This may start a war, but i just got in a big argument with my girlfriend about digital vs 35mm cameras

[Hyperlite]

So she is signed up for this black and white/darkroom photography class this fall, and long story short, we got into an argument about image quality, ease of resizing, etc etc etc and i finally had to give up and pull out the "yes, honey, you're right." She takes everything her professors tell her to be the word of god, and this particular one told the class today that image quality and cost effectiveness of 35mm cameras has still not been beaten by digital cameras. I choked, and proceeded to present a lot of technical data that got me absolutely no where. Do 35mm cameras have anything left going for them? Discuss.

on a related note, her professor told the class today, LONG AFTER registration, that there would be a $110 dollar materials fee added to their tuition bill at the end of the course, and the students were responsible for finding cameras, film, matte boards, and photo paper. None of which, she added, can be purchased locally. (This is boone, NC and ASU) how bout them apples.

 

[vudood]

ken rockwell (love him or hate him) has a pretty good article regarding this debate

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

 

[996GT2]

As far as convenience goes, digital definitely has a huge advantage. The big advantage over film, I think, is the ability to see what you've taken right after you've taken it. With a film camera, once you take a shot, you don't know how it turned out until after you've developed the roll. Also, unless you have an auto-feeder with motor drive, you are limited to 24 or 36 exposures per roll, which is very inconvenient when you need to shoot in continuous drive mode (for example, to capture an automobile race). Digital point and shoots can be made much smaller, so they can fit easily in almost any pocket. It is also much easier to manipulate a digital image through post-processing than it is with film, so if you fudge up an image you can usually fix it up pretty easily in Photoshop.

 

[DrPizza]

Great article. For a moment, I thought about "what about taking a lot of higher resolution pictures and stitching them together?" But, that's not a fair comparison. But, it still seems to boil down to this: for the average consumer, overall, digital is superior to 35mm. For professional's doing landscapes that are going to be printed at 60"x80", digital sucks.

 

[destrekor]

I prefer the darkroom to the digital darkroom. It's just the 'art' aspect that I really enjoy. That, and I really enjoy the amount of experience needed to really get great at film photography, because you just start getting a natural knowledge of light so that you won't need reshots, since of course, you don't get to see your photo on an LCD.
Now, there are times when a digital camera is great due to that very nature... portrait work, go right ahead and go with digital. But landscapes and any time you want true film grain and natural high-contrast imagery, digital is still very far from what can be produced with film... either naturally from film itself, or manipulation in the darkroom... these are what I'd consider the art aspects. Artificial noise to represent ISO bothers the hell out of me, digital manipulation of contrast just doesn't feel as natural imho, and when you get into large format photography, digital just doesn't cut it. Now true, that's not 35mm vs digital, but when working with landscapes and formal photography with 35mm film and the darkroom and large prints, I'd definitely prefer film.
Hell, my only SLR is film, and I had a film photography course last spring... although I really hated it compared to my highschool photography class... mainly because this one was color and print at photo labs, versus the highschool course was b&w and darkroom.

 

[Hyperlite]

thanks guys. =) i have seen the light. er...dark. *goes to apologize*

 

[pennylane]

IIRC, film also has more dynamic range than digital, certainly wider than APS-C size sensors.

 

[soydios]

Film retains more highlight detail that would otherwise be clipped in a digital sensor, and retains more texture detail that would otherwise be blurred away by the anti-aliasing filter.

For absolute image quality, medium- or large-format film is what professional and studio photographers use. Small-format digital, however, is much faster and easier to work with. So for the busy working photographer and photojournalists, digital is the only way to go.

