Image Quality Digital vs Film

WMBP · 06-21-2007, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Are they perfect? HELL NO! but I think too many people are spending too much time in front of the computer and not enough behind a camera

Amen to that, too. I responded to Ivan's expansion on your comment before replying to you.

A few months back, National Geographic broadcast (well, on their pay channel) a show about photographer Joel Sartore. It was a wonderful show. I'm pretty sure that, at one point, one of the editors at NG mentioned that Sartore is the only or one of the very few photographers working for them that still shoots to film. I found that interesting in itself. Anyway, in defense of his choice of medium, Sartore talked warmly about how exciting it is to get his prints from the processing shop and be looking at them in the car as he drives home. (He's a pro, kids. Don't Do This At Home!) I remember that excitement, too. I remember the suspense and excitement of getting into the darkroom as soon after a little shoot to see how (if?) things came out.

But boy, I don't miss it.

My big gripe these days is that, if I come home with two 2 GB cards full of images, it can take nearly an hour to transfer them from the cards to the hard disk. The wait is excruciating!

Will

**Lowell Goudge** · 06-21-2007, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by WMBP

My big gripe these days is that, if I come home with two 2 GB cards full of images, it can take nearly an hour to transfer them from the cards to the hard disk. The wait is excruciating!

Will

Will how do you transfer them? I use a USB2.0 card reader, it takes minutes not hours. The longest wait is to index the thumbnails in the image browser.

WMBP · 06-21-2007, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Will how do you transfer them? I use a USB2.0 card reader, it takes minutes not hours. The longest wait is to index the thumbnails in the image browser.

Lowell,

Hmm, that's a good question that is making me wonder. I USED to use a USB2 card reader and you know, I'm not sure it took that long. Now I'm using a SanDisk 6-in-1 PCMCIA card adapter. I bought it because someone somewhere recommended it (can't remember if it was on this forum) and because, well, it's very convenient. Doesn't stick out the back of the laptop like the card reader. Has been very reliable - but gosh, I wonder now if it isn't the cause of my slow copying. I'll do an experiment tonight and post back.

Don't mean to hijack this interesting thread, so I return you now to your regularly scheduled riot. (Well, that's what it says in the TV Guide: "riot".)

Will

Vertex Ninja · 06-21-2007, 03:42 PM

Just wanted to say that I can transfer a 4GB SDHC (6) card in just a few minutes on a USB reader.

I think I'm one of the few that started in digital, which I enjoyed so much, it made me want to pick up a film camera to keep the K10D company. As for which is better? I don't know, I'm an amateur, but I've seen amazing pictures from both and feel they both can have unique looks. I think the choice is less about the final product(picture) and more about which path you want to take to get there.

Matt Miller · 06-21-2007, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Vertex Ninja

I've seen amazing pictures from both and feel they both can have unique looks. I think the choice is less about the final product(picture) and more about which path you want to take to get there.

Amen to that. I love to shoot both film and digital. Digital has replaced all of my roll film work, but I still shoot lots of sheet film. I have fun with both. Inkjets rarely thrill me though, like a 5x7 or 8x10 contact print does.

Arpe · 06-21-2007, 05:23 PM

Is there a noticeable quality difference between digital and film when projected on to a big screen, like a home size screen that is, maybe 3mx2m. One reason I like to keep my files at max resolution is because one day I'm sure I'll have that setup and was wondering what it would be like compared to the old slide shows my father used to have.

mattdm · 06-21-2007, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Arpe

Is there a noticeable quality difference between digital and film when projected on to a big screen, like a home size screen that is, maybe 3mx2m. One reason I like to keep my files at max resolution is because one day I'm sure I'll have that setup and was wondering what it would be like compared to the old slide shows my father used to have.

Depends how closely you look. Generally, probably not.

**Ash** · 06-21-2007, 05:49 PM

I'm interested... I know digital shots are limited by megapixels and dpi for print, but what is film limited by? What would be the equivalent mexapixel rating of film (let's say ISO 64 or 100 or 200)? [Please excuse my ignorance]

Well, I'd sent some of my treasured negs to a local shop with their you-beaut new Coolscan machine and asked them for top resolution. I was disappointed - 10Mpix with 240dpi sounded OK but the image quality just didn't come up to scratch. My original prints from the negs probably came out better than the scans! But I might be unfair in my judgement - I just don't know much about scanners...

But as far as I'm concerned it hasn't swayed me in going digital - the joy of shooting digital along with the instant feedback and easy adjusting makes the experience not only fun, but rewarding. I've taken my best shots with one of the cheapest dSLRs (financially) on the market, and haven't looked back...

