film vs. digital

[seastarr2]

I've only taken a camera underwater once, but loved being able to see my pictures and relive the dive again on land. I used a rented Sea and Sea with film and thought the quality was great considering I had nothing else to compare it to. I read a lot about digital cameras on this site and wondered how the quality compares to traditional 35 mm film. The pictures seem pretty good on a computer but I have been disappointed with the quality of prints from digital cameras. Do good digital cameras have the same quality as 35 mm cameras? How many pixels do you need to achieve the same quality prints as 35 mm film? Thanks!

 

[Dee]

Incoming!!! You've just opened the door on one of the most volitile 'discussions' we've every had on this forum. First, I would suggest you search the archives for this same subject..there have been many! And remember that each of us have very strong opinions that make perfect sense to us, if not to someone else.

 

[Gilligan]

I'll second Dee's post. This question usually starts a war.
Film and digital are apples and oranges.
If you strictly want prints stay with film.
If you only want a print now and then go with digital.
You stated you have only taken a camera underwater once. Are we left to assume you are already knowledgeable about photography as respects shutter speeds, F stops, white balance etc.?
If you are then you will be comfortable with either film or digital.
If you are not I strongly suggest digital over film as the learning curve will be a lot less costly.

 

[ssra30]

Ouch, another very touchy subject. Anyhow, since you asked about print quality, my take is that it is really depends on photo lab. Not all are capable of doing good underwater print especially if they just run it through automatic machine with no compensation for underwater process at all. Same with digital, it can look good on the monitor but once printed by a careless shop, the result can be very ugly. So I would say that the quality of print will depend as much on who does the printing as the medium itself, if not more.

 

[friscuba]

One thing on print quality. My camera is a 4 mp camera. I typically will resize the huge image it produces to an 8X10 inch image to edit with. I use paint shop pro 7.0 for my editing and when I resize an image it automatically defaults to 72 dpi. If you take in an 8X10 at 72 dpi file and print it, it'll look horrible. If I initially resize that image to somewhere around 300 dpi and then tweak it to the size I want, I end up with an image that looks like a photo.

There might be a bit more going on in regards to the final results than just the fact that it's a digital photo. Just a thought.

Steve

I've only taken a camera underwater once, but loved being able to see my pictures and relive the dive again on land. I used a rented Sea and Sea with film and thought the quality was great considering I had nothing else to compare it to. I read a lot about digital cameras on this site and wondered how the quality compares to traditional 35 mm film. The pictures seem pretty good on a computer but I have been disappointed with the quality of prints from digital cameras. Do good digital cameras have the same quality as 35 mm cameras? How many pixels do you need to achieve the same quality prints as 35 mm film? Thanks!

 

[Mverick]

35mm film is supposed to compare to a 40-50megapixel digital. If I remember right it's 54 megapixels.

 

[onbelaydave]

35mm film is supposed to compare to a 40-50megapixel digital. If I remember right it's 54 megapixels.

A 35mm frame scnned at 4000DPI will result in a 54MB (not megapixel) file. Don't confuse MB (megabyte) with MP (megapixel). Several DSLRS can produce a file this large and a few can surpass it notably the Canon 1Ds, which is supposed to rival medium format.
I've got a Fuji S2 coming Wed. that I plan on doing some extensive side by side tests to my Nikon N90s/Provia rig. I'm hoping I can have a test report by next week.

 

[justleesa]

Ouch, another very touchy subject. Anyhow, since you asked about print quality, my take is that it is really depends on photo lab. Not all are capable of doing good underwater print especially if they just run it through automatic machine with no compensation for underwater process at all. Same with digital, it can look good on the monitor but once printed by a careless shop, the result can be very ugly. So I would say that the quality of print will depend as much on who does the printing as the medium itself, if not more.

I second that! I have sent/taken my pictures (film and digital) to photo labs and have been very disapointed with the results, bad cropping, cut negatives....i.e. every picture from a roll of TCN 400 came out a different color. Their excuse, that's the way it is...until I found a good lab. Their first question was "Do you want them in B & W or in Sepia"... The lab makes a big difference.

 

[whitehead]

I am willing to say it - I only use film, I only use Velvia (read money!), I pay a lot for that. I like the results I get, tremendously. Today, I would not consider buying a film camera over a digital camera. If you but a film camera, have a good reason - but I cannot think of one!

There I said it.

http://www.damnam.org/images/whiteheadgall3/HTML/index.htm

 

[Gilligan]

Don't worry whitehead, "digital cop" will protect you from all those bad film people.