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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 13, 2006, 3:43 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

flippedgazelle,

You are correct. Digital photography is coming close (but close only counts in 'hand grenades') to film, but, for 'hi end' users film is still superior.

As to music:

When I heard my first CD (on top end gear)I thought 'sounds like a soda can full of gravel'. However, the lack of pops and scratches and the convenience of a 300 disc programmable player makes CDs superior to 'vinyl'for everyday listening.

BUT, when I play my good condition vinyl on my JVC t-tableand the Cerwin Vegas speakers - loooook out.

Remember: Musical instruments (conventional type) produce analogue waves.

Speakers produce analogue waves. Ears respond to analogue waves. Power tubes produce analogue amplification!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Photographic film will capture images on the MOLECULAR LEVEL - but - the processing (developing and printing) of this data in an anologue fashion is labor and material and time consuming.

The results, however, can be stunning - but must be seen with the naked (analogue) eye - they can not be compared using a digital image on a monitor.




Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2006, 2:06 AM   #22
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
You are correct. Digital photography is coming close (but close only counts in 'hand grenades') to film, but, for 'hi end' users film is still superior.
What do you count as high-end?

Really I'm curious - how much higher does it have to go than the megapixel shootout link I posted earlier in the thread?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...-testing.shtml

Or is it that you simply don't believe and don't want to buy the DVD to prove to yourself that their conclusions are wrong?


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2006, 7:46 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

My point EXACTLY !

For professional large format use, digital is very close to film.

However, from your link;

"This test was about resolution. We did not look at or evaluate dynamic range, colour accuracy, noise, or any of several other performance parameters. Not that these aren't interesting, or even important. For some applications one or more of these may be even more important than resolution. But to have included them would have made this test much more complex and time consuming than any of us had time for."

35mm film = 25-40meg, large format digital = 22-30meg

ergo: large format digital ($20-30,000) is the rough equivalent of 35mm Velvia !!!!

So..... the debate continues...................................

Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2006, 8:10 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 721
Default

Lets put it this wy!!!!

I once had 50 or 60 pounds of Hasselbled equipment I had to lug around doing weddings not to even mention the 2 F-4 Nikons hanging around my neck along withThe White lightnings strobesI took to take formal pictures. It was tough work to get perfect wedding photos. I actually had to take two pictures of the $$$ shots with different cameras in case the %#$*& labs screwed up a roll of &$%#$ FILM. Same with Museum assignments etc.

It was hard satisfying work that made Me some extra $$$$ and was more like a hobby from my day job.

Well, I bought a Nikon 990. Slow camera but better then carryingtwo f-4's all day.

I knew what photos I took before moving on to next shot.

Then came My D-100. After the very first wedding ( I sold every film camera I owned) I used it for two years until I got my D-200.

With the Digital D-100and nowD-200 I only need to cary the one camera. I use A Nikon 18/200 lens. For formals I use a few SB-800 & 600 TTL wireless flash's. I know exactly what I have as soon as I take a picture. I don't have to worry about the ^%#$% lab messing up any film. I don't have any film expense at all. I do my post processing on my computer myself using photoshop CS-2. If I send the DVD to a lab for printing and I still have back up DVD disks if they screw something up or lose the DVD. ( It never happened yet)
My Photography is now FUN and I keep more $$$$ per job then ever. I well Never Ever use FILM again. N.E.V.E.R

I still sell pictures at gallery exibits and the people that purchase My Photographs have no clue weather they were done with film or a computer.

Ronnie
Ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2006, 9:31 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

yes, I agree: digital is very very very convenient and 'good 'nuf' for most pro work



HOWEVER: you will NOT get the razor sharp 20x30 that you could have gotten from film



I, myself, have gone to the digital 'dark side' for 95% of my shooting, BUT, occasionally, whenI grab the 'great' shot, wish it were film so that i could get it printed by a custom lab at 20x30. (upwards interpolation to 30 meg is not as good as film's inherent 30 meg)

Let's agree to disagree :-)

Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2006, 10:03 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
pagerboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 483
Default

bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
flippedgazelle,

You are correct. Digital photography is coming close (but close only counts in 'hand grenades') to film, but, for 'hi end' users film is still superior.

As to music:

When I heard my first CD (on top end gear)I thought 'sounds like a soda can full of gravel'. However, the lack of pops and scratches and the convenience of a 300 disc programmable player makes CDs superior to 'vinyl'for everyday listening.

BUT, when I play my good condition vinyl on my JVC t-tableand the Cerwin Vegas speakers - loooook out.

Remember: Musical instruments (conventional type) produce analogue waves.

Speakers produce analogue waves. Ears respond to analogue waves. Power tubes produce analogue amplification!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Photographic film will capture images on the MOLECULAR LEVEL - but - the processing (developing and printing) of this data in an anologue fashion is labor and material and time consuming.

The results, however, can be stunning - but must be seen with the naked (analogue) eye - they can not be compared using a digital image on a monitor.


