[dylansalt]

I was away recently on a mountaineering trip and had a younger member taking photo's with a Pentax film camera and she was deciding still whether to change to digital with her feeling that film is better.

It then led me to thinking "Is 35mm film really That Much better?"

I came home an went through every shot I had taken using 35mm film from my Minolta's, Nikon, Contax days - wedding's, functions - even my own wedding photo's taken by a pro all the way from 1982.

I then compared them to prints I have printed out on a cheap digital HP 3 in 1 printer form my Pentax digital files.

Too be quite honest I have been blown away from the quality (sharpness, color rendition, dynamic range) of the digital prints compared to my 35 mm prints - yes even 10x8 sizes.

I used mainly Kodak Gold 100asa (the standard in its day) in my Nikon and prime 50mm lens and was amazed when going over these photos that

• was grain in the shadows
• highlights got blown out - about the same too my eye as digital
• less punch to the colors
• looked flat

not too mention the Agfa & Fuji pro print films I also used

I also analyzed 10x8 prints made with my Yashica Matt 6x6 neg film and found that my K10D prints at that size does better from a "cheap" printer - the 6x6 photos were developed by a pro lab as were all my other 10x8's

So for me I can say without reservation (to all 35mm film users) that digital is by far the superior way to go

Have others found this to be?

And especially this misnomer that digital has really bad DR compared to film - is it really that bad - because to be quite honest I couldn't see it?

cheers

[reeftool]

I'm surprised it was a younger member of trip who was resisting digital. Usually it is the older crowd ( myself included) that holds off on newer technology. While I have had computers in the house for many years going way back to around 1980 ( I still have an Apple //e that works) I stuck with film. My only "upgrade" from 35mm film was a Nikon Pronea Aps camera that was discontinued not long after I bought it. Nikon never supported it, refused to fix it under warranty (it was discontinued) and soon after the film got hard to find. I have lenses for it that are only good for paperweights. After getting burned I decided to stick with 35mm forever. My first and only digital until a few months ago was a 2 megapixel Fuji point and shoot I bought for taking snapshots that I could e mail to relatives scattered around the country. The quality of the pictures really surprised me and I found myself using it more and more. The pictures from the Fuji seemed to look much better than the scanned film prints and the photos off my printer looked pretty good also. I finally decided to upgrade to a DSLR last year and after shopping around and reading reviews I decided on the K10D and have no regrets at all. I have read many very technical articles about digital sensors vs film and there are good arguments for for both although I admit I don't understand it all. I do know what my aging eyes tell me. My digital pictures just look better.

[Nesster]

I think I get more consistent results with digital. Film, when everything goes right: WOW! But not everything lines up all along the chain as often as with digital.

Also, consider that most scanners we use for film aren't in the same league image quality wise as a decent camera chip. Or am I wrong about that? So right there film is 'photographed' two times.

[Wheatfield]

Digital originals are processed into nice smooth images, they don't have film grain. This is a visual advantage. My K10 files have a visual appearance of medium format film when printed to large sizes (say running 16x24 inch prints off my Epson). I expect my K20 will be better, but I haven't run anything big off it yet, so this is mere speculation.
One of the guys on the Pentax mail list measured the dynamic range of his K10 sensor.
He says that the K10 has a DR of 11 stops at ISO 100, and that this number reduces to 9 stops at ISO 1600.
This is good tho know, since you are getting more than an increase in noise going on as you increase ISO.
As you've mentioned, things like colour and vibrance are greater on digital, this is also more adjustable on digital, so if you want less, for a portrait for example, it is fairly easily acomplished with digital.
The extra vibrance and punch that is the hallmark of digital can look a little cartoony, I tend to keep things pretty soft with my post processing.
Emulating the look of an old Kodachrome print for example (some of the lovliest colour prints I have seen were done with Kodachrome film printed onto Kodachrome paper), is easily done on digital, no longer possible on film, as the paper can no longer be had.
This can be emulated with a scanned film original, but you still need a digital component to do it.
The simple fact is, the istD is better than 35mm film, when everything is taken into account, and the K10 is, visually as good as medium format, the K20 should be another incremental imrovement over that.

Papers available for inkjet printing can also give a longer dynamic range, I do with there was 16 bit printing available, but I don't know if this would result in a visual improvement, or just a theoretical one (which is of not important)

With digital, you have the ability to stitch files for really large resolutions (providing you are shooting a static subject) I shot some landscapes in Utah last year using this technique which gave prints rivalling large format for quality.

[Vertex Ninja]

I started with digital, but have really taken to film lately. I found that 35mm slides scanned with a Nikon film scanner were more or less equal to my K10D. You can see a couple of the scans here. However there was something about the film images that I tend to like more. Maybe it's the 3-D look, sorta evident in this pic. I also really like looking at slides on a light table. However I couldn't justify the cost difference between slides and my K10D when there was so little difference otherwise, so I sold all my 35mm stuff.

I recently purchased a medium format Bronica RF645 for Lanscapes. I've found that 645 scanned on my flatbed is more or less equal to my K10D, but the slides themselves have way more detail and with a drum scan I feel there will be no comparison at low iso. Here are some recent images taken with that camera and scanned with my flatbed @3200 DPI then reduced for Flickr(click "all sizes" to see larger versions; ~1/6 their original 3200dpi size).

I'm really happy with my current setup. Digital for macro, most portraits, telephoto, high ISO, and things that require speed. Medium format rangefinder for landscapes, B&W, and full body portraits. I really like the colors of fuji slides and find that I tweak less to get the colors how I want them. My keeper ratio tends to be higher with film as well... I assume because I'm slower and more deliberate. I love both formats and plan to shoot both equally.

