Film vs Digital...

[possum]

Go on, shoot. I'm picking everyone has an opinion on this, so after reading that we aren't chatting enough, lol, thought I'd pose this question...

Can digital ever be comparable to film? In the sense of image quality, etc. And in the sense of skills, is it cheating?

xxx Lou

[Deviant]

digital may well be able to capture more information than film some time in the future, but the fact is it will never capture an image the way film does. Film has character, it's the depth, the colours, the grain that makes film unique.

i'm talking about motion and still pictures.

[drspangle]

Go on, shoot. I'm picking everyone has an opinion on this, so after reading that we aren't chatting enough, lol, thought I'd pose this question...

Can digital ever be comparable to film? In the sense of image quality, etc. And in the sense of skills, is it cheating?

xxx Lou

I dont have the experience on the quality side, having never shot film properly.

On the cheating front - is Autofocus cheating? built in metering? viewfinder showing exactly what will come out? higher sensitivity films? Not having to lug around a giant tripod for any shot?

It's all just progress?

There are a lot more people taking photos nowadays I think, but that just means there are a lot of shit photos. The barrier to entry is lower but the talented will always shine through - a better camera will never take good photos in the hands of someone not capable (ignoring luck obviously)

[smurff]

the film slr is something i hope never dies there so nice to look at and there pictures are even better. they have a thing about them.
digital however, i can take pictures with digital, without destroying loads of poor defenseless film that come out to dark or white :)

-smurff

[robo git]

I've never shot film, but have got a Diana F+ on the way and a few rolls of 120 (at various ISOs). I've also got three Polaroid cameras and various film-types (SX-70, 600, Spectra) on the way, so looking forward to that big-time. At the end of the day each medium has something unique that can suit certain situations better than others, or achieves a certain look. For example you wouldn't take a polaroid camera for covering a footy game, but the immediate results and simple action of polaroids can be brilliant for a day at the beach.

[Redal]

Go on, shoot. I'm picking everyone has an opinion on this, so after reading that we aren't chatting enough, lol, thought I'd pose this question...

Can digital ever be comparable to film? In the sense of image quality, etc. And in the sense of skills, is it cheating?

xxx Lou

Digital kicks film butt in everyway , from consistence to easy of use.

Film batches colour varied from batch to batch, drum scanning was a pain in the a*se , dust and cr*p getting everywhere.

Shooting sports with digital is great no having to changing film part way through a game, high ISO on modern Dslrs just kill film .
The learning /teaching of photography is speed up so much due to instant feedback and evaluation of the shot taken.
Dealing with clients near and far in an instant, not hours.

I saw Criag Potton speaking , and he was running digital down saying it was as good as his medium format camera, he must have his head in the sand, has there are plenty of backs for medium format camera , and they are hitting 65-80mp.

In the end ,all cameras are just a tool :)

[robo git]

Digital kicks film butt in everyway , from consistence to easy of use.But some of the colours captured by (some types of) film literally cannot be captured by photography. EG: True cyan (This is not true cyan), deep purples often come out blue, etc. Plus there's something satisfying about producing a photo end-to-end.

... there are plenty of backs for medium format camera , and they are hitting 65-80mp.I covet Phase One kit ;)

In the end ,all cameras are just a tool :)(Y) This needs to be remembered more often - people regularly lose sight of that and get caught up in gear-fa*gotry when at the end of the day if you can't do composition for cr*p you're still going to end up with a cr*p photo, no matter which gear you've got.

[Spacemunkie]

Digital has already surpassed the quality of film for most people.

What gets forgotten in these discussions is the amount of processes that a trad photo had to go through to make it to print, with each one impacting on the quality of the final image. Initial capture, processed negs (temperature, timings, watermarks, dust etc), enlargement (projected image through yet another lens, more dust), print development (more chemicals, more timing...). This is without even looking at the film you shot on in the first place.

I love film but I can't see me even finishing the few rolls I have in the fridge.