Is that a digital or film photo?
pagerboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2006, 11:03 AM   #27
rey
Senior Member
 
rey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949
Default

When it comes to convenience, nothing beats digital. I think that's obvious, and that's why the op specified quality. I'm new to DSLR (or SLR for that matter), but I've also read that high-end film scanners are getting better, so people's with negatives can get better resolution and quality in the future, while digitally shot cameras are as best as they can be now (unless your PP skills can be improve).

But I think we can say that 35mm film is basically dead (don't flame me), or dying fast. But I've been photo gallery with high resolution pics measuring 6 by 6 feet taken with medium or large format cameras, and in my mind I know it'll be hard for a diigtal camera can touch it in terms of image details.

That's why this discussion is really pointless and never ending. Each format has it's strong points, and that's why some film are still around and high end films will be around for a while.


rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2006, 12:22 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

pagerboy wrote:
Quote:
bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
flippedgazelle,

You are correct. Digital photography is coming close (but close only counts in 'hand grenades') to film, but, for 'hi end' users film is still superior.

As to music:

When I heard my first CD (on top end gear)I thought 'sounds like a soda can full of gravel'. However, the lack of pops and scratches and the convenience of a 300 disc programmable player makes CDs superior to 'vinyl'for everyday listening.

BUT, when I play my good condition vinyl on my JVC t-tableand the Cerwin Vegas speakers - loooook out.

Remember: Musical instruments (conventional type) produce analogue waves.

Speakers produce analogue waves. Ears respond to analogue waves. Power tubes produce analogue amplification!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Photographic film will capture images on the MOLECULAR LEVEL - but - the processing (developing and printing) of this data in an anologue fashion is labor and material and time consuming.

The results, however, can be stunning - but must be seen with the naked (analogue) eye - they can not be compared using a digital image on a monitor.


Is that a digital or film photo?

pagerboy,

It's a digitally 'worked' shot made from a scanned 4x6 print from kodacolor gold 200.

scanned at 900 dpi - sharpened - water color filter applied at 30% - looks fantastic when printed on canvas (by mpix.com) 8x10

EVERYTHING looks pretty good when 'worked' for a computer monitor - THE PROOF IS IN THE PRINTING !

Thie original print is from the days when kodak used to process for the local store and printed 'semi-manually' processing each shot with manual control (albeit on a mass production basis).

Your question proves my point about making comparisons based on viewing screen images.

this is a digital image (looks like crap when printed 8x10):


Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2006, 1:08 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
flippedgazelle,

You are correct. Digital photography is coming close (but close only counts in 'hand grenades') to film, but, for 'hi end' users film is still superior.
I really hate to dissagree here, but that is a pretty broad statement. You won't find a film camera on the sidlines of any pro sporting event. Many very good professional photographers shoot digital including Monte Zucker, George Lepp, Jack Reznicki, Michell, Celentano, just to name a few. I know there are still many many, pros that shoot film, but there are just as many if not more equally good prosthat shoot digital, and they are just as high end of user as the film pros are. I would have to say though if Ansel Adams was still around he would more than likely still shoot film because there is one avenue that digital doesn't compete with and that is the tonal value in black and whites, but even that is getting better.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2006, 1:52 PM   #30
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
35mm film = 25-40meg, large format digital = 22-30meg ergo: large format digital ($20-30,000) is the rough equivalent of 35mm Velvia !!!! So..... the debate continues...................................
You seem to have latched onto this nonsense that you can get 24-40mb of usable info from a 35mm scan. You can scan 35mm film to give you gigabytes of info if you really want to, but everything beyond the 10mb mark is NOISE (grain) not usable information. Arguably 10mb is even being very generous to film because that's the point where ALL the additional info from higher resolution scans becomes noise. Of that 10mb a considerable amount is already noise.


LOL, if you're going to quote articles you could at least take the trouble to READ THEM!!

"I see the resolution differences between the 4X5" drum scan and the P45 as quite minor, but with a slight edge still going to the drum scanned film"

Take it slowly - he's comparing the $30,000 dollar back to 4x5 drum scanned film, not 35mm. In case the math is too trickly for you a 4x5" piece of film has aproximately FIFTEEN times as big a negative as 35mm film.

101.6 x 127mm = 12903 mm^2

24 x 36mm = 864mm^2

12903/864 = 14.93.


"And to my eyes images from the 16Mp Canon 1Ds MKII are awfully close to those from drum scanned 645 format Velvia. (Don't confuse the texture added by film grain with detail.)"

60 x 45mm = 2700mm^2

About 3x the size of 35mm film.

The film is Velvia - but it's medium and large format Veliva not 35mm.


The 5D and 1Ds and 1DsMkII have passed 35mm film by some distance.


But do we really disagreee? Well maybe not.

If you like film use film, it's every bit as good as it used to be.

And actually I do planning on getting a 5x4 view camera sometime in the next few years because I can't afford $30,000 for a digital back, but I can afford to take 10 frames of 5x4 on a shoot occasionally.

And although I can't afford a $20,000 drum scanner, I can afford a $500 film scanner which, combined with a 5x4" negative will get me very close to the quality of a $30,000 digital back.




peripatetic 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 10:32 AM.