 

[ElFenix]

color negative film has much greater dynamic range than any digital sensor so far, afaik. slide film has been surpassed. however, digital SLRs have much less 'noise' at higher SLRs than the best 135 films (technically, 235 and 435, as those are the numbers for film in those little cannisters).

as for cost effectiveness, well, yes and no. an EOS 1v with grip will set you back $2100 new. the two closest competitors are the D3 and the 1D3. both of which are much more expensive.

over the life of the cam, however, the digital will be much less expensive.

for small cameras, digital really isn't that much more expensive up front than film, a good film p&s with a big zoom was over $100 already.

one thing that digital is missing over film is compact cameras with awesome lenses. you could get cameras like the olympus stylus epic for ~$50 and the IQ on it was about as good as with a ridiculously expensive SLR. the lens was just a simple optical design, requiring no retrofocal elements to get the light near perpendicular as is required with a digital camera.

the biggest advantage film had, however, is that you could use the best film with the cheapest of cameras. now, if you want the best quality sensor, you've got to shell out thousands of dollars for a 135 camera. in that way, it'll be years before digital reaches cost parity with film.

MF is much less expensive in film format, and i doubt there will ever be a digital view cam. an 8x10 piece of film is going to have much much greater sheer IQ than any digital sensor.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

MF is much less expensive in film format, and i doubt there will ever be a digital view cam. an 8x10 piece of film is going to have much much greater sheer IQ than any digital sensor.

I think it will be here before you know it. Phase One makes a digital back that they call the "P65+" which fits on 645/medium format cameras. This 60.5 megapixel back can be mounted on 4x5 cameras via a sliding adapter.
http://www.phaseone.com/Conten...plus/Introduction.aspx

I've used a lesser version of this back, the P20 (16MP square) on both a Hasselblad 503 and a Calumet 4x5. Results on both were absolutely stellar. Even with the crap lens that I had on the Calumet, the colors, dynamic range, and clarity that this kind of back can capture is absolutely unbelievable. With the right amount of $$$$, digital can come *damn* close to film in larger formats.



However, I am very much an advocate for film still. I hate seeing Kodachrome go the way of the dinosaur. Advanced processes and techniques such as palladium and platinum printing are becoming less and less common, which also saddens me. If I'm shooting images that I know will be black and white in the end, I shoot film, specifically HP5 or Delta 400. There's no matching the beauty and buttery smooth tonal gradations in properly developed film and a well-made print. Digital simply cannot do it.


That said, most (at least 90%) of my work is digital. I work with a full-frame digital camera and have been nothing but impressed by it.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Hyperlite
image quality and cost effectiveness of 35mm cameras has still not been beaten by digital cameras.

Let's separate the argument into two parts.

The first part is easy: cost effectiveness...digital cameras win hands down. Film is an all-or-nothing medium. If you go out and shoot a roll of film, you will pay to develop and print each shot. If you shoot a half roll of film, you either wait until you finish shooting the rest of the roll, or you bin all the unexposed film. Film is archaic and doesn't fit the modern workflow. Here is a great quote I read on Wired.com that refers to Hollywood using film, but applies to photographers too:

"Honestly, if you proposed the film work-flow today, you'd be taken to the city square and hung. Imagine I told you we're going to shoot on superexpensive cameras, using rolls of celluloid made in China that are a one-time-use product susceptible to scratches and that can't be exposed to light. And you can't even be sure you got the image until they're developed. And you have to dip them in a special fluid that can ruin them if it's mixed wrong. People would think I was crazy."

Digital is simple. You can instantly see if you got the shot, print only the exposures you want (when you want), and it's very cost effective in the modern workflow. You can e-mail full resolution files to a printer and have your printed pictures mailed to your door or available for pick up locally. No need to worry about mailing your film, waiting days for it to get to the printer or wasting gas dropping it off, etc.

The second part is up for debate, but I'm convinced modern camera sensors have surpassed the quality of 35mm film. Medium/large format is another beast, but full-frame 12MP+ CMOS sensors have sufficient resolution to be blown up to the same sizes as 35mm film.

Does film have more dynamic range? Maybe, but it's difficult and time-consuming to extract that range in the digital era. Getting RAW image data from a sensor allows one to extract a variety of tonal information from a single file, or combine multiple bracketed exposures with far greater ease than 35mm film.