I'm not even going to dignify the 'cheating' comment with a response...

[stic]

Film Vs Digital, which is better? It's realy unimportant...

Film is dead! Yes i know ther are plenty of people still using, and even prefering it, but that changes nothing, it's still a dead medium.

Why? Because the world has moved on, digital is here to stay simply because it is EASIER; this alone has made it the dominant format.

Whether film is better than digital is imaterial because the majority of people taking photos (and professionals are in the very small minority here) want simplicity, ease and most important these days, they want it yesterday...

Film Photography Vs Digital photography, either way it's still (pardon the pun) photography.

You, the photographer, are still THE most important part of the equasion.
And, you are still setting up the camera, it's still an SL/R, and you still have to pick the right ISO, f-stop etc...
Then, there's choice of lens, lighting....

Just because digital is easier, that doesn't make it any less legitimate.

[Analog6]

Digital has already surpassed film in recording of dynamic range and details, recording far more depth than film. If people care to delude themselves that film is better, that's fine, just don't try to delude others. I have some med format film in the fridge and it is not even as good as my p20 (16mp) back, so it will be staying there.

[possum]

I'm not even going to dignify the 'cheating' comment with a response...

My apologies if I offended you, not my intention at all. I am not accusing anyone of anything... Just my mind meandering... I am not entirely comfortable with (my own, personal) use of autofocus, lol, for example, and yes, I do use it..

I don't think I can agree it is a dead medium... I can totally agree however that it is now inconvenient and irrelevant to most people.

Is it even measureable?

Yes, you are right, it is unimportant, Stic. It's all about working with what you can, and feel comfortable with. I just thought it would be interesting, as people are passionate about this kind of suff.

Analog6, you made me smile with your name and your digital support...

xxx Lou

[Nat]

I love both, I wish I could still afford to work with film. It just feels like such a magical process compared to digital, especially if you're doing the full darkroom stuff.

I don't think I would ever return to using it for day-to-day stuff, especially not for my clubbing work, but in time I'd like to be able to go back to it just for fun stuff. I would love to be able to set up a darkroom at my house.

In the mean time I've just picked up a polaroid and a bunch of film for a project, I can't wait to get started on it.

[Spacemunkie]

My apologies if I offended you...

Sorry - wasn't meant to sound snotty. Missed the smiley off the end :D

The only thing that might draw me back to analogue photography is large scale alt. process stuff - gums, bromoils and cyanotypes which you don't need to shoot film to produce anyway.

Not sure why you'd be uncomfortable with using AF or any other feature on a DSLR. If you want to be a total purist, do away with the lens as well!

[possum]

It's coz I'm a goober, lol... Nah, I went from a 1960's Pentax to a dSLR, so yeah, having all these new features (lol, like a/f and fancy settings etc) at once was overload. Good overload though - I use it, and I appreciate it. Same with post processing... I quite often edit the crap out of my images... And I like what I come up with... So I am hypocritical in that respect. I am however, a big believer in growth through questioning and reflection, so I don't regret asking. :D

xxx Lou

[smurff]

when i got my first DSLR ( never had a film ), i would shoot in manual with no auto focus. . . then well i got lazy really, the auto focus does a better job than i can ( for the most part ) and i jumped in aperture mode.

i tried to teach myself all i could in manual mode so i have an understanding of how it all works ( be it a small understanding ) then aloud myself to use the other modes.

-smurff

[stic]

I really can't understand the (rather anal) attitude that someone who uses auto focus is somehow cheating!

What a load of crap.

Just how many of the 'so called' purists actually build their own camera's from scratch, huh?

How many of them manufacture their own film?

Yeah, thought so.

You use what you have to best advantage, to create the image you want. It's the resulting image that's important, not which lens, what camera, or how close to the original process you kept...

Purists aren't photographers, their just self indulgent idiots...

