film vs. digital

[Mverick]

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.

Well, I was trying to answer the question

"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?"

So, that's comparing a 35mm Print from a Lab. To a digital printed at a lab. At my lab. They Print 35mm the old way. They don't scan it first. So you're not limited by there scanner.

And a Lab Printed 35mm is the Equivelant to the Lab Print of a 40-50Megapixel camera. On good film.

They do have programs to ENHANCE the digital file. Enlarging it without loosing to much detail. But I'm talking right out of the camera.

By the way, I shoot Medium format and Large Format. Very little 35mm. I like big negs for greater detail. Mostly Black and White. Which will start to showgrain if you Enlarge even up to an 8x10 with 35mm. 6x7 negs on 100 films won't. And 4x5 and 8x10's Negative prints look awesome. And have shot for 28 years. Had a Dark room in Every home I've owned and My father had one in the home also. So I grew up around it. I started when Digital came out and Was very upset at the lack of quality in Prints. They've come a long way. But they aren't there yet. For Print Work, Yea, there fine. For Art Work and Oversized enlargements. Fine if you don't mind loosing detail. I do mind. And they don't touch Medium Format Color at all. Unless your talking about Trying to Scan it and then Print it. But Why would I want to do that? For Touch up? Maybe, But I've gotten by without it for large prints up till now. I like to show Reality. Not Touched up.

And Yes, I have a OLY 5060 now with a PT-020. Fun toy. But Film still has it's place. At least for a while. Pics are great. Still not in a League with Film though.

I didn't get into Underwater Photography for a long time. In fact just the last year. Because I always saw the same pictures. A fish by a rock. Which to me, isn't inspiring. So I didn't see a purpose. But some people enjoy it.

I DO like underwater video. Showing the Fish in an enviroment. Doing it's thing.

No Offense meant by my statements. Just trying to clear up WHY I posted What I did. So it's Clear.

I already got WARNED once about being Harsh in bringing facts about film over digital. Sorry, But I have a problem letting Misinformation hang there. So I'm not trying to be HARSH. If you take it that way. That's all in YOUR mind. Not Mine.

 

[seastarr2]

Yikes! I didnt mean to stumble into a debate that was too heated (and probably over my head), but I tried a search and just didnt find what I was looking for. But thanks to you all for helping me. I was really just curious about the quality of printed digital pictures. When I was in Grand Cayman I took the rented camera down on one dive and took some shots and the dive master also took a camera down and sent me some of her shots. I just was really surprised when I thought that my prints(35 mm)were so much clearer and the colors were better than her printed digital shots. I will have to take the digital files and fool around with them in Photoshop and try again to get them printed at the lab. The lab I use is really great so I think that one of my problems is that I am sending them the files right out of the camera. Being such a beginner at this it is really great to be able to ask all the experienced photographers for more information. Thanks again!

 

[Groundhog246]

the dive master also took a camera down and sent me some of her shots. I just was really surprised when I thought that my prints(35 mm)were so much clearer and the colors were better than her printed digital shots.

A couple of reasons that may be so. If she emailed them, she may have saved tham at a lower resolution or a more compressed (lossy) jpeg format. Better camera's offer save in RAW format which will have better quality than jpeg's, but use more memory. And depending on the camera. The first of the UW digital's from Sealife are only 1.3mp and there's a big jump in quality when you move up to the newer 3 to 4mp cameras. You could start by finding out what make/model she uses.

 

[MildlyDamp]

The first is resolution. Film has much higher resolution than even the best digital cameras. Having said that, unless you're planning to make very big enlargements (greater than 16x20) or blow up small areas from within your photos, resolution probably isn't an issue. Five megapixels is more than adequate for most photographers.

The second, and more significant, consideration is tonal range. Digital cameras are essentially linear within their entire range. That means that if a given area in the subject is twice as bright as another, it always appears that way in the image (up to the maximum brightness the sensor can register, that is).

Film doesn't work that way. Its tonal range rolls off on both the top and bottom ends of the scale. What this means is that when you get to very bright areas of the original scene, a two times increase in brightness might only translate into a small increase in the image brightness. The same thing in dark areas - a large increase in darkness might not register that way.

