|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 25, 2007 13:53:05 GMT -5
As most of you are aware I've kinda gone digital berserk over the past several months. And my change of lifestyle has got me wondering.
Even six months ago I was the first to argue that unless you were willing to spend a truckload of money, digital cameras could not produce the quality possible with even a mediocre film camera. Then, primarily because we were going to go on a big vacation, I invested in a digital SLR -- not the newest technology but one (maybe two) generations old.
When I was procession some of the digital photos from our trip, I decided to pull up some of what I consider to be some of my better film shots from the past and compare the results.
I have to say that, for the most part, the shots from my 6.1 megapixel "old technology" digital camera, seemed to be better than my film shots.
So why are the digital shots better? First off, I thought that might not be the case if I was to try to blow them up to 11 x 14...BUT...when I tried that the digital still seemed better. How could that be?
I think part of the problem is the way my film has been processed. Maybe it's the lab that develops the film. But C-41 processing is pretty much C-41 processing. The main factor, I believe, is how the film is scanned. I do it with a flatbed scanner that has been promoted as "equal in quality to a dedicated film scanner." Well, I don't think that's the case--or if it is truly as good as a dedicated film scanner, then digital is being underrated.
No matter what film I use--low or high speed, the images start coming apart when I enlarge them the 8x10 or better. The grain becomes very apparent. Some people like grain. I don't. Anyway, the grain in my film pictures becomes very noticeable before my digital still starts pixelating.
Maybe if I had a dedicated $500 plus film scanner I wouldn't be arguing with myself. But there's still the element of scanning the film--which is very time consuming. Even when I'm shooting RAW digital images that must be processed on a computer, it's hands down faster than scanning and processing film.
The other option would be to shoot the film and let the lab do the scanning and printing. The problem with this is two-fold. First is cost, which adds up fast. Second is I can't believe the CD produced by most labs will have images any better than what I can do with my scanner (and most labs I have talked to can't even tell me what resolution they scan at.
I'm really rambling here. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to tell anyone else they should focus on digital. I'm just trying to articulate some of my thought--thoughts I'm sure other folks have, too.
I shot film for more than 40 years. I don't plan to get rid of most of the film cameras I still have because they all are special to me as a collector. But as a photographer I'm not likely to use many of them for taking photos because I think digital is helping me become a better photographer because I am spending less time of the process and more on technique. This means I'm pretty much religated the The Den of Digital Delights" as far as posting photos is concerned.
I guess as a "collecter" I'm a film person. As a photographer, I'm pretty much digital.
This subject has been hashed over many times but I was wondering if anyone else is having similar experiences?
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Apr 25, 2007 14:22:33 GMT -5
Exactly and if you ever try one of the 8 or above MP cameras you will be blown away. I shot with a Canon 5D(12MP) and the amount of detail, even in a heavy crop, is amazing.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 25, 2007 14:38:40 GMT -5
Yeah. I'm trying to round up some money to bring home a D200 this fall. It will meter with all my manual focus Nikon lenses.
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Apr 25, 2007 14:53:41 GMT -5
I am holding out for the 5D
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Apr 25, 2007 18:37:19 GMT -5
I agree absolutely with what you say, Wayne.
So far I've steered away from commenting on the various film vs digital discussions because I felt that I would be in a minority of one and possibly upset a few people who are adamant that film is better.
But I ask, what is meant by 'better'? Is the criterion colour balance, or 'sharpness'; resolution if you like, the ability to enlarge the image up to poster size without losing fine detail or getting intrusive grain or pixellation?
In these days of post-development or post-scanning editing programs colour balance can be altered to almost anything you like. You can even tint the whole image anything from light sepia to dark blue. So in my mind that can be discounted.
Leaving aside the quality of the lens and the accuracy of the camera build in lens to focal plane distance, both of which apply to both digital and film, we're left with most people's criterion - sharpness.
Which leads directly to image size, and I assume we're considering the size of a print.
