Livingston Photography wrote:
Peersonally, I would like to know what level of experiance the "pro-film" crowd has with digital. If you aren't competent with digital to shoot a true side by side, I have a hard time with your opinion.

Anybody interested in a set of Ansel Adams books? Some 4x5 film holders?

I've avoided commenting on the film vs. digital quality issues.  So far as I'm concerned, they're different tools for different things.  I have absolutely no experience with digital photography.  I don't even own a digital camera. 

My view camera is transparent to me.  I don't have to think about it when I use it.  I have internalized its limitations; for better or worse, they define the way I approach my art. 

I have no interest in learning another tool.  To me, that would be a waste of time and money.  And I have little of either to spare.  Maybe, with the investment, I could make a new type of photograph.  But I like the ones I make now.

St. Ansel is a false idol.  But tell me more about those holders.  If you have any Ansco/Agfa 4x5 holders, PLEASE let me know -- I am definitely your buyer!  :-)

Sanders.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Someday, I may teach a class in photography, and when I do, I'd do this on the first day.

On one side of the desk in front of the class, I'd lay out a tablecloth, light a candle, put down a cutting board on which I'd place a freshly baked loaf of french bread still steaming from the oven, beside the cutting board would be a tub of freshly churned butter, some china plates, and silverware.  On the other side of the desk, I'd throw a bag of Wonderbread, plastic plates & knives, and a tub of margarine.  I'd invite the class to partake.

There is no doubt in my mind that the "real bread" side is more expensive, more effort, more difficult to obtain, and higher quality.  If you want the quality, if the quality matters to you, you don't care about the effort or the expense.

To those who think you can fools people with side by side comparisons of digital & film prints:  you probably haven't seen a high quality film print.  Trust me, if you are talking about a print made by a skilled photographer, there is no comparison.

Finally, for those making an argument that digital is cheaper, consider this.  The camera you bought in 2004 is probably obsolete right now.  The camera you buy today will probably be obsolete in a couple of years.  I have a medium format camera that is 25 years old and a 35mm camera that is older than I am -- I don't have to replace them ever.  Are you including your need to replace cameras & computers & storage devices & software upgrades into the calculations that justify your opinion that digital is cheaper?

Now there's a class worth playing hooky on. (cough)

That one can produce something in only one medium that only a very very few can discern the positive differences in vs some other competing medium, isn't really the issue-'neh?

Purists aren't paying the bills people.

Purists are a statistical oddity-not the mass market.

Wonder bread sells one hell of a lot more loaves a day than the best of the by hand bakers. And to those buying it, it IS bread. The customer is always right.

Most can't tell the difference between an image made with the two different capture mechanisms-period.

To claim otherwise, is to reify.

Let's review this discussion in 20 years.

Now, which is best, a MAC or PC? (smiles, then ducks out for a loaf of real bread)

area291 wrote:
The analogies to music are hard to compare in the film-digital debate, unless one looks to unique post-processing.  I would tend to agree that film or digital can show a  unique result through using a different skill-set, but that is in the artistry and not a straight comparison of capability.

For example, artists such as Springsteen who uses a modified '52 Fender Esquire (including waterproofing due to the sweat produced during live shows), Keith Richard's Telecaster has the sixth string removed, is always tuned to open G with replacement tuners, a brass replacement bridge with individual saddles with the nut cut to accommodate 5 strings and Muddy Waters replaced the neck on his guitar due to such large hands / fingers. Each of these are examples of modifying the tools.  Rarely are cameras "modified" in such ways to impact results.  To compare with music reminds me of the uproar Dylan caused when he went "electric."  In the end it was no better or worse in the message he extended through his music.

Taking all modifications and post-processing away from the equation, the characteristics of film offer no overwhelming advantage over digital.  At this point in the advancement in technology the same can't be said for the reverse, high-end digital clearly out performs film at it's highest level.  However, and here is the distinction, the difference is in the post processing modification.

The key for either is striking the right chord for maximizing results.  For that, nobody can state with any degree of clarity that one form is better than the other in an across the board comparison.

Precisely.
And I have to ask.....what's the big deal?
Dey all pitchers at the end of the day....ain't dey?

Sanders McNew wrote:

I've avoided commenting on the film vs. digital quality issues.  So far as I'm concerned, they're different tools for different things.  I have absolutely no experience with digital photography.  I don't even own a digital camera. 

My view camera is transparent to me.  I don't have to think about it when I use it.  I have internalized its limitations; for better or worse, they define the way I approach my art. 

I have no interest in learning another tool.  To me, that would be a waste of time and money.  And I have little of either to spare.  Maybe, with the investment, I could make a new type of photograph.  But I like the ones I make now.