Ivan Glisin · 06-21-2007, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by WMBP

Now I'm using a SanDisk 6-in-1 PCMCIA card adapter.

I use SanDisk 4-in-1 PCMCIA with Dell Inspiron 5100 and it is indeed SLOW!!! I did tests and it works just a bit faster than my old USB 1.1 card reader. Direct transfer from *istDS using USB cable is MUCH faster. (FYI)

davemdsn · 06-21-2007, 07:05 PM

I like shooting digital, but I don't like inkjet prints all that much. They are OK for some things. Digital images printed on photo paper are much better.

answerdude · 06-21-2007, 08:17 PM

Earlier in this discussion someone mentioned something to the effect of us spending too much time looking at pictures at 100%. My personal experience on this is by trying to submit my first exploration into the digital "stock photo" realm is they forced me to look at my picturs at 100% because that was where they were judgeing the "quality" at, not so much concerned about what the picture subject was, just the "noise or undue artifacts" at full resolution.

Thoes were taken with a Canon i3is. I gave that camera to the wife and bought a k110d because of the frustration. Both are 6mp cameras, but the ability to shoot in raw seems to make all the difference. The Canon would only do jpgs.

Has anyone else had such an experience with the "stock" houses? I have a fondness for all things Canadian, but the hoops that they made me jump through and still not be excepted made me have a bitter taste in my mouth for this certain Canadian agency for a long time after.

I may try again, but they certainly made me doubt my experience of the past 30 years in photography and my eye, but then after I cooled off, I realised that they weren't looking at the "forest", just one of the unhealthy trees in it.

Monza76 · 06-23-2007, 03:01 PM

I can say that the image quality I get from a 6MP Pentax DSLR is easily a match for my 35mm film at least up to the 11" x 14" size print.
Ira

ralphl · 06-23-2007, 04:24 PM

I would say 90 % of my markets now request(demand) hi res dig. only a few holdouts are still asking for slides. Within two years film will have gone the way of the manual typewriter.

chrisman · 06-23-2007, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Ash

I'm interested... I know digital shots are limited by megapixels and dpi for print, but what is film limited by? What would be the equivalent mexapixel rating of film (let's say ISO 64 or 100 or 200)? [Please excuse my ignorance]

Well, I'd sent some of my treasured negs to a local shop with their you-beaut new Coolscan machine and asked them for top resolution. I was disappointed - 10Mpix with 240dpi sounded OK but the image quality just didn't come up to scratch. My original prints from the negs probably came out better than the scans! But I might be unfair in my judgement - I just don't know much about scanners...

But as far as I'm concerned it hasn't swayed me in going digital - the joy of shooting digital along with the instant feedback and easy adjusting makes the experience not only fun, but rewarding. I've taken my best shots with one of the cheapest dSLRs (financially) on the market, and haven't looked back...

You might this "Film vs Digital" quote from "busting the Megapixel Myth" by Margaret Brown, published in the autumn (southern hemisphere) edition of 'Photo Review Australia'

Film vs Digital

For photographers who are still fretting about film vs digital, PMA International offers the following comparison: A 35mm colour negative has approximately 14 million to 17 million colour dye blobs. This can be thought of as 14MB to 17MB in digital terms. If we think we need a sampling rate of two-to-one for proper sampling to surpass the resolution of 35mm film, a sensor will need to generate a file of approximately 28MB. With 24-bit colour, the threshold for non-compressed images is in excess of 8 megapixels to give approximately the same resolution as 35mm film.

davemdsn · 06-23-2007, 10:17 PM

It is not that we spend too much time looking at our images at 100% now, it is that with film we rarely saw our images at a 100% equivelent. Many people think that their film images were better because they never/rarely saw them enlarged enough to show the flaws.

There is nothing wrong with scrutinizing your photos at 100%, whether you shoot stock or not. I do it all the time. Maybe not every image, but pretty close. If I have 5 images in a series I want to use the best one and I can't tell which one that is until I see them at 100%. When I shot film I rarely had the opportunity to do this until a print was made, making it a costly comparison.

