What is bad with Digital?

[Nemrod]

Everybody knows what the good things are, what are some of the bad things?

These I notice:

1. Digital P&S or even DSLR do not have the dynamic range (exposure latitude) that film has, especially color negative film.

2. The digital "photo" is often severely manipulated post camera.

3. The camera itself, even in RAW, decides what the picture should look like, processes the image somewhat and this varies camera to camera, film does not do that and always reacts the same way to the same conditions (sorta).

4. I can see the grain especially at higher ASA equivilents more so than with film.

5. The colors seem unatural and "digital" to me.

6. Storage, digital media is not permenant and easily lost or erased--by accident.

7. Different chip sizes are confusing, 35MM was 35MM.

8. Digital format seems to be 4:3 whereas 35MM was 16:9 so when digital images are printed to 4X6 etc standard size prints then much of the image is lost.

and,

9. Digital cameras are obsolete on a barely 6 month cycle and cannot be updated. Film cameras could always take advantage of the newest film technology, essentially as if changing out the imaging chip and firmware in a digital camera, rarely possible.

The one that bugs me and befuddles me is the lack of latitude, dynamic range.

N

 

[fppf]

The new DSLR's have really improved the sensitiveity and color range of the sensors. Taking photo's in very low light is much better with the newer chips.

I don't like people that suck taking pictures, but know photoshop. I do not, and will not photoshop any of my photo's. Only editing I do is crop. That said, even with film you can do a lot of manipulation for back scatter and so on.

In manual mode the camera does nothing to the image, it is what it is. DSLR's you can tunr off all the image processing if you want.

If your photo's are grainy then your most likely pushing the DPI to low. I did a few tests of film vs digital and no one could pick the correct one all the time. Remember that unless you do your own development many places now just scan the negatives and print them on the same digital printers.

Same for color, it depends on where the photos are printed or which screen your looking at. If you have the Dell special the color is not as good as a high quality monitor.

Film can be lost just as easy, also film has a finiet life as well. The major movie studios are currently working on digitizing old films for safe keeping.

There is a difference in chip vs film. However, Nikon has a lens series that is made just for there digital SLR's. The chips should be the same size for a mfgr.

I find the digital sizes are very close to standard image sizes. Little croping is needed, and with the higher megapixels you can afford to crop a lot anyway.

Yes, if your a Pro you need to keep up. But if your a Pro your most likely keeping up with film cameras as well. I'm still shooting a D100 which is a few years old with no issues. I want to move up to the D300. When I do I will still shoot the 100.

I think digital can go side by side with film. Most pro's are shooting digital now. The last few years have seen huge leeps in sensor specs. This same argument can be had between CD's and records. The same thing applies though, if you listen to your CD's on a Walmart Sony then they will not sound as good as a Carver or Bose.

 

[maged_mmh]

canon dslr image ratio is 3:2 (eos300d)

 

[Zeeman]

...then they will not sound as good as a Carver or Bose.

I agree with everything, except the Bose part. Please do not confuse brilliant marketing and clever design for good sound quality.

Z...

 

[RJP]

I agree with everything, except the Bose part. Please do not confuse brilliant marketing and clever design for good sound quality.

Z...

"No highs or lows? Must be Bose!"

 

[vladimir]

I always thought number 2 was one of the good things about digital. I still have my Nikonos V and I still have a housing and my Nikon F90. I took some great pictures with film, but they were one in a hundred, maybe. If film was the only option, 90% of the divers you see with cameras would not have them, because it requires a level of skill and patience they don't have.

 

[Zeeman]

And being limited to 48 shots, and the cost processing..

I remember some of my trips to Europe where processing my film on my return cost almost as much as the airfare to Europe...

Oh, hang on, we are discussing the negatives of digital.

Well, digital can't match the grain of film, I have to say that.

Z...

 

[spt29970]

Wow, I hardly know where to start. You have a bunch of misconceptions. Lets start with the big ones. I will restrict the discussion to high end cameras since there are clearly plenty of junky P&S cameras. In fact much of your criticism is probably due to the fact that the industry has evolved very rapidly and many of the early cameras weren't very good, whereas even a low end film camera could have good film put into it.

1. Digital P&S or even DSLR do not have the dynamic range (exposure latitude) that film has, especially color negative film.

This is almost rising to the level of urban legend. DSLR camers have WIDER dynamic range than film and have had for quite some time. Slide film has about 5 stops of DR, print film has about 7. The Canon 1D Mark II has about 11.6 stops. I am not sure about the 1DMark III. I suspect it is slightly wider in DR due to the 14 bit ADC. There is a great discussion at Clarkvision: Film versus Digital Summary

2. The digital "photo" is often severely manipulated post camera.

This isn't a problem with the camera, it is a problem with the operator. Photographers have "severely" manipulated film images for many years too.