For close viewing in an album or in a small picture frame, 5x7 inch is perfectly adequate, or 10x8 inch for a full page album or desk-top picture.
If you want to go larger, say to 20x16 to hang a picture on the wall, or even get it pushed up to 40x30 for a really big poster-type picture, you don't normally go close up to it to view it. You stand back so you can take in the whole picture instead of 'rivet-counting' the grain or pixels. From the proper viewing distance it should look as 'sharp' as a 5x7 print in an album.
So my contention is that if either film or digital is able to give you a picture that is perceivably 'sharp' at 10x8 inches, allowing a certain amount of cropping, that's as far as you need to go.
As far as my limited experience of digital goes, my son John's 6 megapixel Pentax *ist DL2, with its standard lens, will produce razor sharp pictures at 10x8 inches. It's also a nice camera to use. The results compare equally with pictures taken by my late wife Valerie using Fujichrome 200 in a Hasselblad with a 50mm Flektogon lens, which were regularly blown up to A4 for magazine covers. I'm not for one split second running down the Hasselblad and Flektogon. That was a superb outfit. But I blanch at the original cost of that compared with the cost of the Pentax.
There's also running cost to consider. With the Pentax it's almost zero pence per picture, only the 'number of pictures per life cycle' as one camera maker puts it. I've no idea how long it will last, nor the cost of repairs if they become necessary. I don't really know what there is on a digital camera to clean, lubricate or adjust, but the cost of having the Hasselblad and its lens and shutter CLAd every year to ensure unfailing professional use with, on average, 10 or 12 films a week going through it, was pretty high even 10 years ago. Nor do I know offhand what a 120 Fujichrome costs now, and I haven't had a 120 transparency film processed in a pro lab for years, but it was quite pricey even then.
My main collecting interest is from the early days of photography up to about 1960, and I don't very often use many in my collection even though I prefer to have them in working order.
So until I can afford a Pentax *ist, which I would very much like, for a main user camera I'll stick with my Canon T70 and film. But I find that for convenience and low cost I'm using my antiquated (by digital standards) 2 megapixel Epson more and more. (Collector's item soon, maybe?). It really does produce very nice 5x7 album prints.
All this, of course, assumes that the picture is worth looking at as a picture, and not just as an exercise in technical excellence. We should never forget the main reason for taking a picture.
I could go on, about storage life of digital medium vs film, but this is far too long a posting already, so I'll shut up and let others have a say.
PeterW
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Apr 25, 2007 19:11:38 GMT -5
.... So why are the digital shots better? ... For several years I kept waiting for digtal cameras to get beyond the teething stage and settle down from the innovation race. In the meantime I was scanning transparencies with an early Canon film scanner. Then I became aware of the noise issue (digital noise is roughly the same as film grain). Especially that scanning film means superimposing a digital matrix on top of the orignal molecule "matrix" of the film, and the two are going to interfere with eachother, with more noise (or graininess) in the result. So yes Wayne, scanned films don't seem to be so good. Of course some scanner models do a beter job than others, but there's the pocket to consider too. The digital camera only has its own sensor matrix, and produces a cleaner (less grainy) picture. And if you read all the reviews you can ignore the cameras with noisy sensors and just consider those that are quieter (and in practice you're still aware of the shallowness of your pocket).
