Dynamic Range - Film or DSLR ?

knumbnutz · 03-23-2009, 11:17 PM

Hi All,

Just wondering out of a single shot do we still get more Dynamic range from film than from a DSLR ?

And if so would anyone know how many +/- EV on a DSLR to acheive the same as the film image ?

Cheers
Neil

roentarre · 03-24-2009, 02:28 AM

Moved to everything else section.

dlacouture · 03-24-2009, 02:55 AM

That's quite difficult to say without doing some serious, DXO-like study of film (noise, resolution, etc)...

From my personal experience, I'd rather say that film is waaaaaaay more forgiving than digital...
I've never experienced a badly exposed negative (apart from the occasional user stupidity, my fault!).
And a good scanner can easily retrieve a huge dynamic range, going from candles on your child birthday cake to the darkest shadows of the room without a fuss, or a noon sunlight/shadow situation.
I've even salvaged a day-at-the-beach pic were I forgot the flash (sync at 1/125) where the exposure would have been 1/4000 !!! That's a +5ev overexposure!!! And the resulting pic was perfectly usable for a small 4x6 print, without any blown parts (but nothing bigger, as the noise was really high, the negative being nearly black!).
The following situation would have been really hard on a DSLR, I think...

It would have required more PP to achieve the same result.

BUT digital is way cleaner, so you can retrieve more information from the shadows. My k20 @ 3200iso is easily on par with a good 400iso negative, noise-wise. But this is all done in PP, so it's a little more tedious to do, and you have to nail the exposure just right...

I'd say that the biggest drawback of digital is the highlight clipping. Once you max out, there is nothing left but white. But its strong side is the low noise, thus better shadows.

alohadave · 03-24-2009, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by dlacouture

That's quite difficult to say without doing some serious, DXO-like study of film (noise, resolution, etc)...

From my personal experience, I'd rather say that film is waaaaaaay more forgiving than digital...
I've never experienced a badly exposed negative (apart from the occasional user stupidity, my fault!).

I take it that you've never shot slide film then? It's got about the same sensitivity as digital sensors.

All these comparisons between film and digital are mostly meaningless, because they are usually talking about B&W film which has about 10 stops of dynamic range and sensors which have 5-7ish stops of dynamic range.

They are different technologies, with different strengths and weaknesses.

03-23-2009, 11:17 PM	#1
knumbnutz Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 394	Dynamic Range - Film or DSLR ? Hi All, Just wondering out of a single shot do we still get more Dynamic range from film than from a DSLR ? And if so would anyone know how many +/- EV on a DSLR to acheive the same as the film image ? Cheers Neil

03-24-2009, 02:55 AM	#3
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	That's quite difficult to say without doing some serious, DXO-like study of film (noise, resolution, etc)... From my personal experience, I'd rather say that film is waaaaaaay more forgiving than digital... I've never experienced a badly exposed negative (apart from the occasional user stupidity, my fault!). And a good scanner can easily retrieve a huge dynamic range, going from candles on your child birthday cake to the darkest shadows of the room without a fuss, or a noon sunlight/shadow situation. I've even salvaged a day-at-the-beach pic were I forgot the flash (sync at 1/125) where the exposure would have been 1/4000 !!! That's a +5ev overexposure!!! And the resulting pic was perfectly usable for a small 4x6 print, without any blown parts (but nothing bigger, as the noise was really high, the negative being nearly black!). The following situation would have been really hard on a DSLR, I think... It would have required more PP to achieve the same result. BUT digital is way cleaner, so you can retrieve more information from the shadows. My k20 @ 3200iso is easily on par with a good 400iso negative, noise-wise. But this is all done in PP, so it's a little more tedious to do, and you have to nail the exposure just right... I'd say that the biggest drawback of digital is the highlight clipping. Once you max out, there is nothing left but white. But its strong side is the low noise, thus better shadows. Last edited by dlacouture; 03-24-2009 at 03:03 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dynamic Range on the K-x	Shahmatt	Pentax DSLR Discussion	33	04-22-2010 03:51 PM
Pentax Dynamic Range	LeDave	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	11-06-2009 12:29 PM
High Dynamic Range	ve2vfd	General Talk	2	09-17-2009 04:03 PM
Dynamic Range	Rene`	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	09-25-2008 07:46 AM
Dynamic Range	Vlad	Photographic Technique	5	06-01-2008 10:40 PM

03-24-2009, 02:28 AM	#2
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Moved to everything else section.

03-24-2009, 08:42 PM	#4
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by dlacouture That's quite difficult to say without doing some serious, DXO-like study of film (noise, resolution, etc)... From my personal experience, I'd rather say that film is waaaaaaay more forgiving than digital... I've never experienced a badly exposed negative (apart from the occasional user stupidity, my fault!). I take it that you've never shot slide film then? It's got about the same sensitivity as digital sensors. All these comparisons between film and digital are mostly meaningless, because they are usually talking about B&W film which has about 10 stops of dynamic range and sensors which have 5-7ish stops of dynamic range. They are different technologies, with different strengths and weaknesses.