Low noise: hands down, digital wins. What Nikon and Canon can produce at ISO 3200+ on their full frame bodies cannot be replicated with 35mm film. I think that is a HUGE plus for digital, allowing for available light photography where 35mm film could simply not perform with quality.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Hyperlite


on a related note, her professor told the class today, LONG AFTER registration, that there would be a $110 dollar materials fee added to their tuition bill at the end of the course, and the students were responsible for finding cameras, film, matte boards, and photo paper. None of which, she added, can be purchased locally. (This is boone, NC and ASU) how bout them apples.

seeing as the Digital v Film question has been answered allreadu ill address this


110$ is pretty cheap for a mat fee as photo chemicials arnt cheap, ad neither is darkroom time if you were to rent it.

you cna get old MF Canon, Nikon, Pentax, anyone cameras for 100$ used with a lens lots of places thst work great for intro corses, Photo paoer can be purchased bulk from an online store adorama or B&H, cheaper then if you had a local place

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

MF is much less expensive in film format, and i doubt there will ever be a digital view cam. an 8x10 piece of film is going to have much much greater sheer IQ than any digital sensor.

they make 4x5 scanning digital backs and im sure someone has made a 8x10 scanning digital back

actually i know someone who made a 8x10 scanning digital back from an old 8x10 camera and a flatbed scanner, not the best quality but it did indeed work

in time im sure we will see at least a 4x5 CCD

also angry hampster FP4 >>>> HP5 and Delta for buttery smoothness

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: Anubis


also angry hampster FP4 >>>> HP5 and Delta for buttery smoothness

And Delta Pro for high ASA needs. Pushed to 3200 it still looks decent.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Hyperlite


on a related note, her professor told the class today, LONG AFTER registration, that there would be a $110 dollar materials fee added to their tuition bill at the end of the course, and the students were responsible for finding cameras, film, matte boards, and photo paper. None of which, she added, can be purchased locally. (This is boone, NC and ASU) how bout them apples.

seeing as the Digital v Film question has been answered allreadu ill address this


110$ is pretty cheap for a mat fee as photo chemicials arnt cheap, ad neither is darkroom time if you were to rent it.

you cna get old MF Canon, Nikon, Pentax, anyone cameras for 100$ used with a lens lots of places thst work great for intro corses, Photo paoer can be purchased bulk from an online store adorama or B&H, cheaper then if you had a local place

i guess my point was not so much the cost, but that none of the students were alerted of it or what they would be required to provide for the class out of their own pockets.


And thanks everyone very much for the information, I'm learning a lot!!

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: Anubis


also angry hampster FP4 >>>> HP5 and Delta for buttery smoothness

And Delta Pro for high ASA needs. Pushed to 3200 it still looks decent.

yes yes it does, i always liked pushing HP5 like that, has such an awsome look if you are able to controll the dev to exackly what you want


Hyperlite: yea it sucks that no one was informed, i dont think my college informed people of this either when people signed up for it

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

I think it will be here before you know it. Phase One makes a digital back that they call the "P65+" which fits on 645/medium format cameras. This 60.5 megapixel back can be mounted on 4x5 cameras via a sliding adapter.
http://www.phaseone.com/Conten...plus/Introduction.aspx

I've used a lesser version of this back, the P20 (16MP square) on both a Hasselblad 503 and a Calumet 4x5. Results on both were absolutely stellar. Even with the crap lens that I had on the Calumet, the colors, dynamic range, and clarity that this kind of back can capture is absolutely unbelievable. With the right amount of $$$$, digital can come *damn* close to film in larger formats.

well, technically those are still MF backs. i guess it is a view cam, but i was thinking 4x5 and 8x10 CCDs, which would be ridiculously expensive.

Originally posted by: Anubis
they make 4x5 scanning digital backs and im sure someone has made a 8x10 scanning digital back

actually i know someone who made a 8x10 scanning digital back from an old 8x10 camera and a flatbed scanner, not the best quality but it did indeed work

forgot about scanning. i'd seen those once or twice before on the internets. not exactly the most practical things, but, then again, we're talking view cams.

