Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 21, 2007, 12:00 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 103
Default

Alright, so Film is still better than Digital in terms of quality, but youd have to be a professional photographer, a perfectionist and be printing a 30 foot long photo in order to tell the difference? And thats beside the point that digital is FAR FAR more easy and fun to use and saves a lot of money, in wich case you would sacrifice the small ammount of quality that Film has over Digital, just for the joy of using a Digital camera?

Thank you all for your help!
Track is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2007, 12:45 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Track wrote:
Quote:
Alright, so Film is still better than Digital in terms of quality, but youd have to be a professional photographer, a perfectionist and be printing a 30 foot long photo in order to tell the difference? And thats beside the point that digital is FAR FAR more easy and fun to use and saves a lot of money, in wich case you would sacrifice the small ammount of quality that Film has over Digital, just for the joy of using a Digital camera?

Thank you all for your help!
Even that statement is shaky. A better summary would be "for some specific applications film would still be preferred." Even Edward Weston's contact prints of 8x10 negatives weren't absolutely sharp, they just appeared that way due to his darkroom skills.

Another perspective, the premier photo-journalistic magazine still in print is National Geographic, who has a well earned reputation for being absolutely persnickety (anal) about all aspects concerning the quality of the images appearing in their magazine, has been completely digital for 15 years.


ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2007, 1:47 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Also to get that 30 foot print, you would have to use an 8x10" (or larger) camera. Something that needs a small truck to haul about as well as a very healthy bank account to buy and operate.

I doubt any digital can come close to matching an 8x10" chrome. Maybe someday, but not now. Each of those shots cost about $10 for film & processing so the comparison is a bit absurd.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2007, 11:43 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

ac.smith wrote:
Quote:
Another perspective, the premier photo-journalistic magazine still in print is National Geographic, who has a well earned reputation for being absolutely persnickety (anal) about all aspects concerning the quality of the images appearing in their magazine, has been completely digital for 15 years.
Well that is not at all completely true either... if you have seen the recent aired on PBS Nat Geo Up Close And Personal special.....

Editor and photog sitting at a light table looking at slides....

Yes you are right they do a lot of digital now, but it is FAR from all AND no where NEAR 15 years.... even high end digital has only been viable for their purposes/criterial for 5 or less years. (Like since the Canon 1D caliber cameras)

And this was a shoot in Alaska... again where film has an edge... in both cod and hot extreme environments... where electronics can get rather funky.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2007, 12:27 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

I'm guilty of some exaggeration but the first all-digital edition of National Geographic was done in the mid-'90 using essentially digital backs on Nikon body/lens systems so 10-12 years not 15. These systems were roughly 5 MP. The systems may or may not have been Kodak DCS 4xx systems but were similar in performance.

At that time the only acceptable 35mm cameras/lenses at NatGeo were Nikon and Olympus and their basic image standard was Kodachrome 25 on 35mm. Photographers could use Ecktachrome 64 or Ektachrome 400 only when Kodachrome simply couldn't be used for lack of light.

Batteries and LCDs do have a problem in extreme cold and hard drives at alltiudes above 13500' but of course it would have been sillyto have an editor and photog holding an SD Card and carefully examining it. Elsewhere in these forums are digital photos taken climbing the Alps.

Don't know about pro equipment but the consumer Olympus Stylus series of cameras will operate just fine with no special precautions in SWA.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2007, 9:46 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

No longer a relevent question for me....bought my last roll of film in 2004. At this point I really don't care how good film is. I'm not going back, andI doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2007, 10:10 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Haven't shot any film in about 5 yrs.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2007, 12:24 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Still have film in the fridge EXP dated JUNE 2001 :-)
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2007, 4:05 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 28
Default

ac.smith wrote:
Quote:
fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
Now, the digital advantages. Advantages film can never attain. First is flexability. With film, you tried to anticipate the shooting conditions and loaded a roll of film. Normally I'd choose one step higher ISO than I felt I needed just in case conditions weren't as good as I thought. If I guessed wrong, I was still stuck with a roll in the camera. 12 or 24 or 36 photos that had to be burned up, or trashed. No thank you! Never again! Digital you just switch and keep on going.
Just to get around the issue with film that fldspringer identified many pros of film days carried two or three camera bodies loaded with different speed films so that they would have the right one loaded. No need any more, just dial in the ISO you need for the conditions you find. Need B & W instead of color, switch in camera or Photoshop it.

Gordan Parks once said that if he got 1 in 20 that he like and actually had1 in 36 that was actually published he was hittingaverages. Now the price is the same whether we shoot 20, 36, 72 and because we have instant review we're more likely to get the shot needed.

The professional photographers that shot my nephew's wedding last SEP were using digital. The pros at work who do both publicity and technical work shoot digital. Medical imaging is moving more and more to digital.
"You can change speeds faster with digital" is a Shibboleth: and most times, inaccurate. And "pros" like my own retired self, could change film (for whatever reason) in 8-10 seconds, (more if the camera was sheet film or did not read Bar codes), but who in hell does that anymore other than hobbyists, to whom "time" is more or less philosophical, especially since they got up at 4AMto catch a 5:19AM sunrise?)

Some full manual operation cameras are a pain to change ISO speeds, but a truly "learned" shooter knew precisely what conditions they would be shootingin the first place and had prpared for the eventuality.

None (not any, not one) of my digital SLRs are in anyway faster to change ISO speeds in that unless you can select ISO speed with a wheel under your thumb, you're up sheet creek.

Maybe you can with a $7,000+ Canikon "Robocamera", but seeing as how 99.9999% of all digital cameras cannot change speed without enteringa MENU, then selecting speeds, the "change ISO" Championship goes to (barcode reading film cameras) by default.
Attached Images
 
AlAsaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2007, 4:25 PM   #20
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I use both.

To to be frank, the *only* reason I use both is so that I have multiple camera bodies available to me when I'm shooting something that I want to make *sure* I'm going to have some keepers with (since I don't own multiple DSLR bodies yet). :-) It's faster to change camera bodies than it is lenses if you're shooting in conditions requiring more than one lens, too.

In some cases, Dynamic Range can be a bit better with film in the shadow and mid range areas. But, I don't even concede that most color negative film is better for highlights with the same exposure for both. I've seen too many cases when I've used both film and digital in the same conditions when digital handled retention of highlights *better* than a typical contrasty type consumer grade film (i.e. ISO 400 Kodak stuff, including the newer "Digital 400" film, as well as higher ISO speed Fuji Superia X-Tra).

Of course, that's going to vary by digital camera and by film type (some films are going to have a lot of contrast, and some are going to be relatively flat).

But, given the ease of shooting *loads and loads* of images on an inexpensive memory card with immediate feedback to help you adjust your settings, without the development and processing cost of film, Digital is just a much better way to go from my perspective.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:23 PM.