St. Ansel is a false idol.  But tell me more about those holders.  If you have any Ansco/Agfa 4x5 holders, PLEASE let me know -- I am definitely your buyer!  :-)

Sanders.

This is the real arguement against digital, education & cost requirements.

The Adams books are good in that they teach you how to properly expose for the lighting, something sorely lacking in a lot of "digital" photography. When digital is bad, it is usually because of technical incompetence.

BTW, I was never able to shoot people with the Dicomeds and I am not holding the D1 up as a good example of digital. I expect the H1/Imacon is finally going to get me where I want to be in digital B&W.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Some of us like to dwell on the impossible.  Some on the possible.

And are "some" of "us" superior homosapiens, or just different homosapiens?

Just thought I'd ask.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Some of us like to dwell on the impossible.  Some on the possible.

And are "some" of "us" superior homosapiens, or just different homosapiens?

Just thought I'd ask.

Twice.

Lapis wrote:
I had to change my avatar to a film one just for this discussion. lol. Thank god female butts are not considered 18+ if there is not lots of ass crack showing.

God I love it when Lapis puts her two cents in!  I'd love to work with her someday but I don't know if we could stop laughing long enough to actually take a picture.  She really "cracks" me up. 

Mike Lynch wrote:
I hate to say this folks, but that image **is** digital.
If it were film, you'd have to be in NY to see it.
Luckily for us, electrons travel through the internet with ease.
And that's my two pixels. . .
-Mike

Haha! I always get a kick out of people who point to a jpg on the web to show how much better one medium is than another.  Talking about the science or the mathmatical arguments of one versus the other is one thing, but I don't see how anyone can discuss the esthetic qualities of digital versus darkroom prints without everyone standing around looking at a fairly large prints under good lighting.

Livingston Photography wrote:
When digital is bad, it is usually because of technical incompetence.

You mean, "When photography is bad, it is usually because of technical incompetence," right?  Both digital and film photography require technical knowledge.  And both have costs.

Know your tools, whatever they are.  Choose the tools that serve you best based on the priorities and goals you've set for yourself.  Make some photos.

Brian Diaz wrote:
You mean, "When photography is bad, it is usually because of technical incompetence," right?  Both digital and film photography require technical knowledge.  And both have costs.

Know your tools, whatever they are.  Choose the tools that serve you best based on the priorities and goals you've set for yourself.  Make some photos.

Incompetence is greatly enhanced with digital.
Just ask the color guy at one of the high-end printer/pre-press houses.

Mike Lynch wrote:
I hate to say this folks, but that image **is** digital.
If it were film, you'd have to be in NY to see it.
Luckily for us, electrons travel through the internet with ease.
And that's my two pixels. . .
-Mike

Great point, so very true.

Anytime I see these discussions I think of how film photographers debate on what kind of film camera is better than the other. Then I think of how those who work digital debate on which camera is better.

It doesn't matter much to me. As long as in the end it's a great photo.

Champion wrote:
Anytime I see these discussions I think of how film photographers debate on what kind of film camera is better than the other. Then I think of how those who work digital debate on which camera is better.

It doesn't matter much to me. As long as in the end it's a great photo.

I agree, shoot with what works for you.
It just gets to me when the tech phobs say film is better then digital and they have no research to back it up.

The camera debate in digital is becoming mute. In medium format all the manufacturers are using the same chip. It becomes a software/firmware corrections issue.

area291 wrote:

That is dead wrong.  That places the assumption there is greater photographer skill on the film print made than the digital print made.  That simply isn't true.  Turn the bread baking table.  How would the teacher explain the difference between the results of a disposable and advanced Nikon / Canon DSLR?

However, I will agree the cost comparison to achieve highest level results (for the comparison) probably favors film.

No, you are wrong.  You are.  Yes, you are.

I've used sensitometry to calibrate my film & print processing, using densitometers to measure how light sensitive materials, like film & photographic paper, react to light.  Just looking at photographic paper -- no digital paper can produce the deep blacks that photographic paper can.  Forgetting the aesthetics, film & paper are simply more capable of recording & presenting a larger range of tones than digital prints.  Further, film & paper can put details into the highlights & shadows better than digital prints.

I'm saying that the best film camera in the hands of a skilled film photographer can produce better quality prints than the best digital camera in the hands of a skilled digital photographer using the best digital printing techniques & materials.