[Ahab]

AS an old timer very familiar with film (40 or more years) I have to agree with Dylansalt.
Digital is the way to go. Less expensive too!

[little laker]

From my personal viewpoint the biggest difference between film and digital is whom did the work on it.

Most people that I know shooting film bring it in for developing, and the automated machines really haven't impressed me.
However the people whom develop their own or just work directly with the lab technician usually get superior results.

Even shooting with Digital is like that. If you don't fully process it yourself on a calibrated monitor and specify No Alterations you never know what you'll get.
I recently got a photo printed off where the red borders, and flowers were a light pink.
I wasn't all that impressed

[straightshooter]

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.

Digital originals are processed into nice smooth images, they don't have film grain.

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

[mickeyobe]

I had been using Fujichrome and its North American predecessors for over 50 years. My best 35 mm camera was the Canon T90 and a battery of FD lenses which gave me everything I ever wanted in a camera. I have my own darkroom and used to use Cibachrome for prints. I did occasionally use negative colour materials.

The major difference between film and digital is not so much the quality of the finished print but the extraordinary versatility and ease of use of digital along with its low per print cost.

I can do far, far more in Photoshop than was ever possible in my darkroom. And what I could accomplish in my darkroom might take hours as opposed to minutes on my computer.

I admit that I still occasionally shoot a roll of film but more for the sake of nostalgia than any other reason. But my darkroom has been empty for almost 5 years and will probably remain so indefinitely.

Digital is the present and the future - until something better comes along.

Mickey

P.S. I have a Pentax K100D with 18 to 55 mm kit lens. A Tamron Adaptall 80 to 210 mm Macro Zoom and the incredible SMC Pentax DA 12 to 24 mm DA. and some other T mount lenses.
M.O.

[christinelandon]

FWIW, George Lepp, one of Outdoor Photographer magazine's gurus and founder of the Lepp Institute, concluded that DSLR resolution and rendering had surpassed the capabilities of film back in 2006 or thereabouts, IIRC.

[Vertex Ninja]

I love both. Digital is cheaper, digital is faster, but from what I've seen and read, digital has a long way to go before it out resolves even 645 film, let alone 4x5 or 8x10. I also feel that smoothness in gradation is better with larger format films compared to digital.

Nikon D3 vs Medium Format?: Nikon D3 - D1 Forum: Digital Photography Review

I love my k10D, it's fantastic and there are lots of great digital cameras that have outstanding image quality, but I still think low ISO 645+ film still holds the crown for now.

[ivanp]

I used mainly Kodak Gold 100asa (the standard in its day) in my Nikon and prime 50mm lens and was amazed when going over these photos that

• was grain in the shadows
• highlights got blown out - about the same too my eye as digital
• less punch to the colors
• looked flat

These are exact reasons I do not use Kodak. I tried Kodak every one or two years, tried different labs (even specialized for Kodak), and the result was always much much worse than Fuji or Konica. I have no idea why so much people recommend Kodak, I wonder whether they ever tried different brand, or whether they just repeat what Kodak forced them to think through advertising ???

[heatherslightbox]

From my personal viewpoint the biggest difference between film and digital is whom did the work on it.

Most people that I know shooting film bring it in for developing, and the automated machines really haven't impressed me.
However the people whom develop their own or just work directly with the lab technician usually get superior results.

Even shooting with Digital is like that. If you don't fully process it yourself on a calibrated monitor and specify No Alterations you never know what you'll get.
I recently got a photo printed off where the red borders, and flowers were a light pink.
I wasn't all that impressed

Very true.
It's been just recently while playing around with Lightroom that I'm coming to better understand the power that I do have over how my image turns out once I get it into the digital "darkroom" of Lightroom and mess around with it. While I would like all my shots to come out of the camera perfectly, I don't panic and hit the delete button so much when a shot I just took doesn't turn out quite like I had hoped it would since I know I can go into Lightroom and work on it later.

I just recently started getting some of my pics printed out with Adorama and I really like the fact that I can specifiy that I don't want any adjustments to my images. I also like the fact that I've got several different types of paper to choose from--not just glossy or matte. BTW, on the subject of paper, I'd recommend the metallic paper, as it does really add something special to your image.

Heather

[Ron Boggs]

Emeril doesn't cook better in one pan vs another, nor does Rachel Ray or any other level of chef/cook (presuming pro level cookware rather than consumer level). Same with the film vs digital argument. It's irrelevant as both media do a phenomenal job--especially the pro or semi-pro versions. This is partly why the original posters tests didn't match up--consumer grade Kodak Gold 100 isn't comparable with semi-pro level K10D or K20D output.

Little Laker has the best response when pointing out that it's professional care and workmanship that determines the quality of the output. Put another way, you can take photos with a DSLR and take the SD card to your local department store and plug it into a print machine which spits out prints that are pretty similar to the quality you'd get from film shot in an SLR and processed in a department store mailing envelope. If you want better than that, you have to step up the game. For digital shooting that's post processing, color matching moniters to printers, high capacity sensors etc. For film shooting that's choosing high quality pro films and looking over the shoulder of the custom print maker or printing yourself.

There is no doubt that the efficiencies of digital shooting are continuing to build popularity for digital photography. And guys like Lepp who make a full-time living training people to use the digital media will certainly tell us that digital is best. Still, the vast majority of the famous photos ever produced are chrome-based film renditions. It's also clear that as time rolls on, the majority of modern "classic" images will be digitally rendered. 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.

Call me old-fashioned and 60's ish, but "if it feels good, do it!" Religeous strictures aside, life is about enjoyment. If you enjoy shooting film more than digital, then shoot film. If you enjoy digital more than film, shoot digital. Neither will handicap the professionalism or quality of your work.

P.S. I shoot both film and digital and have sold images from both.

[Vertex Ninja]

Well said.