06-21-2007, 08:17 PM	#26
answerdude New Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 13	Earlier in this discussion someone mentioned something to the effect of us spending too much time looking at pictures at 100%. My personal experience on this is by trying to submit my first exploration into the digital "stock photo" realm is they forced me to look at my picturs at 100% because that was where they were judgeing the "quality" at, not so much concerned about what the picture subject was, just the "noise or undue artifacts" at full resolution. Thoes were taken with a Canon i3is. I gave that camera to the wife and bought a k110d because of the frustration. Both are 6mp cameras, but the ability to shoot in raw seems to make all the difference. The Canon would only do jpgs. Has anyone else had such an experience with the "stock" houses? I have a fondness for all things Canadian, but the hoops that they made me jump through and still not be excepted made me have a bitter taste in my mouth for this certain Canadian agency for a long time after. I may try again, but they certainly made me doubt my experience of the past 30 years in photography and my eye, but then after I cooled off, I realised that they weren't looking at the "forest", just one of the unhealthy trees in it. Last edited by answerdude; 06-21-2007 at 08:40 PM.

06-23-2007, 04:24 PM	#28
ralphl Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Location: southwest USA Posts: 55	film is yesterday I would say 90 % of my markets now request(demand) hi res dig. only a few holdouts are still asking for slides. Within two years film will have gone the way of the manual typewriter.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question about image quality of the k-7	justtakingpics	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	05-15-2010 05:30 AM
How can I get good image quality from a K-x??	Manfred	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	38	12-20-2009 08:18 PM
K or M Series - Which has the best image quality	8540tomg	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	10-05-2009 07:53 AM
K-7 image quality concern	claude21	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	06-26-2009 11:34 AM
DA 16-45mm image quality	sveinmb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	09-18-2008 03:58 PM

06-21-2007, 01:24 PM	#16
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Are they perfect? HELL NO! but I think too many people are spending too much time in front of the computer and not enough behind a camera Amen to that, too. I responded to Ivan's expansion on your comment before replying to you. A few months back, National Geographic broadcast (well, on their pay channel) a show about photographer Joel Sartore. It was a wonderful show. I'm pretty sure that, at one point, one of the editors at NG mentioned that Sartore is the only or one of the very few photographers working for them that still shoots to film. I found that interesting in itself. Anyway, in defense of his choice of medium, Sartore talked warmly about how exciting it is to get his prints from the processing shop and be looking at them in the car as he drives home. (He's a pro, kids. Don't Do This At Home!) I remember that excitement, too. I remember the suspense and excitement of getting into the darkroom as soon after a little shoot to see how (if?) things came out. But boy, I don't miss it. My big gripe these days is that, if I come home with two 2 GB cards full of images, it can take nearly an hour to transfer them from the cards to the hard disk. The wait is excruciating! Will

06-21-2007, 01:28 PM	#17
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891 Original Poster	Originally posted by WMBP My big gripe these days is that, if I come home with two 2 GB cards full of images, it can take nearly an hour to transfer them from the cards to the hard disk. The wait is excruciating! Will Will how do you transfer them? I use a USB2.0 card reader, it takes minutes not hours. The longest wait is to index the thumbnails in the image browser.

06-21-2007, 01:33 PM	#18
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Will how do you transfer them? I use a USB2.0 card reader, it takes minutes not hours. The longest wait is to index the thumbnails in the image browser. Lowell, Hmm, that's a good question that is making me wonder. I USED to use a USB2 card reader and you know, I'm not sure it took that long. Now I'm using a SanDisk 6-in-1 PCMCIA card adapter. I bought it because someone somewhere recommended it (can't remember if it was on this forum) and because, well, it's very convenient. Doesn't stick out the back of the laptop like the card reader. Has been very reliable - but gosh, I wonder now if it isn't the cause of my slow copying. I'll do an experiment tonight and post back. Don't mean to hijack this interesting thread, so I return you now to your regularly scheduled riot. (Well, that's what it says in the TV Guide: "riot".) Will

06-21-2007, 03:42 PM	#19
Vertex Ninja Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana Posts: 652	Just wanted to say that I can transfer a 4GB SDHC (6) card in just a few minutes on a USB reader. I think I'm one of the few that started in digital, which I enjoyed so much, it made me want to pick up a film camera to keep the K10D company. As for which is better? I don't know, I'm an amateur, but I've seen amazing pictures from both and feel they both can have unique looks. I think the choice is less about the final product(picture) and more about which path you want to take to get there.

06-21-2007, 04:18 PM	#20
Matt Miller Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Cambridge, Iowa Photos: Gallery Posts: 339	Originally posted by Vertex Ninja I've seen amazing pictures from both and feel they both can have unique looks. I think the choice is less about the final product(picture) and more about which path you want to take to get there. Amen to that. I love to shoot both film and digital. Digital has replaced all of my roll film work, but I still shoot lots of sheet film. I have fun with both. Inkjets rarely thrill me though, like a 5x7 or 8x10 contact print does.