3. The camera itself, even in RAW, decides what the picture should look like, processes the image somewhat and this varies camera to camera, film does not do that and always reacts the same way to the same conditions (sorta).

In RAW mode the camera does NOT decide what the picture should look like. It only does this in JPG mode. That is the whole point of shooting RAW, you can make these decisions in post processing. The variation between cameras is not nearly as large as the variation between different film types, unless you are include low end P&S.

4. I can see the grain especially at higher ASA equivilents more so than with film.

The sensor noise of digital cameras has a different structure than film grain. We all grew up with expectations of what film noise "should" look like. In many respects this colors our perceptions of what is acceptable. There are some noise reduction algorithms that address this issue.

5. The colors seem unatural and "digital" to me.

This has a lot to do with how the images are processed. In the old days, the colors were adjusted by film labs. In the modern era, there is much more control to fine tune colors. However with more control comes more opportunity to screw things up.

6. Storage, digital media is not permenant and easily lost or erased--by accident.

I agree with you on this one, but it need not be so. The problem is that VERY few people take backups seriously. Without backups one failed hard drive can take all of your images with it. With a film archive it takes a flood or fire.

7. Different chip sizes are confusing, 35MM was 35MM.

This is hardly a problem with the camera. Besides there were also many film formats. Remember APS format, 110 film, not to mention medium format.

9. Digital cameras are obsolete on a barely 6 month cycle and cannot be updated. Film cameras could always take advantage of the newest film technology, essentially as if changing out the imaging chip and firmware in a digital camera, rarely possible.

It is true that they are evolving quickly. This is a blessing and a curse. Let me note however that many cameras are now limited by the lenses. For my dSLR I have 3x the investment in lenses as I have in the camera. If I replace the body, I still can reuse the lenses. The real problem, for me, is that the housing also has to be replaced since camera vendors keep redesigning the bodies and button positions.

For me at least, digital is superior in almost every way. At the end of the day it is all about making good images. I create dramatically better images with my digital camera than I ever did with my film camera and that makes photography a blast. If you don't believe me, peruse some of the images on my web sites.

 

[Nemrod]

I like digital, I wanted to discuss what is bad about it and perhaps how to work around it.

When I said I can see the things I listed---I did not mean in my photos but in all digital phots including those of use guys--lol.

RAW has to be a manipulation itself because it is a digital recording of light which is supplied to the chip in analog form---maybe I am not saying that correctly.

As to dynamic range, it is good to hear that this is being solved or has been solved but just looking at digital photos of all sorts, what I see are effects of limited dynamic range. It is easy to say digital has 11.2 stops range but does it? Is it being measured in a comparable manner. What I see in digital is brights blown out and it is most evident in photos taken with super wide lenses that have by their nature scenes with a large dynamic range. It is good to hear this is being addressed.

Anyway, I was wondering what bad digital effects you see, I was not asking for help for my rather poor attempts--lol. We have already discussed many times the positives, which I agree outweigh the bad.

I suppose since many of you have never taken a film photo or have not in years making direct comparisons is diffucult or not possible. Since I am in a transition phase between them, these are things I see when I compare the media, regardless of the ad copy claims.

sp2290, you make excellent points, thank you for your insight. Concerning the many digital chip sizes, there may have been 110 and such but all serious amateurs shot 35MM for decades, pros often shot 2.25 square.

My main issue with the chip formats is that most digi cams seem to be 4:3 to one aspect ratio, my lap top, my wife's desktop, our television are all 16:9. Most printers seem to print the wider format, such as 4X6 thus lopping off significant portions of the image I fought to get, I wish for a printer and paper that matches the digital formats. Take those new digital LCD picture frames, some are 4:3 and some are 16:9. If you display a photo from a 4:3 camer it is at a disadvantage on many of these frames.

Let me say it this way, I can look at a film photo taken with a wide angle and compare it to a similar digital photos and what I see is more latitude in the film regardless of all the spec wars. Maybe it is a trick to my eye because it appears smoother on film, digital seems comparitively harsh--and---it is further complicated because 90% of digi photos have been severely manipulated so I cannot tell what are digital limitations and what results from photoshop and I suppose, maybe it hardly matters.

Anyways, thanks all for the thoughts, good info I will add to my brain cells, thanks.

N

 

[Nemrod]

Let me explain one other thing, there is a basic misunderstanding. When I am comparing and seeing these differences I am not comparing a digital photo to a scanned and photoshopped film photo then displayed or printed using digital media. NOPE. I am projecting the slide on a screen using my Carosel projector right beside a digital photo projected using a PowerPoint type slide show using an expenisve digital projector. You see the problem, I am trying to remain pure, apples to apples but even there, with the digital media, what results from the original image hardware/firmware and now the digital media and projector-confusing. Once you scan a negative film or a slide it shares many of the same faults I see in digital media. (or print it using digital media methods). That is where I see differences. N