[thazooo]

Apples and Oranges. 2 different mediums they can't be compared.

[MarkJerling]

.... I wish someone would have told me back in the 90's that "An 11X14 inch print was the best you could hope for from a 35mm format". That would have saved me a lot of money! ....

Sometimes friends look at the 50x33" print on our dining room wall and ask: "Wow - how many megapixels is your camera?" And I reply: "35mm colour negative, Pentax SFXn" "No megapixels used in that shot."
The print shows the wires you see on the windmill absolutely sharp, phenomenal detail.

[TwoUptons]

I remember talking with a Kodak rep back in the mid-90s. Kodak has done an internal study and concluded that once digital cameras hit 6Mp, the film industry as we knew it was done. That was arguably spot on.

Now that never precluded professional work that far exceeded that, but for Jane Q. Public, that’s enough, and in my experience, 400 ASA print film in an inexpensive camera gets you there.

I’ve personally done 16*20s from 35mm (not many) and 11*14s from 4 megapixel digital, but my K1 obliterates any 35mm film I’ve ever used.

So maybe between 6 and 36?

-Eric

[jddwoods]

After reading everyones thoughts I think it is time to see if I can get my 1976 Kodak Carousel slide projector working and have a look again at my old slides taken with a Minolta SRT 101 using Kodachrome slide film. As for more recent times I have some thoughts of film vs. digital on a more recent evaluation. When my son was born in 1989 I switched to color prints using Kodak or Agfa ISO 200 print film and bought a Pentax SF-10 SLR. My favorite lens was the F 28mm f2.8. With that combo I was generally pleased with 4 X 6 prints but noticed that 8 X 10 prints were not quite as good showing more graininess. Now, the SF-10 is long gone but I still have and use that same F 28mm on my K-3. So, my subjective comparison between film and digital is with the same lens. To me digital is the clear winner. Colors are much more natural, prints are sharper, even 8 X 10 shows no loss in resolution compared to 4 x 6 prints unlike with the film body. Whether it makes a difference or not, film prints were from a photo store while the digital prints are done at home on a Canon ink jet printer. For me, there is no going back to film.

[sibyrnes]

I know there was a huge difference in the quality of prints depending on where you got your processing done - one of the reasons I preferred slides. i worked for a photo dealer and we send our film to Kodalux for processing and small prints.

[jddwoods]

I know there was a huge difference in the quality of prints depending on where you got your processing done - one of the reasons I preferred slides. i worked for a photo dealer and we send our film to Kodalux for processing and small prints.

I too preferred slides to prints in my film days. I just switched to prints since it was a convenient way to put photos of our son growing up into albums. I hope to get my slide projector working again. The lamp should be an easy replacement but there was a big piece of glass, called the heat absorbing glass to keep the halogen lamp from burning everything. I think it cracked in our move to Delaware. I would love to see my slides again. No matter what, seeing how much I can crop digital pictures on my 21.5 iMac and still maintain sharpness, I think Digital will still surpass slides in every way.

[CDW]

However, if you want to print your digital image, you have to convert it to JPEG. Now a 24mp raw file is about 27mb. a 24mp JPEG less than 6mb. So the conversion to JPEG has lost around 50% of the linear detail. I do not know what detail we would lose with good printing or scanning technique of film, but I suspect it is a lot less than 50%.

I think most modern professional inkjet printers will accept a wide range of print file formats in addition to JPEG. My Canon large format printer accepts 16 bit Tiff or PSD RGB print files. What happens when the ink hits the paper is another matter.

Most big box and online print services want sRGB JPEG files and if you submit other formats, they're likely to convert.

[sibyrnes]

My local UPS store will print tiff files.

I don't know, would this be some kind of digital hybrid? Shot with my LX and Velvia - converted to digital with my K-1 and DFA 50mm macro.

[normhead]

I got my *ist D and that was it for film. Even in 2000, most of my output was going on line. To me, it was saving two steps, having prints made, and scanning.

My *ist D was 6 MP. I took couple of images for Henry's Barrie which went in to their collection of images, they had in a binder for each camera they sold. I printed it at home on my all in one HP printer and it was easily good enough to sell the camera to film users. So, I'm a little confused by these film is better testimonials.

Googling the info, I don't even see why that's necessary.

Someone take a 35mm image of a test chart, with both film and digital. Do a visual evaluation of the produced images at say 11x14 inch prints. Stop looking for theoretical answers to a practical problem. Just a thought.

[sibyrnes]

I had a good time with film and it taught me a lot about photography, but I will NEVER go back. My K-1 has spoiled me!

I happen to find these kinds of discussions interesting and apparently some others also do. Just a thought

[stevebrot]

I had a good time with film and it taught me a lot about photography, but I will NEVER go back. My K-1 has spoiled me!

I happen to find these kinds of discussions interesting and apparently some others also do. Just a thought

So the original post was a troll of sorts? Efforts were put forth to clear up the professed confusion. Were those successful? Was the incidental relationship of film photography to scanner tech clarified? Was the explanation of how film resolution is determined helpful? Is it clear that a film image has no pixels? Is it also clear that available 36 Mpx 24x36mm digital sensors will absolutely provide higher pixel resolution than 35mm images scanned to 4200 dpi, but that the ability to capture detail on a pure digital flow cannot be easily compared to the same from a pure analog flow?


Steve

[leekil]

This long report has all the gory details:

I would say that's only half the story, since it only does film analysis and not digital camera analysis...

And there would presumably be a difference between 36MP regular vs. 36MP pixelshift, for example.

[stevebrot]

So, I'm a little confused by these film is better testimonials.

I find them puzzling as well, because most of us are not in a position to affirm or disprove the theoretical strengths of either media in the sense that counts, the aesthetic sense.

Stop looking for theoretical answers to a practical problem.

Yep...and when these discussions surface on the forum, state the facts when appropriate and allow people the privilege of living in as small a room as they desire. There are many ways to rend light to a permanent imprint and even more ways to present that imprint for appreciation and impact. They all have their strengths and subtleties or lack thereof.

I will admit to being sucked in on this one. I swing both ways and shoot film for specific purposes where my digital kit does not cut it and tend to feel it is helpful if people appreciate that the point of equivalence between film and electronic capture is in viewer perception of the final image. There is no point in discussing megapixel content per frame of T-max any more than discussing push processing of a Sony sensor.


Steve

[stevebrot]

And there would presumably be a difference between 36MP regular vs. 36MP pixelshift, for example.

Only in terms of the perceived quality of the pixels.


Steve

[Digitalis]

In the case of color, digital is better even at low ISO. In the case of B&W, low ISO film is still better.

Kodak Technical pan 8X10 negative shot with a schneider diffraction limited lens is a sight to behold*. Strangely I rarely get request to make enlargements**, out of the majority of 8X10 work I do contact prints sell the best.

* I have printed 16X20 prints from roughly 24x36mm sized areas from my 8X10 Tech pan negatives with superb results.
**i'm one of the few people in Australia that has the capability to do darkroom enlargements from 8X10 negatives.