[aurele]

I am not trying to be argumentative, but what is there a difference in dynamic range between film and digital? I just don't understand why when I shot film I couldn't underexpose a shot and bring it back afterwards without terrible grain showing up.

keep in mind that with digital you can always get back some detail in the dark area, whereas the highlights are easily blown ( = destroyed, nothing can be retrieve in it).
(with my K-x i can get back around 5 stops of underexposure without much trouble.)

With negative film, you need to get the dark part well exposed, or you won''t be able to get anything from it. It will remain dark whatever you do because the film didn't get enought light to react, so i didn't record any "information" to get back after.
In the same time, the highlights can be compressed when processing. So even some apparently burned highlights can give some detail (where digital can't.)

[farhagh]

I hate to disagree, but I don't really see anything that a K20 (or kx or K5) wouldn't do. The biggest difference between digital and film is the rendering that certain films give, but as far as dynamic range, digital has surpassed it. It's just that with digital, you need to expose for the highlights (when shooting at low isos anyway) and with film you should expose more for the shadows.

I do not consider the final result of film better then today DSLRs. However, the feeling during shooting film was something else, especially with fully manual ones. Trying to shoot jpeg with constant ISO, without previewing the result in the field, and in manual mode only repeats a part of that.

[farhagh]

keep in mind that with digital you can always get back some detail in the dark area, whereas the highlights are easily blown ( = destroyed, nothing can be retrieve in it).
(with my K-x i can get back around 5 stops of underexposure without much trouble.)

With negative film, you need to get the dark part well exposed, or you won''t be able to get anything from it. It will remain dark whatever you do because the film didn't get enought light to react, so i didn't record any "information" to get back after.
In the same time, the highlights can be compressed when processing. So even some apparently burned highlights can give some detail (where digital can't.)

So what about a hybrid system that shoots on both a film and a sensor through the same lens! Everything can be recovered later then

[Tom in Delaware]

With negative color film you shoot for the shadows and let the film take care of the highlights. The grain actually smooths out transitions and the smooth tonal curve at the high end makes for some special images that you can't get with digital, even now. It's analog chemistry versus a Bayer sensor. Even if the scanning is digital, there is information at the high end that can be captured by a decent scanner that would have been blown out in the image captured by the dSLR.

[SuperK5]

The thing I really like about film is that it is so dependable and simple. If I go out with my Super Program or even my PC35 and take 100 photos I get back 100 good photos. I never have to worry about the camera second guessing me or blowing a shot because the computer chip got confused when it could not decided on which of the 100,000 tasks it needed to do.

[twitch]

I always felt the same way. then I tried Portra for the first time and the magic became seeing the most beautiful rendition of colour, that just doesn't exist in my world. when people are your subject, the world becomes a different place with Portra in your camera. I find myself constantly scouring flickr, looking at photos taken with portra. its like a beautiful dream. digital will never be able to replace portra, that I'm sure of. i don't care what kind of pp you may do.

Ektar is good, but man I'm with you, Portra is gorgeous. The scarey thing is whether we will have any Portra in a few years from now Polariod died and with it its emulsions, I hope the same wont happen with Kodak and Portra. If I could only shoot with one film it would be Portra 400. Shooting a couple of rolls of Fuji Superia 400 recently made me love Portra even more

[Nesster]

The thing I really like about film is that it is so dependable and simple. If I go out with my Super Program or even my PC35 and take 100 photos I get back 100 good photos. I never have to worry about the camera second guessing me or blowing a shot because the computer chip got confused when it could not decided on which of the 100,000 tasks it needed to do.

then you probably didn't grow up in the time before digital when film - unreliable, complicated, with lots of flaws and limitations - was the only game.

[Jüri]

The thing I really like about film is that it is so dependable and simple. If I go out with my Super Program or even my PC35 and take 100 photos I get back 100 good photos. I never have to worry about the camera second guessing me or blowing a shot because the computer chip got confused when it could not decided on which of the 100,000 tasks it needed to do.

That's exactly how film doesn't work. If you take 100 photos with a digital camera, you can be pretty much sure you'll have 100 decent photos. If you use film, you may have the whole roll under-/overexposed, streaked, ruined with light leaks. You may acidentally forget to set the film on spool, open the film compartment before rewinding, use fixer before developer etc. Unlike with digital, there are a thousand things that may go wrong with film and every film shooter knows that.

[LesDMess]

No doubt there are people who don't know how to use a camera - film or digi. That's why it's not uncommon to hear folks say "your camera makes great pics".

[séamuis]

That's exactly how film doesn't work. If you take 100 photos with a digital camera, you can be pretty much sure you'll have 100 decent photos. If you use film, you may have the whole roll under-/overexposed, streaked, ruined with light leaks. You may acidentally forget to set the film on spool, open the film compartment before rewinding, use fixer before developer etc. Unlike with digital, there are a thousand things that may go wrong with film and every film shooter knows that.

you will only have these problems if your camera isn't functioning as it should, which has nothing to do directly with the use of film, and if you aren't careful in making sure you load the film properly. no excuse for doing that or using a camera that isn't working like it was designed to. the only thing here mentioned that actually has to do directly with the film, is the development issues. but if you are shooting color, like I do. thats not an issue at all. I get you were trying to defend digital here, but that was not the best way to do so.

[Nesster]

It isn't a case of defending one vs the other, as to which is 'better' - the failure modes with digital are different than those for film. And also, it depends on what you're after, look wise: when film was the only alternative, all those aberrations and problems were things to avoid and minimize (or alternately, exploit)... while now, many of us are freed to enjoy film, warts and all, and appreciate it for what it is and does.

[gofour3]

That's exactly how film doesn't work. If you take 100 photos with a digital camera, you can be pretty much sure you'll have 100 decent photos. If you use film, you may have the whole roll under-/overexposed, streaked, ruined with light leaks. You may acidentally forget to set the film on spool, open the film compartment before rewinding, use fixer before developer etc. Unlike with digital, there are a thousand things that may go wrong with film and every film shooter knows that.

Not really true with shooting film, especially if you know what you are doing. Sure things can go wrong, but it doesn’t mean they will. Most of us in this film section probably have a success rate in the 95 – 100% range, with the odd shot ruined do to something stupid like accidentally tripping the shutter.

Shooting film is like riding a bicycle or driving a car, you don’t think about it and just do it. Every time you take your car or bike out lots of bad things can happen, it doesn’t mean they will and you switch to taking the bus!

Phil.

[Blue]

That's exactly how film doesn't work. If you take 100 photos with a digital camera, you can be pretty much sure you'll have 100 decent photos. If you use film, you may have the whole roll under-/overexposed, streaked, ruined with light leaks. You may acidentally forget to set the film on spool, open the film compartment before rewinding, use fixer before developer etc. Unlike with digital, there are a thousand things that may go wrong with film and every film shooter knows that.

Not if you have your settings off on the digital body and/or lens. Of course if you are in the P(rofessional) mode on a digital body at the family reunion picnic, then maybe you are correct. However, the same is true for film assuming it has a P-mode.

[MysteryOnion]

YES!
Great Stuff!

[Jüri]

No need to get so defensive. I definitely wasn't trying to defend digital or discredit film, I myself shoot almost exclusively b&w film and enjoy developing it. I just said how things are. If you shoot digital and preview every shot, there is very little that can go wrong. If you use a perfectly working film camera and have film developed and scanned in a lab, there's a bit more that can go wrong. And if you're like me and use different old film cameras, various types of (expired) film, develop film youself, do wet prints and build your own cameras, there's a LOT that can go wrong. And that's what makes film more fun than digital.