poorly-preserved print can yield a surprising amount of information, especially compared with a CD whose dyes have faded or which suffers delamination.

Message edited by author 2007-03-20 13:30:19.
03/20/2007 02:12:51 PM · #127
Heh, how appropriate, this article has just been linked to from Slashdot:

"Most digital content not stable: archivists"
//www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/03/19/nb-digitalrecords.html
03/20/2007 02:27:31 PM · #128
Originally posted by lament:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

You can order digital prints right now up to about 30x40 inches -- that's as big as most home enlargers would go anyway.

I can get a 12x18 inch print on Fuji Crystal Archive Lustre-finish paper for $3.00 USD. If the print comes out the way I saw it on the screen, then I consider that "I've printed it" even though I don't have to change the chemicals myself.
I'm not saying digital prints don't exist; I'm saying they usually have poor archival properties. Can you order a print done on fiber-based black-and-white paper, carefully processed with excessive washing and toned with selenium?


HP was the first company to have a printer Ink and Paper combination rated to resist fading for 200 years under archive standard storage.

I think before that it was 90 years. Before that it was like 28.

I know noritsu makes silver-halide printers that accept direct file input.

Message edited by author 2007-03-20 14:31:55.
03/20/2007 03:34:58 PM · #129
Originally posted by kirbic:

FWIW, for those claiming that color negative film has more DR than current digital technology, I'd love to see a stouffer strip showing more than 8.5 stops of DR from color negative (8.5 stops is possible, but you better nail the exposure). Now how about one from 400 ISO color negative? or 800?
BTW, noise (including film grain, which *is* noise) has an impact on useful DR, so I'd argue that the stouffer strip is not the whole story.
I won't argue that high-quality, high-resolution B+W film stocks can resolve more line pairs per mm at the image plane than the average DSLR, but unless you're intending to do purely B+W work, you're at a distinct disadvantage. Color films, even professional color films, are equaled or surpassed in real, useful resolution by today's better DSLRs.
I do agree that digital has some behavior that is different than film, and not always better. The "purple fringing" associated with sensor blooming is one aspect. Like most CA, however, purple fringing is very easily dealt with. Film has its idiosyncrasies as well, like reciprocity failure.
Overall, the best of today's DSLRs are capable of providing higher image quality than 35mm color film. B+W is another question, and there's no doubt that resolution still lags a little bit, but only when comparing to extremely fine-grained (read S-L-O-W) film stocks. The flexibility of digital more than makes up for this.
It's also true that current technology for digital printing of B+W images has not yet equaled the beautiful tonality of "wet" prints. It will get there but it's not there yet. That said, the current state of B+W printing will please all but those looking for the best gallery-quality output.


What about the harsh transition in the highlight/shadow clipping for digital (linear) vs. the smooth rolloff in film?
That is one area that digital definately needs to catch up.
03/20/2007 03:55:50 PM · #130
Originally posted by rswank:


What about the harsh transition in the highlight/shadow clipping for digital (linear) vs. the smooth rolloff in film?
That is one area that digital definately needs to catch up.


It's an area that has certainly received scrutiny. It's true that the digital sensor records in a linear manner, and so when it reaches saturation, that's it, period. No more data, abrupt clipping. But images are not displayed in a linear gamma. An "S" curve is first applied to them (linear images look awful) and thus the highlight clipping can be customized any way you like it. Better recent DSLRs do not have abrupt highlight clipping. Even many recent P&S cameras are much better in this regard than those of even a couple years ago.
Bottom line, if I shoot RAW and pay attention to my exposure and conversion (the same way I'd pay attention to exposure and printing with film) then I'll get results that are comparable with regard to clipping characteristics. Better? No. Different? Perhaps somewhat. Bear in mind that the manner in which highlights are clipped has some room for personal taste. Any highlight clipping, whether in film or digital, is an "error" since it represents loss of data. There is no entirely "correct" procedure for how that error is compensated for. Just more pleasing or less pleasing; and there are trade-offs.
03/20/2007 10:11:12 PM · #131
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by rswank:


What about the harsh transition in the highlight/shadow clipping for digital (linear) vs. the smooth rolloff in film?
That is one area that digital definately needs to catch up.


