Originally posted by LaHo You are quite correct that they are not directly comparable, which is also why I like film so much. Film has character from the outset, whereas digital needs a lot of post-processing to be given similar character.
One might say, with equal validity, that digital has character from the outset, and that (color, at least) film lacks the dynamic range to emulate it. Had digital been the dominant medium for a century with film as the upstart, the waxing nostalgic would go the other way.
If one’s artistic objectives require a narrow range of subject brightness spread over a wide range of image viewing, then digital has to be heavily manipulated to achieve it. But it is possible.
If those artistic objectives require a wide subject brightness range that needs compression to fit into an available viewing range, one will struggle with film, being forced to apply a range of image reality distortions, including (to name but one example) the use of grad filters.
I can get about six stops of range out of transparency film (five—maybe four—if it is Velvia). The contrast and abundance of deep blacks in any sharply lit scene gives it its characteristic look. But I also have to choose between highlight detail and shadow detail. Color negative film is better—maybe 10 stops—but still can’t cover a high-contrast scene. The latest sensors can do that, with a 14-stop range, even at higher ISO’s. Black and white film can do that with special processing (using compensating developers like pyro), but not color film.
But I absolutely agree that larger formats are vastly cheaper using film, if one is making relatively few images over time. Film has a low “capital” cost but a high marginal cost. It’s easy to start, but each new image is as expensive as the last. Digital has a high capital cost but a low marginal cost for each new image. A production pro will appreciate that.
Each medium has its strengths and weaknesses, as has been said, and I use both.
Rick “who limits film to low-production applications” Denney