Further, a basic 35mm negative can contain as much information as a 200 megapixel image file, and the upper standards of digital camera today are what, 16 to 20 megapixels?  More skilled film photographers use larger negatives, from 6x7 to 4x5 to 8x10 -- they simply have more "resolution" than current digital images.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Further, a basic 35mm negative can contain as much information as a 200 megapixel image file, and the upper standards of digital camera today are what, 16 to 20 megapixels?  More skilled film photographers use larger negatives, from 6x7 to 4x5 to 8x10 -- they simply have more "resolution" than current digital images.

Can you tell me how you are getting 200 mp of info from a 35mm negative? My own experience with my lab's scanner is around 6-12 mp per frame depending on the film quality before grain becomes an issue. On medium format, the maximum the lab can give me is 16 MP. However on most it is readily apparent that the film could be scanned to a 30-50 MP level without grain being a problem.....but 200?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
...Further, film & paper can put details into the highlights & shadows better than digital prints.

It is the other way around...

You are confusing better with different.  Film details are different, but not necessarily better in that the image is not as exact as digital.  Where film can't hold the exactness is in the tonal range against a high megapixel image (200 in your example) as each pixel within the image carries with it a "consistent per pixel" captured light dynamic range.  With film, the silver is removed to a degree that doesn't "compete" with that high pixel count range...there is no mathmatical ability to do that, nor does film carry consistency across the full sheet to the same mathematical degree as the digital sensor.   What your densitometer comparison is reading in comparison is not a "better" tonal quality in a film image, but a more exact reading in the complete range assigned per pixel in the digital image.

As for paper, there are still some (digital select paper) issues particularly at the "knee" of the readings.  That could, or could not impact the lower range of the print in the depths of the black.  However, that depth also goes to the dynamic range of the image itself and the interpretation of transferring that range to a print.  Which goes to, better or just different?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

No, you are wrong.  You are.  Yes, you are.

I've used sensitometry to calibrate my film & print processing, using densitometers to measure how light sensitive materials, like film & photographic paper, react to light.  Just looking at photographic paper -- no digital paper can produce the deep blacks that photographic paper can.  Forgetting the aesthetics, film & paper are simply more capable of recording & presenting a larger range of tones than digital prints.  Further, film & paper can put details into the highlights & shadows better than digital prints.

I'm saying that the best film camera in the hands of a skilled film photographer can produce better quality prints than the best digital camera in the hands of a skilled digital photographer using the best digital printing techniques & materials.

Further, a basic 35mm negative can contain as much information as a 200 megapixel image file, and the upper standards of digital camera today are what, 16 to 20 megapixels?  More skilled film photographers use larger negatives, from 6x7 to 4x5 to 8x10 -- they simply have more "resolution" than current digital images.

My former teachers made us use densitometers and learn the chemical makeup of film; 10 years later the students use a Digital SLR and a laptop. I've seen (at the colleges portfolio show)amazing ink jet prints from the 6 megapixel Nikon and Canon entry level digitals (40-50 inches) that the students use now. The tonal range on the higher end digital cameras is really impressive and allows great flexibility with good RAW editing software. Film is beautiful, but it doesn't have the superiority to digital prints that you speak of.

groupw wrote:

Can you tell me how you are getting 200 mp of info from a 35mm negative? My own experience with my lab's scanner is around 6-12 mp per frame depending on the film quality before grain becomes an issue. On medium format, the maximum the lab can give me is 16 MP. However on most it is readily apparent that the film could be scanned to a 30-50 MP level without grain being a problem.....but 200?

Those scanning limits could be a limitation of the scanner (and its resolution), and not necessarily an issue with the film itself.

The 200 megapixel was a theoretical number calculated based on the information that can be contained on a microscopic level in a negative.  Twas an article I read a few years back -- to be honest, I don't know whether it is true, but there is a lot of information in a 35mm negative.

studio L wrote:
Now there's a class worth playing hooky on. (cough)

Does being snide make you feel smart, you twerp?

I read your first statement & decided that there wasn't any further point in reading anything else.

I was offering a serious opinion -- if you want to be rude, find another sucker.  If you want to make a counterpoint, make it without the sarcasm.

Dave Krueger wrote:
Hahahahaha!  What the hell are you people smokin'?  There is no friggin' way a digital picture is ever gonna look like one of my darkroom prints directly from the negative.  Sheesh!  You're completely delusional.  At a bare minimum you'd have to Photoshop in some finger prints, scratches, and a whole lot of lint particles.  On top of that you'd have to make sure every print is different from any other.  Hell, I do that without even thinkin' about it.  My prints are usually different shades of brown depending on the age of the chemicals.  How many of you digital pussies think to spend that much time offering your customers that one-of-a-kind craftsmanship?  Now for the clincher.  Since I print on real genuine fiber based paper, my prints are stiff ol' pieces of thick bumpy lumpy cardboard.  You can't fake that with your cheap imitation Photoshopped tin-horn digital machine prints.

