[Cosmo]

DiJiTaL SuCkS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



FILM roooooooooools!!!!!


But really, I hate using digital, the only advantage I find it has is instant feed/ready to print straight away.

I learnt photography on a film camera, I got a digital about a year and a half after starting and used it side by side film for half a year, and then I pretty much stopped using it and I've gone back to just shooting film.

[pingflood]

Steve, do you really believe a 6x4.5 neg scanned to a 150MP file yields the same image detail as a 150MP file from a digital camera? If you do, only Ken Rockwell might be agreeing with you... I've posted some of these before, but so far people who still hold on to the idea that film has more resolution/detail have been unable to actually produce any comparisons of their own proving it.

http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/canon1ds/markii.html

And play close attention to what Norman Koren has to say about "resolution":

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

When I picked up my FF cam last year I read up a lot about it since I like to find out as much as possible about what I am about to spend money on, and wandered into a couple of pro photographer forums where not long after its release a large number of pros stated that they were now OK with giving up medium format film since digital had gotten to the point where it was equal to or better than that...

edit: forgot to add this as well...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

and this...

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projects/Analog%20versus%20Digital%20Shootout%...anon%205D).htm

[sbphotog]

[SIZE="7"]

But really, I hate using digital, the only advantage I find it has is instant feed/ready to print straight away.

I learnt photography on a film camera, I got a digital about a year and a half after starting and used it side by side film for half a year, and then I pretty much stopped using it and I've gone back to just shooting film.

Do you mind me asking, why didn't you like using digital?

[Marc Sabatella]

DiJiTaL SuCkS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry to hear your digital images suck. Not everyone has that problem, though.

[Steve Beswick]

Steve, do you really believe a 6x4.5 neg scanned to a 150MP file yields the same image detail as a 150MP file from a digital camera? If you do, only Ken Rockwell might be agreeing with you... I've posted some of these before, but so far people who still hold on to the idea that film has more resolution/detail have been unable to actually produce any comparisons of their own proving it.

Edward C. Nemergut Photography

And play close attention to what Norman Koren has to say about "resolution":

Digital cameras vs. film, part 1

When I picked up my FF cam last year I read up a lot about it since I like to find out as much as possible about what I am about to spend money on, and wandered into a couple of pro photographer forums where not long after its release a large number of pros stated that they were now OK with giving up medium format film since digital had gotten to the point where it was equal to or better than that...

edit: forgot to add this as well...

Shootout

and this...

Analog versus Digital Shootout

From one of the articles you posted above: "But of course the ability of a 6X7 scan at 3200 PPI to make a print almost two and half feet wide is not to be underestimated. An 8000 ppi drum scan can produce a billboard."

I'd say that pretty well settles it, but just in case you still disagree, let's assume that you can only really use a third of the resolution of the 161 MP scan. That is still over 50 MP. I'd also like to point out that at least three of those articles are years old, using years old scanners.

[GeneV]

DiJiTaL SuCkS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FILM roooooooooools!!!!!

Most informative post, ever.

[pingflood]

You can lead a horse to water, but....

The sentence right before the one you quoted was "Bigger is not always better, and in this case definitely is not." He's talking about how it's more convenient to work with a natively large file size than upressing a smaller file, not about the amount of resolution/detail. It's funny how you grasp on to this one sentence, yank it entirely out of its context, and use that to "prove" your point. An ultra high res scan of film will surely pull in more "stuff" but that doesn't mean more useful detail.

How about you produce some evidence for your claims instead? All the above shows that in their testing the digital cameras more than hold their own and honestly outperform medium format. There are actual IMAGES in there showing it, while we have nothing but hot air and strong opinion from you. Talk is cheap, but here we have a handful of experienced people who have shown one position, while we have your blathering and Ken Rockwell touting the superiority of film and nothing to back it up.

Let's see some comparisons.

Oh yeah, the article you quoted one sentence of continues as...

So, let's look at the evidence. The pros and cons. The 1Ds produces files that have higher resolution and much finer grain than those from the Pentax 67, and by extension all other medium format cameras. (I shot from 1970-1985 with a Hasselblad 6X6 and Zeiss lenses, and from 1994-2001 with a Rollei 6008 and Schneider lenses. I also have been using a Hasselblad Arcbody with Rodenstock lenses for the past 4 years. The Pentax's lenses are every bit as good as those others, so don't imagine that Zeiss or someone elses lenses are going to make any real difference when it comes to resolution compared to the Pentax lenses).

The 1Ds also shows greater shadow detail, and on a personal level I find working with digital files much more efficient and pleasurable than scanning film, and certainly preferable to working in the darkroom. So what advantages does 6X7 film have? Really only absolute image size, and for me at least this isn't a compelling reason.

Ignoring the possibility of superior performance from medium format film by having drum scans made (which I don't normally do — not at $100 - $300 per scan) I am only left with the conclusion that I no longer retain any advantage in shooting medium format film. It's more expensive, less convenient and produces lower quality images.

And that article is talking about the original 1Ds which is now EIGHT YEARS OLD. How do you think a current FF high res rig like say a Sony A850 or 5D Mark II would compare?



edit:

And honestly, if you read the entire article posted and only managed to get that one sentence out of it and drew your conclusions based on that while ignoring everything else written around it, then I don't really see the point in trying to get you to understand, because you are completely and utterly unwilling to consider that your position might be wrong and refuse to even see the evidence staring you straight in the face.

