film vs. digital

[TX101]

I haven't read alot of the posts so far (no time), so I may be going over old ground.

Both formats have their advantages & disadvantages. Digital is better for a beginner (instant feedback, delete bad images, etc). Film still has a slight edge in quality and dynamic range (eg 7-8 stops for colour neg, around 5 stops for digital). Digital can theoretically take more than 36 photos, but eats more batteries (my s50 took around 8 photos before dying on a full battery charge in 4 degree C water).

However.. in the end it dosent really matter. The most important part of photography (especially true underwater) is TECHNIQUE. It dosent matter If you own the most expensive digital does-everything-forya 50.0Mp camera, you will get blown away by the guy with the cheap-***** p&s with twin external strobes who knows what he is doing.

So my advice would be to get whatever will get you into the water and learn how to use it properly. I've read and participated in enough online & offline debates/flame wars about format (digital vs aps vs 35mm vs 645 vs 66 vs 67 vs 45 vs 810) and brand (mostly nikon vs canon although Sinar snobs can be funny) to realise that it dosent matter.

It's not the camera, it's how you use it!

 

[whitehead]

I just counted my film stock and I have 28 rolls (BTW, thats 28 x $7 and processing costs on top) of velvia left - so its time to stand by my own statements - tomorrow I am going out to buy a DSLR and the F80 can be backup. :54:

 

[Dee]

You're EXACTLY right, TX101. It's the eye behind the camera that makes the biggest difference.

 

[H2Andy]

It's not the camera, it's how you use it!

take away my one good excuse, will ya

 

[Sculpin]

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.

Hi Mverick,

I agree with a lot you say, I have taken a lot of pics over the years and liked to process my own stuff only b&W though, which I still love.
I think a lot is said about size etc but I don't think you can beat a good eye for a photo.
I have seen a lot of stuff on various boards that have been obviously manipulated in PS very badly.
I think who is behind the camera is more important than the camera or even what is in front of it.
I have gone from from Nik V with all the glass that goes with it to an Oly 5060 basicly because I don't get the chance to shoot a roll every time I go out and the film can be there for weeks even though I dive most days.
I must have taken thousands of pics with the nikV and if I got 10% that was worth looking at I would be lucky.
Just my little input here guys.

 

[padiscubapro]

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.

I can agree with you to an extent..
This is where I disagree, current top of the line digital cameras are definately in the league of 35mm but no where near medium or large format.. I have seen some published studies, a good summary form one individual can be seen at
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/

 

[Mverick]

I can agree with you to an extent..
This is where I disagree, current top of the line digital cameras are definately in the league of 35mm but no where near medium or large format.. I have seen some published studies, a good summary form one individual can be seen at
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/

http://www.williamsphotographic.com/digital/dig1.html

Is another test that shows a little better comparison. From Point and shoot to Pro level Film/camera.

One EASY form of proof is. Take a Perfect exposed 35mm film out of a Cannon EOS. And a Perfect Exposed Digital out of a Cannon 10D. Use the SAME lens on both. High dollar glass. Same Photographer. Same Subject.

THEN without ANY manipulations. Bring the film and Card in to be Printed at 20x30. There isn't a comparison. Film looks better.

I don't want to hear any, "But I can Manipulate it to look better" Arguments. That's bunk. I'm talking what comes out of the Camera.

I don't care about Auto Exposures. I Don't like the Sports, Scenic, Portrait, Etc, Etc, modes. On Either versions.

Funny how everyone keeps thinking digital is cheaper. Yet PhotoShop is Around $800. Computer to manipulate is Around $1200. Add in a minumum of $600 for other Plug ins. And the Camera itself is More expensive. And people want to complain about film costs. Yet my 1gig chip cost $260 or so. Sure, it holds alot of pics. But, You still only get a 1 in 20 good pic. If your lucky. You do have more to shoot though.

And none of the comparisons I've seen on the Internet. Including the ones I've posted has been anywhere near accurate. They always leave some points out. That greatly influence Image.

The one that stated 40-50mp for a 35mm was one that took it all into account. From the Camera. NO manipulation software. Since that's the whole point. What the camera will do. Not what we can turn it into later.

 

[nwdiver2]

Not many people will ever want to print photos at 20x30 so what's the point?
A mag cover is about 8.5x11 (or 11x17 for a wall print) and that is what many pros aim for, sure 20x30 or large posters are better with film but few are ever need to print that size. At DEMA this year I saw many digital photos pumped up to wall size with reasonable results.

 

[ssra30]

I don't want to hear any, "But I can Manipulate it to look better" Arguments. That's bunk. I'm talking what comes out of the Camera.

When you develop film, especially if you do your own darkroom stuff, you get to manipulate the development process to a certain extent. Many pros ask photolab to overexpose or underexpose or develop the film at slightly different ISO than the film rating intentionally. When you print from film, most photo lab do have some sort of automatic or manual adjustment/calibration so that's a manipulating process as well. That's why when you take you film to different photo labs, the result is not always the same. So with film, you are at the mercy of someone else's manipulation while with digital, you have more control in manipulating the picture. In my mind, this is a moot point between digital and film since both will have to through some sort of manipulation at one point or another by someone so there is no untouched, unmanipulated pictures one way or another. Please correct me if my understanding of film development/printing is incorrect but this is my impression.

 

[Mverick]

Not many people will ever want to print photos at 20x30 so what's the point?
A mag cover is about 8.5x11 (or 11x17 for a wall print) and that is what many pros aim for, sure 20x30 or large posters are better with film but few are ever need to print that size. At DEMA this year I saw many digital photos pumped up to wall size with reasonable results.

The point is which has better resolution.....

Because if it looses Detail at 20x30 it wasn't there to begin with.

35mm looses detail at 20x30 also. But the Digitals loose MORE.

I would only do a 20x30 from 35mm, in Black and White to Show Grain. Which in some instances is Exactly what I want.

It's an easy way to see differences in Detail and Resolution.

By the way, Most Pro's aim for the Mag cover layout. Not all. Playboy was shooting 8x10 trans for the Centerfold shoots. For a Long Long time. And I mean for the Whole Shoot.

And Yea, I was at DEMA too. Wall sized pics look horrible if not done properly. Like from small Digital 35mm's. And there's alot of Computer work to even be able to do it. And they were used as Backgrounds. NOT as Pictures or Art.