[Wheatfield]

...Boiled down, if your goal is pro level imaging use whichever media you prefer. Even more, if you are like most of us and not earning a full-time living from photography, then this recommendation is even more important--USE WHICHEVER PHOTO MEDIUM YOU ENJOY THE MOST.

Absolutely correct here. And, I think if you did a poll of professional photographers, you will find a huge majority favouring digital now.
If they thought film was the better medium, they would still be shooting film.

[SpecialK]

Sorry, I just think that comparison of digital to film is like comparing film to paint.

Not a very good comparison, really, as painting is by hand, and photographs are are not.

At least with film or digital we are talking about directly comparable things that produce the same output - a photograph.

I could not go back to shooting film after having the convenience of digital.

[Wheatfield]

Not a very good comparison, really, as painting is by hand, and photographs are are not.

At least with film or digital we are talking about directly comparable things that produce the same output - a photograph.

I could not go back to shooting film after having the convenience of digital.

It's amazing how many people use this justification. It's very nearly a straw man argument.
I've heard the argument used, comparing a stage play to a TV show, or digital to painting, etc., and it just doesn't wash.
Special K is right, comparing digital to film is 100% valid. They are both, from the point of view of the user, getting to the same end point, which is a photographic print, be it from an inkjet printer or an RA-4 photolab output.
So then, the user must make a decision regarding which is "best".
"Best" can be quantified, and at this point, small format digital (which is all Pentax makes) is the better medium, rivaling medium format in most final print qualities, handily beating 35mm film in any given parameter you choose to make the comparison with.
Bring on the straw men, but remember, the digital wind is strong, and will knock them flat as fast as they can be set up.

[straightshooter]

Actually, it's a quite valid comparison since all are producing an image in different medium at different times in history. But I really don't feel it's worth getting my, or anyone else's, blood pressure up over so, you're right, I'm wrong and I'm going to sleep. :ugh:


CW

[jgredline]

Speaking for myself, I started out shooting digital. My first digital camera was a Sony that captured 640 x 480 size images on those ole 1.44mb floppy disc. Since then I have owned some 25-30 other digi cams including what I have now. About 8 months ago, I bought a K1000 and really fell in love with photography then...Oh I have always enjoyed it, but film has brought a whole new joy. Since then, I have bought another k1000, and ME super, A canon AE1, and recently bought a photographers complete Pentax 645 medium format set up.... He too went all digital. So I guess it is different strokes for different folks, but for me, I like the way film images look. Are they better? No, but they are different. I do not believe black and white digital can touch true black and white film however, but that's just me....

But I will say this. To my untrained eyes, film seems to capture what the eye sees and digital seems to capture what the eyes see ''most'' of the time...

[jgredline]

First of all, there is nothing wrong with digital. I have a K100DS and when I found 10 Canadian geese strolling around in my front yard or a terrapin laying her eggs in the yard, I grabbed it so I could see the results right away. And that's the beauty of digital. I can shoot it, have it in my computer and e-mailed to half the world in a few short minutes.



And that's the beauty of film. It doesn't look like a computer image, it does look like a photograph. When you get that one amazing image that sends a shiver through your soul, you know you did something. What you see with film is what you created. With digital, it's "well that pic is ok but let me run it through Pentax Photo Lab and Photo Studio and forty-eleven other photo programs in the computer to see what I can make out of it."

Sorry, I just think that comparison of digital to film is like comparing film to paint. There have been some wonderful portraits of some beautiful women in the film era but I doubt we will ever see any of them hanging near the portrait of Lisa Gherardini in the Musée du Louvre. So does this mean paint is better than photography? No. Is film better than digital? No. Is digital better than film? No. They are all different mediums to convey the same thing. What the artist sees.

CW

Great post

[Vertex Ninja]

Best comparision of medium format to digital I have seen. LINK

However, his drum scan is not the best drum scan available. West Coast Imaging recommends 600mb scans for medium format, I believe that is 5000dpi+.

Also read this thread. Link

Using the "majority of professional photographers favor digital" is kind of a silly way to prove digitals superior quality, don't you think? It could be said, "that if polled the majority of professional photographers favor Nikon or Canon"... but here we are having this conversation on a Pentax forum.

[Wheatfield]

Using the "majority of professional photographers favor digital" is kind of a silly way to prove digitals superior quality, don't you think? It could be said, "that if polled the majority of professional photographers favor Nikon or Canon"... but here we are having this conversation on a Pentax forum.

That was more of an aside than anything.
I think if anyone looks at the numbers, they will see that at this point, digital has a quality advantage over small format film, and a visual equality to medium format film.
Just to show I can play both sides of the fence, my wife and i were discussing how much space I could have in the basement for a new darkroom.
My first true love (photographically speaking) is still 4x5 black and white.

[Vertex Ninja]

I was just messing with you.

That said, the fairest numbers I've seen say that DSLRs need 18+ mp to equal drum scans of 6x4.5, 28+ to equal 6x7, and 80+ to equal 4x5 with low iso slide film. I can say with certainty that ISO100 K10D shots do not hold the detail of 6x4.5 Fuji slides. I'll shoot my 6x4.5 film camera until I can afford a MarkIII or equivalent, because I'm just a hobbyist photographer. On the other hand a MarkIII is humongous compared to my little Bronica RF645.

Measuring Megabytes