Digital vs Film

[Michele]

Hi...

Just how different is digital shooting than film shooting? I often get asked this and never am very good at answering. I also find it an interesting topic of discussion.

Michele

[dc2]

I used to shoot film and then i got a 10D I did find it different but now I have a Recently got a 1Ds 2
I'm finding it very different again .
So I guess to some extent it depends on the camera lens we are talking about.
Its all a bit complicated but I suspect that also gives it appeal.

[mawz]

Digital is a lot like shooting slides. Limited dynamic range and exposing for the highlights is critical. Other than that, it's pretty similar to film overall. Quicker feedback on composition and exposure, but you've still got work ahead of you to maximise image quality, just like film.

[SensorDust]

Digital gives me the freedom to take more pictures of the same subject knowing that I can keep only the pictures I like, at no extra cost. With film it was always aware that more pictures cost me money on film and development. A 2 Gig flash card is less expensive to fill with pictures than the equivalent amount of film plus development, and it is reusable.

The point is, with Digital I am more likely to end with one picture that I like even if my skills at taking pictures are lacking. I just take pictures until I find the one that pleases me. Film costs more money to experiment with...

[Gaelan]

Greetings from your friendly neighborhood druid
I consider myself a raw novice when it comes to the technical aspects of digital. I have only used a cheap Polaroid snapshooter which died a few months after purchase and the flash card ceased to be manufactured. Larger volume cards wouldn't work in it and the cost of repair made it a throw away.
So I got a Sony Mavica which used floppies and did better work with easily acquired "film". Before long I had over 500 full disks cluttering the computer table. The problem being that, even with reformatting the floppies, some refused to again record images and a number of great photos were lost.
My fault that I didn't use the images for anything but personal memory storage. Like storing snapshots in a cigar box and finding them years later. Photographs should be displayed some way. Albums or slide shows.
So, like my 26 8X10 boxes of rolled 35mm negatives and 30+ notebooks of negative sheets, they languish on shelves awaiting the day I hunt for important images. (Goddess help!)
Anyway, when I lost so many photos because of camera shake, slow response time, lack of a viewfinder, ( you can only use the small rear screen to compose and in bright light that is damnnear impossible), I came close to giving up on photography until the wife told me to go ahead and get a Nikon D70. a brand that I trust with features that come close to a real camera.
The composition side translates easily. The processing is apples and oranges.
I have yet to find a computer program which will give me the results I could get from trays of smelly chemicals. It's the old fogy in me.
There is true magick in the darkroom. Processing film, making prints, all the hands on tricks I have learned in my many years of hobby and photojournalism. Progress, (?), and expense forced me to go digital.
To truly enjoy photography I would have to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear; when I could eyeball an exposure in next to nothing light, push ASA 400 film to 6400, capture images that would be impossible to mere mortals, and make double exposures, sandwich negatives, solarize film and prints, do do that voo doo that I do so well.
The wife said that I was so good that I could see a half naked girl-child sashaying down the street and know instantly the correct shutter speed and F-stop for a given film. I could too.
I don't think the same applies to electronic image making. I'm still learning so it is very possible that I am wrong.
What I miss the most is the ability to produce 16X20 and 20X24 prints suitable for exhibition.
I suspect that digital quality would disintegrate and the expense of a printer which could render an image that size would be more expensive than a darkroom with all the whistles and bells.
A question; are there any labs which can produce large prints from digital? What are the recording specs they require and how much does a quality print cost?

[Michele]

Thank you Gaelan for your added input. There is no right or wrong answers here....

To answer your question in regards to large prints, I do know a friend who just had a beautiful 16x20 done up at MPIX.com who shoots a Canon 10D. He interpolated it up using the 10% increment steps through PS to get to that size and is very pleased with the results. He called me as soon as he got it very excited as he wasn't expecting a good print. I know there are a ton of places out there that do a good job and will do gallery size prints from digital. Hope that helps.

