[stevebrot]

I shoot both film and digital and have these observations:

• Both good film and good digital are capable of delivering resolution better than most available optics
• The best digital sensors provide better resolution than even fine grained films, though this may not translate into greater acuity for most images.
• Good color fidelity is much easier to attain with digital than with film
• Film can yield much better tonal gradation. This is particularly true for B&W and for color when the subject has subtle colors.
• B&W film has superior dynamic range to digital. This is also true for many color negative films. Example color negative images below...
• Variables in scanning significantly affect the quality of film images when digitized
• Few consumer-grade scanners are capable of adequate resolution to accurately reproduce the grain of a fine grain film such as Ektar 100 (somewhere around 8000 DPI)
• Megapixel comparisons between film and digital are not particularly valuable. My Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED produces a 24 Megapixel image at maximum resolution. Unfortunately, none of the lenses in my bag are up to the challenge. Also unfortunate is that the scanner is not really up to the task either!

Link to Interesting Study With Film/Digital Comparisons

Technique - Ektar 100 test - Introduction

More on the dynamic range issue:

While it is not the best comparison, these two images are from a recent thread regarding Ektar 100 exposure. The first is the one of the test images taken at the rated ISO and scanned with default settings, no PP. The second is a digital photo taken of the setup for reference purposes (K10D center-weighted metering, no PP).





Note that while there is similar shadow detail, the highlights on white washcloth in the digital shot are totally blown. Exposure compensation might help, but the shadows would fade to black. (FWIW...I really like the digital colors as compared to the scanned film...)

Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 07-21-2009 at 11:39 AM.

[foxglove]

• The best digital sensors provide better resolution than even fine grained films, though this may not translate into greater acuity for most images.

That's really interesting, and probably says as much about how our eyes work as it does about digital vs film resolution.

• Film can yield much better tonal gradation. This is particularly true for B&W and for color when the subject has subtle colors.
• B&W film has superior dynamic range to digital. This is also true for many color negative films.

I suspected both of these were true, but I haven't done any direct comparisons and never really trust anything I see on the web - as you point out, the scanning method massively affects the quality of a film image.

Thanks for sharing your experience with both media. I suppose I'm pleased because you confirmed my gut feelings, but it is good to get that sort of confirmation from someone who actually uses both!

Julie

[K-9]

I agree with you. I used to take a lot of film pictures, then forget to get them developed and about 6 months later run across a roll and say I wonder what's on here?

And my parents are the same way. I get pictures atleast once a week via email from them.

And they say 90% of digital pictures never get printed. While that might be a little high bumber, I'd have to say with certaintiy that more film gets processed and printed than digital pics ever get printed. You take a roll of film to be processed, the whole 24 or 36 shots are going to get printed. You take 24-36 digital pictures and how many do people really print?

I agree with that article in saying about how medium format is equivalent to about 100 megapixels. There isn't a pro digital back even those insanely expensive Leaf backs that can equal a 6x7 print. So if you figure you can get a 67II and lens for around $1000, compared to a $12,000 (at least) pro digital setup, there's a huge reason why many pros have not gone digital. You can spend over $10,000 more and still not be at the same quality you are giving up.

[TheGrandPrixKid]

I worked in a Pro Lab until 3 years ago, we ended up closing down as many photographers found that agencies preferred a disc than a set of proofs. The most obvious difference was that low light shooting was far better using film, although now when i see low lighting shots i honestly can't tell the diference between film and digital.
One intrest thing that we found was that although Fuji Pro cameras are so highly rated, they always had a really digital look, and would look the same if shot jpeg or raw.
Finally i can't remember where i read the article but the if you applied pixels to a standard 35mm 200 ISO film if worked out approx 12million Pixels. But the real difference is in the gaps between the pixels which cause noise.