Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-06-2009, 11:16 PM   #1
Veteran Member
krypticide's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,079
Why is film still better than digital?

What is it about film images that just seem to capture emotions and memories so much better than digital? Am I alone in this thinking? The images might not be technically well done (bad focus, faded colors, eyes closed, etc.), but I've found that there are more "keepers" among film shots than digital ones, at least when it comes to sentimental, personal images.

Is it that we grew up learning that old memories means faded color images? So that when we see a perfect reproduction of a memorable moment, the image is not as powerful as the "imperfect" image? I've even found that tweaking my vacation snaps to look more like "imperfect" film shots makes the recorded memories that much stronger.

Some examples of memorable (to me) film and digital shots.

Film





Digital




08-06-2009, 11:59 PM   #2
Damn Brit
Guest




Same reason vinyl is better than CD. I expect analogue will remain king until we are dead and buried and the next generations have grown up in a completely digital world.
08-07-2009, 02:27 AM   #3
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,793
I'm going to cry.
08-07-2009, 02:36 AM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Rense's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Zetten - The Netherlands
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,050
Technically: because film shots have a wider dynamic range, as life itself.
Emotionally: because film shots are grainy, rough, as life itself.

Probably. Or not of course. But I agree with you, film shots are often more appealing....

08-07-2009, 04:07 AM   #5
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,675
Chevy is better than Ford.....
Vinyl is better than CD.....
Blonde is better than brunette.....
Harley is better than .... anything...

Not surprisingly, film is now better than digital.

Opinions are wonderful, aren't they?
08-07-2009, 05:35 AM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South West Oz
Posts: 125
Maybe because of when we shoot with digital or used too we took more care to take images of things that really mattered to us.
Now we tend to try to out do each other with the sharpest best exposed image, instead of turning our life into our personal documentory. So then the images mean so much more for us because the evoke personal emotion!

Fritz....
08-07-2009, 05:49 AM   #7
graphicgr8s
Guest




Thing is as soon as you've scanned it you have taken away the film's quality and depth. It is no better nor any worse than a digital print. Experiment. Take a film shot and get it printed the old way if you can. You'll see what the hubbub is all about. Film is better if it is printed totally analog.

08-07-2009, 05:53 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,911
QuoteOriginally posted by J.Scott Quote
Not surprisingly, film is now better than digital
film is still better than digital ... at certain things
08-07-2009, 05:59 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,911
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Thing is as soon as you've scanned it you have taken away the film's quality and depth. It is no better nor any worse than a digital print. Experiment. Take a film shot and get it printed the old way if you can. You'll see what the hubbub is all about. Film is better if it is printed totally analog.
i have heard it argued that with some high quality scanning and printing, the difference in a totally analog vs analog-digital print is negligible.
08-07-2009, 06:03 AM   #10
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by k100d Quote
i have heard it argued that with some high quality scanning and printing, the difference in a totally analog vs analog-digital print is negligible.
Depends on what you mean by "negligible". And I am not 100% sure, but don't most of the minilabs scan the negs then print? If so than you haven't seen film to paper via analog. You've seen film with it's full gamut of color and depth scanned and reduced to the level of digital then printed.
08-07-2009, 06:04 AM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,911
QuoteOriginally posted by krypticide Quote
What is it about film images that just seem to capture emotions and memories so much better than digital? Am I alone in this thinking? The images might not be technically well done (bad focus, faded colors, eyes closed, etc.), but I've found that there are more "keepers" among film shots than digital ones, at least when it comes to sentimental, personal images.
i think it's all in your head really. i love film and shoot film, but maybe in 20 years, if we are still able to view JPEGs and PEF files, you'll probably think the same thing about your pictures.
08-07-2009, 06:05 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,911
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Depends on what you mean by "negligible".
30 min podcast, check it out if you're interested
Inside Analog Photo Radio - Stephen Schaub | Inside Analog Photo Radio & TV

QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
And I am not 100% sure, but don't most of the minilabs scan the negs then print? If so than you haven't seen film to paper via analog. You've seen film with it's full gamut of color and depth scanned and reduced to the level of digital then printed.
that's my understanding as well. hard to get real analog prints except b&w ones.

Last edited by k100d; 08-07-2009 at 06:17 AM.
08-07-2009, 06:09 AM   #13
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,491
latitude and stable white ballance in different film fomulas.
Plus smoother transitions.
Digital will catch up.
08-07-2009, 06:21 AM   #14
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,972
Differences likely still exist, but honestly they are pretty small now between the two formats.

I think what you miss with using film is the time between when the event occurred (and you took the photo) to when you actually got the print in your hands to review. Memory confabulation will come into effect during that time and fantasize the situation giving it more meaning (think: the good old days). With digital you get the results instantly, so the image is a capture of your emotion right at that time rather than how you interpreted the situation over the course of a couple of days/weeks/months/years (depending on when you got your film developed). This concept is very well documented.

So...it's OK to be in love with film. It's a viable source for taking pics that is steeped in history and for most of us is where we began (i.e. the good old days).

It's also OK to be in love with digital. It's instantaneous (like the rest of our world now), it's cheap, and it's quality is invariably close to film now.

Neither is better than the other, they are simply different. Whatever gets you the results that you like the best is all that matters.

c[_]
08-07-2009, 06:29 AM   #15
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by ll_coffee_lP Quote
Differences likely still exist, but honestly they are pretty small now between the two formats.

I think what you miss with using film is the time between when the event occurred (and you took the photo) to when you actually got the print in your hands to review. Memory confabulation will come into effect during that time and fantasize the situation giving it more meaning (think: the good old days). With digital you get the results instantly, so the image is a capture of your emotion right at that time rather than how you interpreted the situation over the course of a couple of days/weeks/months/years (depending on when you got your film developed). This concept is very well documented.

So...it's OK to be in love with film. It's a viable source for taking pics that is steeped in history and for most of us is where we began (i.e. the good old days).

It's also OK to be in love with digital. It's instantaneous (like the rest of our world now), it's cheap, and it's quality is invariably close to film now.

Neither is better than the other, they are simply different. Whatever gets you the results that you like the best is all that matters.

c[_]
Personally I also think it's that we are willing to settle for less today. Don't get me wrong, I love digital. If I didn't I wouldn't be trying to find a way to get more lenses and cameras. But when my son is a little older I will take his pictures with film. Some digital but I will give my film cameras a workout with him. Then I will process without scanning. Why would I waste money on film to have it degraded by scanning?
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, film, image, images, memories, photography, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Film to digital octavmandru Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 9 04-13-2010 02:00 PM
digital to film... what do i need to know? 65535 Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 12 05-15-2009 11:20 AM
Film and/or Digital..? shiestmiester Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 32 04-18-2009 01:04 PM
Still of the opinion film is better IQ than digital Duncan J Murray Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 14 11-02-2008 03:50 PM
Film vs Digital dylansalt Photographic Technique 23 06-30-2008 08:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:58 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top