Michele

[lazarus]

In some ways they are the same and in other ways they are worlds apart. Shooting slides like mawz says is probable the best way to say it. It also make a deferents in what* kind of camera you use witch is unlike film, in that you could take great film pics with a crappy camera. This is because each digital camera maker tweaks the camera to produce the best jpg pic that they think you will like. Now when you move on to a camera that shoots raw it changes to being kind of be-teen slides and color negatives. I think that if you learned* on b&w film in many ways this is the biggest adjustment, if you learned on slide or color negative film it's not such a big change.

Originally Posted by Gaelan

Greetings from your friendly neighborhood druid
I have yet to find a computer program which will give me the results I could get from trays of smelly chemicals. It's the old fogy in me.
There is true magick in the darkroom. Processing film, making prints, all the hands on tricks I have learned in my many years of hobby and photojournalism. Progress, (?), and expense forced me to go digital.
To truly enjoy photography I would have to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear; when I could eyeball an exposure in next to nothing light, push ASA 400 film to 6400, capture images that would be impossible to mere mortals, and make double exposures, sandwich negatives, solarize film and prints, do do that voo doo that I do so well.

For me it much the same as it is with Gaelan when it come to the wet side of pics. I would not think of my self as a newbee with Nikon capture or PS, but it is not as easy or as fast to learning as how to make a print. Like Gaelan i was a master in the dark room and frankly was better at it then i was at shooting. I was quit good after only a few times, where as* shooting it took a few years to really learn to get ok at it! This is where digicams shine IMO the more you shoot the better you get if you work at it. With film you had to take notes to know what f-stop-ext you had used. Now if one wonder what they shot at or why some thing did not go right they can look at the Exif info. Added to that you are liberated from the cost of film, paper, labs, and cems. Digital does have a bigger cost going in, but if you look at it from films cost it pays for it's self very fast. i figured that my d-70 kit paid for it self off after 4 months if looked at it from the cost of film.
Steve

[cameraguy21773]

I find that, with the D70, it's much like using slide film.

[deluco]

I have 20x24 canvas prints on my walls from JPG digital files that were 2.4mb out of the camera. I did not add interpolation, but at that size, you have to be careful on which prints you select.

As stated Digital is much like slides, but even less forgiving. I have not shot Raw but am told that you get much more latitude with raw.

[Big-H]

Interesting that no-one commented on the idea that film is more "truthful" because you can't alter the negative (well, not easily) whereas with digital you can change virtually any part of the picture you like!
Are there philosophical points here that need discussing or have these all been exhausted? If so where?

H

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Big-H

Interesting that no-one commented on the idea that film is more "truthful" because you can't alter the negative (well, not easily) whereas with digital you can change virtually any part of the picture you like!
Are there philosophical points here that need discussing or have these all been exhausted? If so where?

H

It's true that it's difficult to alter a negative, although I scan all my negs so they end up with the Photoshop treatment eventually . Also, didn't Ansel Adams do a lot of dodging and burning of his negs all those years ago?

There probably are points to be raised about truthfulness in capture, but I don't know if I have the knowledge to delve deeply into it. Would like to hear views on this area of the philosophy of photography though.

[mawz]

It's not difficult to alter a negative, just very annoying. I use the same tools in PS that I'd use with a neg, with the lone exception of the clone tool (And even that has it's equivalents, touch-up pens) so it's not much different for me, except I don't need a dedicated darkroom to print.

[scoundrel1728]

I have heard a lot (on other forums) about film's superior resolution, especially in its larger formats, and dynamic range. At present, the current crop of dSLRs is catching up with 35 mm film in the resolution department and the images are a lot less noisy. The reduced dynamic range of digital means the margin for error in exposure is comparable or less than that for color transparency film. Shooting with digital is thus much like shooting with color transparency film EXCEPT:

You can change the ISO rating at will. In this respect, digital has an advantage otherwise reserved for large format photographers who can choose the proper film for each individual exposure.

Ability to change color balance at will, meaning a lot less fussing around with color balancing and compensating filters.

Rapid fire capability that outdoes even the optional motor drive on a 35 mm camera. And it comes standard without increasing the size or weight of the camera.

Instant image review capability so you have some feedback on your images while still on-site and can reshoot if necessary.

Really low incremental cost per exposure, meaning you can use your rapid-fire capability and can experiment a lot without having to worry about the cost of film and processing.