If you go out and shoot a roll of film, you will pay to develop and print each shot.

"develop only, i don't want prints"

<--- has two film scanners

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
<--- has two film scanners

That's nice, but not really cost or time effective.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

well, technically those are still MF backs. i guess it is a view cam, but i was thinking 4x5 and 8x10 CCDs, which would be ridiculously expensive.

Yea I know, I was just using them as an example to show that technology is indeed moving in that direction. I can't wait to see what a 4x5" CCD image looks like. :thumbsup:

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: ElFenix

well, technically those are still MF backs. i guess it is a view cam, but i was thinking 4x5 and 8x10 CCDs, which would be ridiculously expensive.

Yea I know, I was just using them as an example to show that technology is indeed moving in that direction. I can't wait to see what a 4x5" CCD image looks like. :thumbsup:

well i would assume when the tech gets there that a 4x5 CCD would be able to resolve the same as a 4x5 scanning back if not better, and the pics that come out of those are simply amazing, provided its mostly stationary

however theres gonna be some issues with it at small Fstops because of the diffraction limit and sensor pixel density, which we are allready seeing on FF 35mm digitals

 

[dietmountainsux]

mmm....

 

[spikespiegal]

She takes everything her professors tell her to be the word of god, and this particular one told the class today that image quality and cost effectiveness of 35mm cameras has still not been beaten by digital cameras.

Funny...I ran the B/W dept for a commercial lab for a couple years, and would never make such a statement. More than likely the professor doesn't have an online portfolio to prove this either - they never do.

BTW - this type of class is a waste of time, college credit and should be limited to leisure studies. Actually using the camera, such as lighting techniques, posing, etc., are far more important skills and than learning how to process Tri-X.

 

[spikespiegal]

mainly because this one was color and print at photo labs

I can do additive and subtractive color chemical printing in my sleep, and have to laugh at all the photo purists that claim film is better than digital while bragging about their B&W darkroom.

99% of these guys couldn't produce a color balanced print if their life depended on it, and then go on rants about how B&W is some kind of god given art-form.

B&W photography is for people that can't make a decent color print and looking for excuses.

 

[spikespiegal]

IIRC, film also has more dynamic range than digital, certainly wider than APS-C size sensors.

Color negative film does - color slide doesn't and most B&W (unless heavily compressed) doesn't.

That's why you can load color print film in a plastic box with one exposure (disposable camera aka Walmart and Target), and still shoot an image within lattitude.

High saturation slide films have *LESS* lattitude than a dSLR.

Personally I'll stick to this technique called 'exposure metering'.

Also, most people who are still stuck in 'film hell' have a lab process and print their images, and to be honest I have a hard time calling them photographers when some minimum wage twit is pushing buttons on a mini-lab for them.

Most serious digital photographers do their own 'processing' in the computer.

BTW - most studio pros *don't* use MF film anymore because of the likes of the Canon 5D and newer Nikons. MF film cameras are huge, and have clunky AF and metering systems (if at all). I know a few guys who shoot 4x5 *only* when they can't stitch.

Besides, getting a film image into the digital domain requires a scanner, and a scanner *is* a digital camera. Makes no sense.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

mainly because this one was color and print at photo labs

I can do additive and subtractive color chemical printing in my sleep, and have to laugh at all the photo purists that claim film is better than digital while bragging about their B&W darkroom.

99% of these guys couldn't produce a color balanced print if their life depended on it, and then go on rants about how B&W is some kind of god given art-form.

B&W photography is for people that can't make a decent color print and looking for excuses.

I wouldn't go that far, especially on the last statement. I've converted a few images from my DSLR to B&W because the effect is better without color (my favorite is a shot of rough surf during a tropical storm -- the color image was practically B&W because of the overcast sky and grey water; the B&W conversion makes the image contrast pop).

Anyway, B&W still has uses, though I agree that it's not the end-all be-all of photography.

If you're only talking about B&W film photography, then ignore me.