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Apr 25, 2007 19:24:08 GMT -5
This subject has been hashed over many times but I was wondering if anyone else is having similar experiences? Wayne, it matches my experiences totally. And you know I love film and film cameras. But on some of the forums I frequent there's an almost phobic revulsion about anything digital. I stay out of those discussions because they're pointless. My feeling is that the folks who are so pro film really don't have any experience with digital. Convenience is a huge factor -- I can get very good images by scanning with my Minolta 5400 (one of the better film scanners) but it's, as you say, very time consuming. I put up with it so I can get the goodness of traditional B&W film, but most of the time I'd rather shoot digital. The factor often ignored is how much FUN digital is. The freedom to try shooting anything and everything at no additional expense is a great liberator, and great teacher. Myself, I don't see that my 35mm images give me any better images than my Pentax DSLR (6 megapixel). When it comes to colour (esp C41) I think digital has a strong edge in everything except dynamic range. For B&W, film still has the edge, though I've taken some good digital B&W's. Even my pocket P&S digicam challenges my 35mm cams. Heresy to some, but the image quality is really quite excellent up to 8x10. And I don't get prints any larger usually. Then there's the ability to change ISO on the fly, not to mention white balance. All great stuff. I'm still an avid film camera user though. For B&W, as mentioned, and simply because I love the heft and feel of manual film cameras. I particularly like using a classic rangefinder when I'm shooting in the city, and I adore Tri-X film. Nonetheless, the majority of my shooting these days is digital. My $0.02 CAD Gene
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Apr 25, 2007 21:02:32 GMT -5
Here is a "stitched" image that compares 100% crops from two pictures I took recently. The B&W is a center crop from a 35mm negative taken with a Ricoh Singlex II and a Tessar 50mm lens on 200 ISO film developed in D-76. The picture measures just over 39 inches in width. The negative was scanned at 2400 dpi on an Epson 4180 flatbed. The color image is a 100% crop from just left of center and was taken with a Pentax *ist-DS at 400 ISO using a Sigma 18~50mm zoom lens. The full image is just over 41 inches wide at 72 dpi. Both images are untounched except for slight lightening of the B&W picture. Neither have been sharpened or otherwise altered. You be the judge of which would show better when printed at full size. Walker
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 25, 2007 21:24:21 GMT -5
Peter: You might want to keep you eye on the Pentax 10D--or the 100D which is cheaper. The 10d is one of the most weatherproofed DSLRs around and it and the 100D can meter with older K-mount and M42 mount lenses. Here in the states the 10D WITH a decent "kit" zoom lens goes for less than $1,000. If I didn't have the investment in Nikon mount lenses I might go that route.
I also make a very good point on viewing distances for different sizes of photos. No camera produces tack sharp poster-size photos if they are view at arm's length but they look just fine from across the room. Ever liik at the detail on a billboard photo up close? All you see is a dot pattern.
On our recent trip I brought back 800 images. I probably shot at least twice that many but was able to edit out obvious bad ones on the fly--be it because of composition or exposure. The ability to change "film speed" on the fly is a super thing. Even in the dark church interiors I could crank up the ISO and get some sort of image wo using a flash. Such pictures are a little noisy but at least I got a picture.
When we went to Maui in 1992 I shot 16 rolls of film. When duplicates, bad exposures and faulty compositions were eliminated not more than 50 percent of what I shot (probably less) was really worth printing. Of the 800 European shots I would say 750 are "good" (my definition) because I eliminated the spoils and duplicates on the scene.
Most of the digital shots my mate took with her Canon 4 mexapixel point and shoot are very usable too--at least for family albums.
Thanks for the therapy, guys. I've been feeling guilty about doing primarily digital photos on a forum created for film camera collectors. It's a relif to know I'm not the only one going through somewhat of a "change of life." Rest assured I still have my case full of FEDs and Zorkis and the odd pre Spotmatic Pentax and will continue to participate as a film camera collector as well as a digital shooter.
I'm still determined to shoot some HP5 one of these days--a film I somehow have never got around to trying. I have a FED 1 with a super little lens that would be the perfect test camera.