Digital Pussies? Easy Grampa! You've sniffed too much fixer my pre-historic friend. You could tell your clients that  pope John Paul the 3rd(came back to life)blessed your fibre based print and they wouldn't notice the difference most of the times.

Livingston Photography wrote:
Looknsee Photography,
What is the extent of your experiance with digital photography and digital printing?
Have you ever had a discussion with a good color guy at a high-end print house?

Personally, I'm at best "adequate" at working with film & paper.  I've done sensitometry tests on my materials & techniques, and I have "fair to good" controls over the final product.  I will readily admit that I am much less skilled personally in processing digital images.

However, there is a strong artistic community here, and the same was true in the Bay Area.  Both cities have several photography galleries & art museums, and I visit these on a monthly basis.  I am trying to build an artistic community here, so when I can, I meet & talk shop with the other artists in the area.  I have seen high end digital prints; I have seen high end film prints.  And I still can see a difference, especially when it comes to putting details in the shadows.

I should qualify my statements a bit:  I'm only talking about B&W prints.  I concede that where it comes to color prints, digital is on an even keel with film (with the possible exception of those wonderful 20x24 Polaroids you see on occasion -- those were pretty amazing).

Dave Krueger wrote:
Since a digital camera image sensor has 25% red photosites, 25% blue, and 50% green, do you get a higher sharper picture if it's mostly green? 

Muahahahahahahaha!   I kill me!

Based on what you asked, the resultant image will show the inherent variances in pixel value across the CCD array due to differences in photosite sensitivity. Image processing mathematical algorithms divide all pixel values in the flat field image by the array's average pixel value. The results are then correlated, pixel by pixel, against the array values in the light image to produce a better representation of your "green" object of interest.

As for killing yourself, shoot away!

groupw wrote:

Can you tell me how you are getting 200 mp of info from a 35mm negative? My own experience with my lab's scanner is around 6-12 mp per frame depending on the film quality before grain becomes an issue. On medium format, the maximum the lab can give me is 16 MP. However on most it is readily apparent that the film could be scanned to a 30-50 MP level without grain being a problem.....but 200?

I scan at 4800 dpi and get 100MB files from 120 film negatives. 4x5 would require a full cd, or maybe even a DVD.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I should qualify my statements a bit:  I'm only talking about B&W prints.  I concede that where it comes to color prints, digital is on an even keel with film (with the possible exception of those wonderful 20x24 Polaroids you see on occasion -- those were pretty amazing).

When these arguments come up I always wonder what basis people have for their opinons. 

I do a lot of 16x20 B&W prints.  It takes me hours to do one.  They are about as close to perfect as I can make them.  I shoot slow film when I do 35mm, often shoot 6x7, and sometimes 4x5.  I love my prints.   I'm amazed at the quality of image you can get from a camera if you're careful.  When I do an exhibition print, I like getting my nose right up against the glass and seeing the film grain in focus right out to the very corners.   When I see other people's pictures at an exhibit, I do the same thing.  I've been working with film for 30 years and have become quite good at it, technically.

But, I don't often come into contact with equivalent size digital prints.  So, I have very little basis for comparison.  I'd like to, but I don't know any digital shooters who print their pictures out at all, let alone that big.  They post the pictures on their websites and give CDs to the models.

What I wonder, is how many people who post in this and similar threads have the same problem.  These days, many shooters have never worked with film and probably don't come into contact with well done traditional darkroom prints.  Where are they seeing all these prints that make them so confident that their pictures are better than film? 

I've heard all the arguments, but I'd still like to see actual prints side by side.  A lot of them.

area291 wrote:

Dave Krueger wrote:
Since a digital camera image sensor has 25% red photosites, 25% blue, and 50% green, do you get a higher sharper picture if it's mostly green? 

Muahahahahahahaha!   I kill me!

Based on what you asked, the resultant image will show the inherent variances in pixel value across the CCD array due to differences in photosite sensitivity. Image processing mathematical algorithms divide all pixel values in the flat field image by the array's average pixel value. The results are then correlated, pixel by pixel, against the array values in the light image to produce a better representation of your "green" object of interest.

Ummm...  Was that a yes?

Marvin Dockery wrote:

I scan at 4800 dpi and get 100MB files from 120 film negatives. 4x5 would require a full cd, or maybe even a DVD.

your bit depth must be set to 8.  a 16-bit scan from 6x6 at 4000dpi is over 400mb!!!  but it is quite juicy.