[possum]

Ouch.

xxx Lou

[stic]

Just an opinion...:D

[alphaein]

There is just something magical about analoge film... I would still shoot with film for novelty reasons. its just so much more precious to shoot with film now. and if i take my film camera out, you can bet your last dollar I think its a special moment i want to capture...
just like the analoge vacume tube and the sound it makes, there is warmth and presence to it... of coz digital can surpass analogue in many things with today's advancement, but it still lacks the magic analogue has.

film is loosing out to digital in a rapid pace in dynamic range and colour depth (only top end DSLR's or Medium backs) PnS still got a bit of catching up.

[Chocolate]

PROS (in my opinion)

Digital: Fast, easy, more access for new SLR users. Ability to instantly check the photo and make necessary adjustments to shoot again.

Analogue: No Pixels, no Noise - no matter what time of day! Developing film is exciting - especially as an amateur not knowing exactly how a photo turned out when you experiment! Fast filming - no need to wait for computer hardware to "be ready".

CONS (in my opinion)

Digital: Pixels and Noise (even though top end models don't have as much of a problem with this), modern varieties automate so much of what used to make a professional camera person skilled - you could say it removes the "photographer's perspective" in a way. For some DSLR cameras, there is some waiting time for the camera to "be ready".

Analogue: If you mess up - you won't know until it's time to develop - at which point it may be too late to try recapture the moment. Needs more skill (or call it guess work for me) and patience.

[stic]

Not sure which digital SLR's you are using, but my old film camera's were NO faster from power on than my DSLR's...

I shot over a thousand rolls of film before switching to digital and i found the lack of any definitive knowledge of what i'd captured (until they were processed) very limiting.

I also think that, other than replacing a light sensitive film with a light sensitive sensor, there really isn't much difference between an SLR and an DSLR, so saying that the photographer is somewhat taken out of the picture (no pun intended) is wrong.

I have the same choice of ISO, control of aperture, speed, focus etc with a DSLR as an SLR, so how has my role diminished?

It's not like the DSLR is some sort of AI that composes the shot and takes it for you, is it?

You do still need to be there!

That's why i find all this purist crap so pointless; it's just vocal masturbation...

If you like shooting with film, then do it...but don't try to make out that it somehow makes you more heroic than a DSLR user just because it's slower, harder to use and not as likely to allow you to know you got "THE SHOT".

[Chocolate]

I'm not sure which film cameras you were using either.
By the way, you do not need to use an apostrophe between "SLR"/"camera" and the "s" to indicate plural form.

I also mentioned the lack of knowledge of the captured shot as a con under Analogue, so you clearly did not read my post and decided to go ape on a couple of points alone.

Woops I guess I didn't expect people with inferiority complexes to be on this board.
I said it was in my opinion - if you didn't read (again). I have my own opinions and experiences, you have yours.

No need to get all aggro over it. I NEVER said that the photographer is taken out of the picture...twisting words is a very immoral practice, just because everyone else does it today doesn't mean it is okay. My words related to the level of skill required to produce a decent photo. Maybe you feel that you lack some of this skill, and your reliance on technology to do things for you is why you defend DSLR as if I was attacking it solely?

Regarding the "AI" statement, there are the fandangled new dynamic range adjustments which permits a digital seperation of two zones (dark and bright) and adjusts exposure to suit/tone priority/auto sharpening+contrasting/advanced auto white balance etc and more such "optimisations" that I cannot be bothered finding their names.

Pointing a camera and shooting...anyone can do that.
Looking at the LCD and seeing the image as a bit dark, so increasing exposure time...5 year olds could be taught that.
Looking at the LCD and identifying a subject/object slightly out of focus in the fore/background (unwanted) - decrease aperture size...maybe a smart 5 year old can be taught that...

DSLR has no doubt made things easier for photographers. Some things are just purely convenient (ISO adjust/ability to view final product/stability control) - because there is a way to do the same job but with more hassle/time on a traditional analogue film camera.