The result of this is that film can record much more detail in the brightest areas (highlights) and darkest areas (shadows) of a scene than digital can. If there's information that you need in these areas, then film is a necessity. If it's not, then digital, with its convenience and cost savings, is the way to go.

Keep in mind that, while film itself has a huge tonal range, photographic print paper (and computer monitors) don't. So, unless you're planning to use film in a way that can exploit this large tonal range, it's of no value to you.

 

[nwdiver2]

Go digital with a 5 megapixel or better camera. One good thing about the migration to digital is if you want film the f90x Nikons with Subal, Aquatica and other housings that would cost $3500 new two years ago now sell for $1200 used. If you go with film; house a Nikon as there are more housings at a reasonable cost available. I moved over 2 years ago and sold my housing and bodies last year.

The Nikonos has been discontinued; many are available but no new ones. Nikon saw the writing on the wall with it.

I have friends in our Underwater Photo Society that 2 years ago said digital was 10 years away, most shoot DSLRs now and almost all have sold their film cameras and housings.

There is no debate.

 

[H2Andy]

for a rank beginner such as me, who has no hopes of ever taking "pro" pictures, but is happy just to have images of his dives to show others,

i find that digital is far superior for one reason: you get to take zillions of pictures on
each dive, and that means that your chances of getting decent pics are higher.

also, there's no cost to develop all the stuff to SEE what the pics look like, so you
save tons of money.

again, this is from a rank beginner's point of view.

 

[caymaniac]

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

I still am shooting film, I too will only shoot Velvia (50). I would like to buy a DSLR that would do as good of pictures that the film is doing. I haven't seen any great digital photos with sunballs in the background, and with wide angle even 28 the digital just isn't doing it. I wish someone would prove me wrong. A friend who is a pro photographer says good digital is still a few years away. I actually ordered a S2 at a local photo shop but after waiting 6 weeks I canceled my order after studying the comparison between film and digital some more.
The technology is moving fast, the D markII looks like it's getting closer and the S3 doesn't look as good as the S2, it's still too much of a quandry.
Dive Safe,
Caymaniac

 

[whitehead]

There is no debate.

I agree completely.

 

[MarkH]

QUOTE: "I haven't seen any great digital photos with sunballs in the background," I have the same problem with my print film that is processed at labs that scan the negatives. I take lots of pictures with that "sun burst" in the background and find that the digital process just can't handle it. The sun looks like it has rings around it. I have had a hard time finding a scanner that can reproduce this kind of picture accurately. As for the original question, the "eye" or artistic sense of the photographer will have an insanely greater impact on any picture than the difference in resolution between film and digital. I suspect that your film pictures turned out better than the divemaster's digital pictures because you made better use of what you had than they did. I've seen plenty of photographers with 10,000 dollar systems that just take nasty pictures. Good photographers take LOTS of pictures and know how to weed out the bad ones. I'll stop here before before I get too off topic. PS: I heard somewhere (of course I don't remember where) That 35mm film was equal to a 12 mega pixel digital camera.

 

[onbelaydave]

QUOTE: PS: I heard somewhere (of course I don't remember where) That 35mm film was equal to a 12 mega pixel digital camera.

Probably more like 11MB. But that isn't the "whole truth". Pixels sizes are not equal and different CCD-CMOS arrays are impossable to equate to a linear scale. "Consumer" grade digicams use lower grade ccds with much inherent noise. Michael H. Reichmann at his fantastic site "The Luminous Landscape" ran extensive tests years ago using a Canon D30 (3.1 MP DSLR)vs scanned Provia HERE and shows that even the old D30 was superior to film. For an even better side by side comparison see THIS REVIEW . Most reviewers rate the Canon 1Ds as rivaling 645 medium format scans as seen in this review Here as well as the above link. Do a search, "film scan vs. DSLR" and try to find anyone claiming "35 mm" film superior to DSLR. It only get's grey when you start comparing MF film to a digital MF back but that is only in relation to costs; the quality is already equal to, to above that of 6X7.
FWIW I don't own a digital camera (yet) and if you want to see what a decent housed SLR will do check my Gallery .But if you read all the research on the web you'll know the handwriting is on the wall.