Bear in mind that the manner in which highlights are clipped has some room for personal taste. Any highlight clipping, whether in film or digital, is an "error" since it represents loss of data. There is no entirely "correct" procedure for how that error is compensated for. Just more pleasing or less pleasing; and there are trade-offs.


Interesting and valid points.
I'm sure in post processing especially if shooting RAW some of that can be mitigated.
What a pain though.
As far as "error".
I do understand where you are coming from but in extreme dynamic range situations (where this craft invokes a magical feeling in me) I have the most fun) - like late afternoon sun streaming through the window and shutters on someone's face - I'm not going to be able to capture it all so there will be clipping.
In my limited experience playing the persona as "photographer" I have been way more pleased, on average, with shots I got from my N80 or Bessa - especially with B&W.
The results just exude a more personal feeling.
I am excited to try out the Fuji S5 Pro but can't justify spending the loot.
This shortcoming is bound to be fleeting though.
03/20/2007 10:29:11 PM · #132
THIS THREAD CAUSED ME TO BUY ANOTHER DOMAIN WHILE I WAS BORED

//www.FILMvsDIGITAL.com

If you feel bound to certain issues. Feel free to ramble there. I dont think itll go far but maybe. I'm sure plenty of people somewhere would like to debate violently about it.

Message edited by author 2007-03-20 22:31:03.
03/20/2007 11:48:23 PM · #133
Originally posted by kirbic:

FWIW, for those claiming that color negative film has more DR than current digital technology, I'd love to see a stouffer strip showing more than 8.5 stops of DR from color negative (8.5 stops is possible, but you better nail the exposure). Now how about one from 400 ISO color negative? or 800?
BTW, noise (including film grain, which *is* noise) has an impact on useful DR, so I'd argue that the stouffer strip is not the whole story.
I won't argue that high-quality, high-resolution B+W film stocks can resolve more line pairs per mm at the image plane than the average DSLR, but unless you're intending to do purely B+W work, you're at a distinct disadvantage. Color films, even professional color films, are equaled or surpassed in real, useful resolution by today's better DSLRs.
I do agree that digital has some behavior that is different than film, and not always better. The "purple fringing" associated with sensor blooming is one aspect. Like most CA, however, purple fringing is very easily dealt with. Film has its idiosyncrasies as well, like reciprocity failure.
Overall, the best of today's DSLRs are capable of providing higher image quality than 35mm color film. B+W is another question, and there's no doubt that resolution still lags a little bit, but only when comparing to extremely fine-grained (read S-L-O-W) film stocks. The flexibility of digital more than makes up for this.
It's also true that current technology for digital printing of B+W images has not yet equaled the beautiful tonality of "wet" prints. It will get there but it's not there yet. That said, the current state of B+W printing will please all but those looking for the best gallery-quality output.


I have made straight B&W prints from a single neg that show detail over a dynamic range that, in scene, was well beyond the capability of the human eye.
03/20/2007 11:59:01 PM · #134
I think you can get cleaner pics from a digital, and maybe a little more consistent colors, but what fun is that? The distorted colors you can get from old films and toy films and what not often are what makes the images so amazing. If anyone reads jpg the magazine, there was a shot in I think issue 9 that was taken with a lomo in the elegance theme... the one with the guy on the bike. It blew me away.
03/21/2007 12:27:26 AM · #135
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I have made straight B&W prints from a single neg that show detail over a dynamic range that, in scene, was well beyond the capability of the human eye.

I thought the dynamic range of the human eye is about 19 stops, the best films about 12 stops, and print papers 7 or 8 stops.
03/21/2007 08:50:32 AM · #136
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I have made straight B&W prints from a single neg that show detail over a dynamic range that, in scene, was well beyond the capability of the human eye.

I thought the dynamic range of the human eye is about 19 stops, the best films about 12 stops, and print papers 7 or 8 stops.


It is, but it's also possible to compress those 20 or so stops included in the scene enough to make a straight print on paper possible.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:26:09 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:26:09 AM EDT.