Seems this board has a few wannabes and closed minded people - fine with me. I came here to broaden my perspective and not reduce it. I didn't come here to argue, although you may exist to - it's not my occupation to cater to your "needs".

Goodbye and good luck with all your self-imposed ideals (you ARE from Auckland, so that would explain a lot :) - especially your whole "vocal masturbation" thing - you guys like to do that a lot eh?)

[Wellzy6]

If you like shooting with film, then do it...but don't try to make out that it somehow makes you more heroic than a DSLR user just because it's slower, harder to use and not as likely to allow you to know you got "THE SHOT". Absolutely. Digital gives SLR photography to a whole lot more people because it is so much cheaper and quicker.

[stic]

I'm not sure which film cameras you were using either.
By the way, you do not need to use an apostrophe between "SLR"/"camera" and the "s" to indicate plural form.

I also mentioned the lack of knowledge of the captured shot as a con under Analogue, so you clearly did not read my post and decided to go ape on a couple of points alone.

Woops I guess I didn't expect people with inferiority complexes to be on this board.
I said it was in my opinion - if you didn't read (again). I have my own opinions and experiences, you have yours.

No need to get all aggro over it. I NEVER said that the photographer is taken out of the picture...twisting words is a very immoral practice, just because everyone else does it today doesn't mean it is okay. My words related to the level of skill required to produce a decent photo. Maybe you feel that you lack some of this skill, and your reliance on technology to do things for you is why you defend DSLR as if I was attacking it solely?

Regarding the "AI" statement, there are the fandangled new dynamic range adjustments which permits a digital seperation of two zones (dark and bright) and adjusts exposure to suit/tone priority/auto sharpening+contrasting/advanced auto white balance etc and more such "optimisations" that I cannot be bothered finding their names.

Pointing a camera and shooting...anyone can do that.
Looking at the LCD and seeing the image as a bit dark, so increasing exposure time...5 year olds could be taught that.
Looking at the LCD and identifying a subject/object slightly out of focus in the fore/background (unwanted) - decrease aperture size...maybe a smart 5 year old can be taught that...

DSLR has no doubt made things easier for photographers. Some things are just purely convenient (ISO adjust/ability to view final product/stability control) - because there is a way to do the same job but with more hassle/time on a traditional analogue film camera.

Seems this board has a few wannabes and closed minded people - fine with me. I came here to broaden my perspective and not reduce it. I didn't come here to argue, although you may exist to - it's not my occupation to cater to your "needs".

Goodbye and good luck with all your self-imposed ideals (you ARE from Auckland, so that would explain a lot :) - especially your whole "vocal masturbation" thing - you guys like to do that a lot eh?)



You don't still use leaches for your ailments too, do you?

What a self indulgent COCK!

[Rick0r]

Does it make a difference?

Anyone can pick up a camera or a paint brush, it's another thing entirely to be a photographer or an artist.

A quote by Chuck Close:

"This is simultaneously photography’s great advantage and its Achilles’ heel: it is the easiest medium in which to be competent. Anybody can be a marginally capable photographer, but it takes a lot of work to learn to become even a competent painter. Now, having said that, I think while photography is the easiest medium in which to be competent, it is probably the hardest one in which to develop an idiosyncratic personal vision."

My standards are pretty high, so most people that call themselves photographers, I wouldn't class as "competent", but the point still stands imo.


Personally, I think digital is the next generation. There's no real reason to shoot film in small format anymore. There's something to be said for medium and large format, but for small format, digital is the way to go.
It's just the evolution of the art. I'm sure when paint artists transitioned from one type of paint or canvas material, there was an obvious upside to the new one, but the "purists" still resisted the change ;D

[stic]

I think that what we call purists are just the sad ones left behind who can't (or won't) learn to use the digital medium, so claim it is somehow inferior to film.

Any child can drop some paper in a bath of liquid...it takes intelligence and skill to manipulate a digital image in post production software...:p