06-21-2007, 05:23 PM	#21
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Is there a noticeable quality difference between digital and film when projected on to a big screen, like a home size screen that is, maybe 3mx2m. One reason I like to keep my files at max resolution is because one day I'm sure I'll have that setup and was wondering what it would be like compared to the old slide shows my father used to have.

06-21-2007, 05:42 PM	#22
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Originally posted by Arpe Is there a noticeable quality difference between digital and film when projected on to a big screen, like a home size screen that is, maybe 3mx2m. One reason I like to keep my files at max resolution is because one day I'm sure I'll have that setup and was wondering what it would be like compared to the old slide shows my father used to have. Depends how closely you look. Generally, probably not.

06-21-2007, 05:49 PM	#23
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	I'm interested... I know digital shots are limited by megapixels and dpi for print, but what is film limited by? What would be the equivalent mexapixel rating of film (let's say ISO 64 or 100 or 200)? [Please excuse my ignorance] Well, I'd sent some of my treasured negs to a local shop with their you-beaut new Coolscan machine and asked them for top resolution. I was disappointed - 10Mpix with 240dpi sounded OK but the image quality just didn't come up to scratch. My original prints from the negs probably came out better than the scans! But I might be unfair in my judgement - I just don't know much about scanners... But as far as I'm concerned it hasn't swayed me in going digital - the joy of shooting digital along with the instant feedback and easy adjusting makes the experience not only fun, but rewarding. I've taken my best shots with one of the cheapest dSLRs (financially) on the market, and haven't looked back...

06-21-2007, 06:35 PM	#24
Ivan Glisin Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Belgrade Posts: 656	Originally posted by WMBP Now I'm using a SanDisk 6-in-1 PCMCIA card adapter. I use SanDisk 4-in-1 PCMCIA with Dell Inspiron 5100 and it is indeed SLOW!!! I did tests and it works just a bit faster than my old USB 1.1 card reader. Direct transfer from *istDS using USB cable is MUCH faster. (FYI)

06-21-2007, 07:05 PM	#25
davemdsn Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,413	I like shooting digital, but I don't like inkjet prints all that much. They are OK for some things. Digital images printed on photo paper are much better.

06-23-2007, 03:01 PM	#27
Monza76 Guest	I can say that the image quality I get from a 6MP Pentax DSLR is easily a match for my 35mm film at least up to the 11" x 14" size print. Ira

06-23-2007, 05:44 PM	#29
chrisman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery Posts: 237	Originally posted by Ash I'm interested... I know digital shots are limited by megapixels and dpi for print, but what is film limited by? What would be the equivalent mexapixel rating of film (let's say ISO 64 or 100 or 200)? [Please excuse my ignorance] Well, I'd sent some of my treasured negs to a local shop with their you-beaut new Coolscan machine and asked them for top resolution. I was disappointed - 10Mpix with 240dpi sounded OK but the image quality just didn't come up to scratch. My original prints from the negs probably came out better than the scans! But I might be unfair in my judgement - I just don't know much about scanners... But as far as I'm concerned it hasn't swayed me in going digital - the joy of shooting digital along with the instant feedback and easy adjusting makes the experience not only fun, but rewarding. I've taken my best shots with one of the cheapest dSLRs (financially) on the market, and haven't looked back... You might this "Film vs Digital" quote from "busting the Megapixel Myth" by Margaret Brown, published in the autumn (southern hemisphere) edition of 'Photo Review Australia' Film vs Digital For photographers who are still fretting about film vs digital, PMA International offers the following comparison: A 35mm colour negative has approximately 14 million to 17 million colour dye blobs. This can be thought of as 14MB to 17MB in digital terms. If we think we need a sampling rate of two-to-one for proper sampling to surpass the resolution of 35mm film, a sensor will need to generate a file of approximately 28MB. With 24-bit colour, the threshold for non-compressed images is in excess of 8 megapixels to give approximately the same resolution as 35mm film.

06-23-2007, 10:17 PM	#30
davemdsn Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,413	It is not that we spend too much time looking at our images at 100% now, it is that with film we rarely saw our images at a 100% equivelent. Many people think that their film images were better because they never/rarely saw them enlarged enough to show the flaws. There is nothing wrong with scrutinizing your photos at 100%, whether you shoot stock or not. I do it all the time. Maybe not every image, but pretty close. If I have 5 images in a series I want to use the best one and I can't tell which one that is until I see them at 100%. When I shot film I rarely had the opportunity to do this until a print was made, making it a costly comparison.