So post some real proof of your claims, if film is so superior it should be fairly easy to find some evidence backing that up rather than empty words. Post up!

---

Last edited by pingflood; 01-31-2010 at 01:39 PM.

[Cosmo]

Do you mind me asking, why didn't you like using digital?

Firstly I hated the crop factor of the lenses. I learnt using 35mm film and I hated how the DOF changed with a smaller sensor. I shot film and digital images of the same things, and when I got the film developed, I just preferred the film version, maybe it was the grain, the tones or something, but I always just preferred them. But one of the main reasons I prefer to shoot film is being able to print them in a darkroom. I love wet prints, and prefer them so much over any digital print. Plus I enjoy developing and printing, I enjoy the whole process.

Plus, 35mm cameras are so much better looking and the shutter sounds so much better, especially when you have a K1000.

[distudio]

If you really believe that then you should read this.

And particularly take note of this quote from the link:

"Have digital camera histograms made standalone meters obsolete? While an incident meter was essential in the days of slide film, to a great degree, you no longer need a standalone lightmeter if you have a digital camera. You can fire a test-shot using the built-in meter, then use the histogram to adjust the exposure so that it fits within the sensor's abilities. A meter would help getting it right in the first place, though. And a flashmeter is still handy if you're trying to balance your strobe lights in a studio environment."

And then I disagree with the second last sentence, it take me less than a second to hit the digital preview and see exactly where my highlights are blown and where my blacks crap out, magic. I still have a very nice Gossen meter but I tend to use my DSLR to meter for my Mamiya 7 shots, it's far more consistent, the Gossen rarely sees the light of day or night.

[WJW]

But really, I hate using digital, the only advantage I find it has is instant feed/ready to print straight away.

I learnt photography on a film camera, I got a digital about a year and a half after starting and used it side by side film for half a year, and then I pretty much stopped using it and I've gone back to just shooting film.

Well, as another shooter that learned on a film camera, I have to at least partially disagree. My K10D has displaced my 35mm cameras that I used for color film. They haven't displaced the Mamiya medium format that I use for B&W and I still have my darkroom for B&W. Digital B&W just doesn't do it for me.

I think part of the OP point/problem is the way digital photographic equipment is sold and digital photography is hyped. This isn't the old days where you bought a camera to last a while and gee-whizzed over the advances and changes in film and processing. Those changes could be taken advantage of by just about anyone with a decent SLR or Rangefinder. So what changed?

1. Any advances or improvements to the imaging are in the camera. So, to take advantage, you have to go through relatively expensive upgrades to take advantage of the improvements. To a certain extent, the post in the forum (unintentionally) push and reenforce the idea that you need to upgrade.

2. As cameras are sold more like cars or computers, feature bloat has become the norm. Nobody sells a digital equivalent to a K1000 or any of the other simple, reliable SLRs of the 1975-2000 period. I would love to see a relatively inexpensive DSLR with the feature set of an old P3n without paying for a lot things I wouldn't want IN THAT BODY. I wouldn't be giving up my K10D

3. Part of the problem with the feature bloat is complexity. Even the most feature-laden of the older SLRs would give you fewer "know how do I do that" moments.

4. One side effect of the ease of digital photography is photo-blasting. While not a big problem here, you see way too many links to blogs, personal websites, or photo sites (Flickr, etc) where the results would be better if the shooter occasionally took their finger off the shutter release and thought about the results OR sell the SLR and buy a video camera. This makes some people feel like both the craft and art of photography is being lost in a digital overload.

My 2 cents.........

[Marc Sabatella]

Firstly I hated the crop factor of the lenses. I learnt using 35mm film and I hated how the DOF changed with a smaller sensor.

OK, but that's only because you shot with 35mm first. Had it been the other way around, you'd be used to how it comes out on APS-C, and would hate how everything was different on 35mm. It's a big huge gigantic non sequitur to get from there to "digital sucks", and all you do is look foolish making the claim and piss people off along the way.

And in any case, these are APS-C versus 35mm differences, not digital versus film differences.

[Steve Beswick]

You can lead a horse to water, but....

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

... How about you produce some evidence for your claims instead? ...

...So post some real proof of your claims, if film is so superior it should be fairly easy to find some evidence backing that up rather than empty words. Post up!

No problem. Here is a few random bits from cyberspace for you, in no particular order.

http://carriepatterson.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/film-vs-digital-onsite-comparison/

Ektar TMX Velvia - Alex Franic Photography

135 film vs 10 MP digital - Leica User Forum

Poor scans - May explain why some switch to Digital - Photo.net Film and Processing Forum

[Steve Beswick]

...
And then I disagree with the second last sentence, it take me less than a second to hit the digital preview and see exactly where my highlights are blown and where my blacks crap out, magic. ...

And in that in that second the person in the photo thought you already took the photo and has walked away, changed expressions, or...

[distudio]

And in that in that second the person in the photo thought you already took the photo and has walked away, changed expressions, or...

So how is managing a hand held meter faster?

I don't do street.

[Steve Beswick]

An apology to pingflood -

I could go back and edit my previous post, but I'm not the kind of guy who covers up his mistakes.

My "pot and the kettle" comment a couple posts ago was unnecessary, rude, and just plain uncalled for. I am sorry.