Of course, what happens after the exposure is a lot different, except after the scanning step for those film photographers who digitally post-process their exposures.

For APS-sized digitals, smaller telephotos for the same magnifying capability, but this advantage may be counterbalanced by greater problems at the wide angle end, but this often-mentioned difference based more on image size than the digital vs. film issue.

[Big-H]

I'd dispute the suggestion that dSLRs are only catching up on film - I'd back my D100 against film anyday, even 100 ASA film! And some of the latest dSLRs are regarded as competing now with MF films... This is apparent from reading professional journals too. Much of the so-called detail in for example film scans, is just noise, i.e. the grain of the film!

But that's not really my question. The trace for film starts with the negative, and handiwork on that, even for MF or LF must be difficult to hide. But you can work wonders with digital and leave no trace (!). The Madrid bombings were a case in point, where one newspaper in U.K. printed the image with mutilated bodies, whilst another left them out...Rather like the USSR political photos showing who was in one year, and the same the next year but missing someone. But those couldn't match the perfection of a modern digital image. There was a case a few years ago, when a monk was photographed in a normal suit on his way to meet his mistress...but in the paper his head was transplanted digitally onto someone wearing the full monkish garments. Yes I know that could have been done with negs - even colour ones. But a damn sight more difficult, and I think impossible to hide your tracks. So when can a photograph be trusted as a realistic image of an event?

Howard

[Paul Shields]

But sometimes 'perfection of a modern digital image' may be not what is wanted. Noise from film, and saturation of film may actually be a sought after quality. In the same way that audio recording is still often mastered to tape to pick up the non-digital artifacts that turn out to be appealing to our ears. I think there is more to it than apparent resolution, and the imperfections of film may actually be part of it's appeal .

[Big-H]

According to Paul:

sometimes 'perfection of a modern digital image' may be not what is wanted

Ah but I didn't argue that point simply that film is not superior to digital. Whether you work with film or digital is a matter of choice, based on your personal preference. My point was that film freaks say film is "better", in terms of resolution and colour which is simply not true. The end result may well of course be preferable in their eyes.
But I like the clean lines of digital, its sharpness, detail and colour saturation, and my ability to control it. Colour film processing and printing always seemed to be a nightmare. Colours varied from month to month even using the same film, camera and processing lab (admittedly not pro, because I couldn't afford it!). Portraits were usually the worst. I like digital's convenience, speed, and the opportunity it gives me to experiment freely at zero cost (well, dammit, I've already shelled out for the equipment)
I do actually like B&W film and printing. But it's well, not as quick and easy as digital!
And personally the click and pop of LPs used to drive me to distraction! Roll on digital radio - but then someone out there will say...

Howard

[IMO_Bob]

After reading some of the comments, I have to add my $0.02 worth. I've been shooting film longer than I want to admit. Started with a Rollei SL-35 then went to Olympus OM-1s. I was fighting the urge to go digital but finally bought a 20D.

Some say they save money with digital. No film, no processing costs. Well, software for digital imaging isn't free. Good photo ink isn't free. Good photo paper isn't free. Then the 800 mhz P-III with 512M RAM wasn't fast enough and the new 2600 Athlon with a gig of ram and the big hard drive and super graphics card wasn't excatly cheap....... The only thing I can agree with here is the CF cards can be reused.

Some others say they can shoot a lot and know they will get a good picture. Sort of like sticking a shotgun in a cave and pulling the trigger to get a bear. I guess knowing about the subject and taking the time tio compose and expose properly and shooting a few frames with the film that I used for years is no longer important.

Now I can shoot and spend time in front of this infernal computer And look over the dozens of exposures and print the ones I want to keep. No more dropping off a roll of film at Costco and coming back in an hour then sitting back with a Pepsi or a Bass Ale and looking over the 4X6s. No more thinking that so-and-so might like this so I can give away the second copy. I have to sit here and print it myself. Or maybe email it and let so-and-so print it.

One thing great about digital for me is no problems at the gate when flying. No more ISO 1000 film or my old stanby, a roll of Kodak 3200 B&W film to get me past without the xray thing.....

Maybe I'll enjoy it more as I use it more.

Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.......

Bob