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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 9, 2006, 5:26 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436
Default

Always the print...but a digital print made from an enhanced digital file compared to an digital print made from an unmodifiedscanned copy of a film image. The negative is the original. The scan of the negative is a copy of the original. Digital copies of analogue originals are rarely as good as the original. The digital print of the scan is a copy of the copy and also loses a bit in the translation.

On the other hand, the digital file from the dSLR is the original. It is enhanced in post processing to mask any defects and then it is digitally printed.

Then the two prints are compared...who do you think will win?

Of course, the comparison could be setup to favour film. Slide film is used to produce an original transparency. The transparency is then projected with a standard optical slide projector.

The digital file is saved and then projected with a standard digital multimedia projector and the two images are rated...in this case film wins because digital projectors don't have huge resolution...only the best and most expensive reach 1 megapixel so the 6Mp digital image is reduced from 3000x2000 to 1024x768 or 800x600.

So, even though I could claim that I setup an 'equal' test..comparing projected images it is a setup and film users could point to MY website as 'objective' proof that film is better. But it is a biased and phony process.

What we all really need to do is to remember that it is the image that matters. If you can see one of my image on the web..it IS a digital image...but it may not have started out that way and what does it matter in the long run?
Meryl Arbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 6:41 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 31
Default

I have yet to see anything digital that compares with the tonal range and/or detail I could get with My 'ol departed Mamiya RB67 and Fuji Velvia film.
jjonsalt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 7:17 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 75
Default

Well, I think most people are like me, not buying Digital camera instead of Film camera because it's better, but because we can skip the steps of scanning photograph with scanner and transfer them to computer.

I still believe film camera is better than digital camera, but the gap is closing.
misbehave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 11:41 AM   #14
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

The very fact thatb such debate is going on, would almost make the debate an academic question.

There are certain extreme uses, in which film has an advantage in final output. In practical terms, Who cares?

When you go out to take your images, the "Practical" advantages of digitial are overwhelming. The high end digital cameras, even the hi end Consumer digital cameras are simply so much more convenient then film, that any quality advantage of film is just not there in the practical sense.

If you have to sit down and actually STUDY an image to decide if it's really film or really digital, is a telling comment.

And of course, is anyone predicting that the quality of digital is going to get worse as time goes on?

And unfortunately, no one is seriously working on new and better films and film cameras.

I "think" that you can make a "scientific" case that film still has a higher quality. I strongly doubt if I will ever shoot film again.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 2:36 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

DBB wrote:
Quote:
The very fact thatb such debate is going on, would almost make the debate an academic question.

There are certain extreme uses, in which film has an advantage in final output. In practical terms, Who cares?

When you go out to take your images, the "Practical" advantages of digitial are overwhelming. The high end digital cameras, even the hi end Consumer digital cameras are simply so much more convenient then film, that any quality advantage of film is just not there in the practical sense.

If you have to sit down and actually STUDY an image to decide if it's really film or really digital, is a telling comment.

And of course, is anyone predicting that the quality of digital is going to get worse as time goes on?

And unfortunately, no one is seriously working on new and better films and film cameras.

I "think" that you can make a "scientific" case that film still has a higher quality. I strongly doubt if I will ever shoot film again.

Dave
I agree. The extra dynamic range that film has does make it better in alot of situations. However in terms of convenience, cost, and practicality, digital wins hands down. The ability to switch ISO on the fly, review images for exposure immediately, and the instant access to your images are just some of the reasons I rarely shoot film. Not to mention the cost of film and processing. Pro level film almost always has to be ordered and pro quality labs are few and far between. Its also much easier to store and categorize images digitally, although the risk of corruption or data loss is always present with hard disks or cd/DVD media.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 9:52 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

A few years ago, I bought a 2 mp canon s200 and was blown away by the picture quality on my computer monitor, and on 4x6 prints. I have shot 35mm since my ae-1 was new, then my eos rebel II. I still have both cameras, and still shoot with the ae-1 because I have some neat, albeit obsolete lenses for it. Recently I bought a nikon d50 and was absolutely floored by the image quality, and the fact I can process the image myself at my leisure-instant gratification.

Whether film or digital is better is up to the individual. To the mass market, the vote is already in. To the "pros" and techy-types, the argument will end when the last frame of celluloid on the last existing roll is exposed, imho...

As Rodney King once said "Why can't we all just get along"?
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2006, 10:35 PM   #17
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Hawgwild wrote:
Quote:
A few years ago, I bought a 2 mp canon s200 and was blown away by the picture quality on my computer monitor, and on 4x6 prints. I have shot 35mm since my ae-1 was new, then my eos rebel II. I still have both cameras, and still shoot with the ae-1 because I have some neat, albeit obsolete lenses for it. Recently I bought a nikon d50 and was absolutely floored by the image quality, and the fact I can process the image myself at my leisure-instant gratification.

Whether film or digital is better is up to the individual. To the mass market, the vote is already in. To the "pros" and techy-types, the argument will end when the last frame of celluloid on the last existing roll is exposed, imho...

As Rodney King once said "Why can't we all just get along"?
Sorry, the "Pro's" have spoken - They've gone digital. Many of them didn't go digital by choice - nonetheless, that's what has happend.

Yes, some still use film. Most of those who do, are shooting for niche applications. Some just "love film."

What the "pro's do or don't is not part of the arguement about which is better - It's just a statement of fact.

Not with one word or thought do I disaprove of any who still shoot film. :G

I really mean this.

Dave
DBB 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 6:07 PM.