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Apr 26, 2007 3:48:04 GMT -5
But on some of the forums I frequent there's an almost phobic revulsion about anything digital. I stay out of those discussions because they're pointless. My feeling is that the folks who are so pro film really don't have any experience with digital. This is the only forum I've seen where there isn't an acrimonious ongoing debate on the subject. I like to think that the members on here have far more sense! Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 26, 2007 6:06:43 GMT -5
I believe Gene said what I was thinking. I think I have said before that I had enlargements made from our last trip at Wally World from jpeg files put out by an FZ50. The sizes were 11x14 and 12x18 inches. None of the images were crops and all were shot at iso 100. The files were resized in PS Elements 2.0 to give 300dpi prints. Yea, I know jpegs, small sensor equals noise and all the supposed deficiencies to boot. Long story short, more than adequate for hanging on a wall at home but then my standards may be way low. I think phobic and elitist best describe a lot of film vs digital debates.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Just Plain Curt on Apr 26, 2007 6:29:46 GMT -5
I've seen some excellent work done both in digital and with film so I don't really take sides one way or another on image quality. I just find digital immensely complicated to learn (guess I'm just an old dog) and handling the plastic fantastics leaves me cold and bored compared to a heavy old chromed beastie. If you've ever handled a Leica (thanks Bob), a Retina, Contax or even a Spotmatic you can just feel the quality where if someone hands you a plastic fantastic, it's not much different from a walkman or ipod, just nothing there for me. Sometimes I find on every forum I attend we're all becoming simply image collectors, not involved with the camera aspect anymore other than who's sensor is bigger, or how everyone's scared silly to get dust on their electronics. With an oldie, a quick breath on the lens, wipe with a micro fiber cloth and it's off to the races. Maybe when they're not so fragile I'll be thrilled, but till then I just find digital while rendering amazing image quality leaves me as empty as a cucumber sandwich. I think sooner or later all the forums will be photography only and the equipment won't matter anymore. Sorta takes the fun out of collecting for me.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 26, 2007 8:27:18 GMT -5
Curt:
If you pick up a D200 or one of the Canon upper DSLRS (30D and above) the term "plastic fantastic" doesn't fit. Even my lowly D100 is heavy enough that you know you are using a camera. As for ruggedness, about a month ago I went down flat on my face in Paris while carrying the D100. My right shoulder still ain't right. The camera didn't hit the ground but took a big time jar and kept on ticking. The lenses on a lot of the point and shoots are tender because they have plastic gears to extend and retract them. One whack on a door frame and they are toast.
|
|
|
Post by herron on Apr 26, 2007 9:08:08 GMT -5
I have to admit, I've been pleasantly surprised by the image quality I get with my Canon dSLR...to the point of looking to upgrade from the 300-D (6.3mp) to something with a bit more, say 12mp! But it's not something I feel any inclination to collect. It's a definite user thing, but as far as something that I will admire on the shelf in 20 years (let alone the 60+ for some of my "film" collection), it's a...well, it's a "most probably not." (and it has nothing to do with the fact I won't even be here in 60 years). Is digital finally as good as (or better than) film? I have not used any of the high horsepower digitals to compare, and don't really want to get into that debate. Digital is the wave of the future, to be sure. But I think I've gotten some decent shots out of my old Mamiya 35mm equipment...and the print quality there often has to do with the lab I use. My local drugstore output was always "iffy" at best...but convenient. Now that some of those sources are drying up, I go to a pro lab in the area that still works with chemicals...and get great results -- but for how much longer, I don't know. Even the pro labs have switched over to mostly digital output (since most pro shooters seem to have gone that way). Digital is certainly more convenient...and that, in our speed-is-everything world, gives it a seemingly insurmountable edge. I think, in the end, it's a very personal thing...and I certainly don't think good images have anything to do with the equipment. Good equipment helps, to be sure, but I've seen some pretty dismal results from folks with absolutely top-notch equipment, and vice versa. It all comes back to the shooter, IMHO. Give someone with a great "eye" an old Brownie, and a hack the latest digital everything...and my money would still be on the former.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 26, 2007 9:22:49 GMT -5
Ron:
You are right. Don't hear much about digital camera collectors. Even though personal computers have been around for about 30 years there doesn't seem to be much interest in collecting them--or old cell phones--or old calculators--or almost anything electronic.
|
|