Christopher Bush wrote:
your bit depth must be set to 8.  a 16-bit scan from 6x6 at 4000dpi is over 400mb!!!  but it is quite juicy.

So, when you scan at 4800 dpi, is that 48 bits of raw data from each of those 4800 pixels or is that interpolated?

Dave Krueger wrote:
So, when you scan at 4800 dpi, is that 48 bits of raw data from each of those 4800 pixels or is that interpolated?

Marvin Dockery wrote:
I scan at 4800 dpi and get 100MB files from 120 film negatives. 4x5 would require a full cd, or maybe even a DVD.

Christopher Bush wrote:
your bit depth must be set to 8.  a 16-bit scan from 6x6 at 4000dpi is over 400mb!!!  but it is quite juicy.

You guys sleigh me!  Digitizing film!
  Ha!
Just get a digital camera and save yourself all the trouble.
Here's a true story:
The first time I ever saw an image from a digital camera  - (and it was a kodak box digital camera. ~1mp & top of the line back then) I noticed one thing:  My white front door was glowing in the reflected flash.  That's right. Emitting light.  Because it was coming off my computer screen.   You are not going to get paper to emit light.  You can put a light behind it, but it won't glow.   Now that's a step up in dynamic range.

Later I noticed the dynamic range of digital cameras is not the same as that of film, (Still not, . . yet . . .) 

But then black and white does not have the same tonal range as color either. 
Gray just can't compare to mauve . .


Digital is different than analogue. 
In some ways better, in some ways worse.  Know your medium.
I'll stick with pixels thank you.

Dave Krueger wrote:

So, when you scan at 4800 dpi, is that 48 bits of raw data from each of those 4800 pixels or is that interpolated?

i have a nikon ls9000, and it only goes up to 4000dpi.  it does not interpolate.  i use vuescan to capture raw ccd data, and then reprocess later (similar to shooting a raw digicam file).

Mike Lynch wrote:

Dave Krueger wrote:
So, when you scan at 4800 dpi, is that 48 bits of raw data from each of those 4800 pixels or is that interpolated?

Marvin Dockery wrote:
I scan at 4800 dpi and get 100MB files from 120 film negatives. 4x5 would require a full cd, or maybe even a DVD.

You guys sleigh me!  Digitizing film!
  Ha!
Just get a digital camera and save yourself all the trouble.

*sigh*

as i've already stated, i do not intend to invest five figures in transient technology, and then be stuck with some 35mm format electro-whiz-bang toy.  maybe when the billings get super big, i can think about that, but medium format will be necessary for many things even after that point.

Terry Breedlove wrote:
I have a similar shot only in digital.

Camera D100, RAW file.

https://img3.modelmayhem.com/060328/09/ … 8c7047.jpg

SWEET IMAGE !!! I love it

Christopher Bush wrote:

i have a nikon ls9000, and it only goes up to 4000dpi.  it does not interpolate.  i use vuescan to capture raw ccd data, and then reprocess later (similar to shooting a raw digicam file).

Yes, but each photosite in a digital camera sensor provides info only for a single color (red, green, or blue).  In other words, in an 8 mp camera, there a 2 miilion red, 2 million blue, and 4 million green photosites, so a RAW file isn't giving you 8 million points of RGB data.  You would have to go through the interpolation (demosaicing) to get that.

I was just wondering if the dpi ratings on scanners work the same way.

Dave Krueger wrote:

Yes, but each photosite in a digital camera sensor provides info only for a single color (red, green, or blue).  In other words, in an 8 mp camera, there a 2 miilion red, 2 million blue, and 4 million green photosites, so a RAW file isn't giving you 8 million points of RGB data.  You would have to go through the interpolation (demosaicing) to get that.

I was just wondering if the dpi ratings on scanners work the same way.

i believe the nikon scanner pixels are tri-color, rather than the arrays found in digicams.  this means more color info per pixel without interpolation.  that discussion is probably worth a separate thread in the photo forum.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Those scanning limits could be a limitation of the scanner (and its resolution), and not necessarily an issue with the film itself.

The 200 megapixel was a theoretical number calculated based on the information that can be contained on a microscopic level in a negative.  Twas an article I read a few years back -- to be honest, I don't know whether it is true, but there is a lot of information in a 35mm negative.

Having zoomed in on a 70 megabyte file made from a Nikon scanner @4000 dpi 16 bit color and seeing grain particles then zooming in and seeing the pixels that made the grain particles, I would dispute your assertation.

Jack D Trute wrote:
I love film.
I love Sarah the model.







I also love porn.

Agreed on all 3 counts.