What is bad with Digital?

[spt29970]

That actually explains a lot. Even the best digital projectors don't come close to being able to reproduce the dynamic range of the camera. If you compare printed digital images to printed film images (printed on the same paper), I think you will decide that the digital is clearly better. I agree with you that even high end digital projectors don't compare to a projected slide.

 

[RonFrank]

1. Exposure latitude is/was based on the film used. Dynamic range is not the same as exposure latitude? So what are you contrasting/comparing, because the dynamic range of digital FAR exceeds that of ANY film. Exposure latitude means how far you can screw up the exposure, and still be safe... in digital, like slide/positive emulsions, very little.

2. Who cares? The film negative or positive can also be maniuplated? Dodge here, burn there, whatever.. these are film terms.

3. Digital camera's react the same way to the same light. Why would you think they would not? However a HUGE difference is that you can set the color temp in digital.... film is limited to film, which is basically daylight, or tungsten, or 5500K/3400K.

4. Digital has no "Grain", it is not film. It may have noise, but after shooting film for over 25 years, and digital for the past 6 or so, there are trade-offs, but much more so with film.

5. I doubt you can tell the difference given a blind test.

6. Storage media is storage media, but todays media is rather robust. I've lost film... I've screwed up film in processing, and negatives deteriorate over time. Why is digital media worst?

Storage is always an issue. The National Archives are constantly scrambling to preserve their images.. but those are mostly film. The reality is if you store digital media, it is 100% intact. So the key is to make sure you keep the files up to date.

7. If you want the history behind the 24mmx36mm film size I can provide that! Basically it is cut in half video film out of the 20's. Camera manufactures adapted the first camera's to that format. It is hardly something anyone gave much thought on.

8. 36mm X 24mm (35mm) is a 3:2 ratio. Not sure what you are talking about.

9. I have a Nikon D1x, made in the early 2000's. .. it kicks ass even if it would not be the best choice for some situations at 5.25 mpix. What many don't realize however is that the pixel size is huge compared to the tiny PnS that may still not product the image quality with twice the MPIX. I also have a D200 at 10mpix. Not really a huge different in quality, but the D200 has a LOT of features lacking in the D1x.

Based on your questions, it would seem you need to learn a LOT more about digital capture.

 

[peterbj7]

I do not, and will not photoshop any of my photo's. Only editing I do is crop

If you're taking underwater then you're likely to have to apply colour correction.

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

Except that "RAW" varies from camera to camera, let alone across manufacturers.

If your photo's are grainy then your most likely pushing the DPI to low

Biggest cause of this is underexposure

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

Film deteriorates over time, no matter how carefully it's kept. The best is certain Kodak film, but even that has a life. Digital (given proper backup procedures) will last for ever.

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

Not sure what you mean. Nikon make DSLRs with two different sensor sizes and Canon three, and similarly for other manufacturers.

The last few years have seen huge leeps in sensor specs. This same argument can be had between CD's and records

Here audiophiles would wish to comment. The recorded frequency range on a CD is limited more than many people's hearing, so music played from a CD can give rise to listening fatigue. Played on good quality equipment an analogue LP will sound better than a CD. This is not inherent in "digital vs. analogue" though, as music played from a DVD does not suffer from this frequency cut-off and sounds more natural. The CD standard wasn't drawn up very well.

 

[RonFrank]

That actually explains a lot. Even the best digital projectors don't come close to being able to reproduce the dynamic range of the camera. If you compare printed digital images to printed film images (printed on the same paper), I think you will decide that the digital is clearly better. I agree with you that even high end digital projectors don't compare to a projected slide.

A relatively cheap slide projector works rather well. A high end digital projector works even better.

The technology is very different, but don't kid yourself, good digital projectors work very well, but most folks can't afford them, or choose to spend the money on something else. However I've found that medium range digital projectors work as well or better than slide projectors.

You also can not compare a 60" slide screen with a 60" LED display. The 60 inch LED display will work much better, but the technology is apples to oranges.

Not sure how much time you have spent with High end digital images, and digital projectors, but I disagree with your perception.

 

[SeaYoda]

... Maybe it is a trick to my eye because it appears smoother on film, digital seems comparatively harsh...

The limitation that makes the harsh look to digital may be that light hits film and changes each spot to produce a color while digital has 3 separate color pixels that react to a spot of light. When they develop pixels that react to all three wavelengths in each pixel, there will be a much better picture quality IMO. Things are not terrible now but are noticeable.

...--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....

What is your definition of severe manipulation? All images are manipulated including film (dodging, burning, filters, cropping ... - all come from film days). What level of digital manipulation is beyond acceptable? What would a film image look like with the same restrictions?

 

[spt29970]

Ron,

Your point is fair. I have only used mid-range digital projectors in the 2-3k$ range. I haven't used any high end stuff. Perhaps I was a bit hasty, however the point I was trying to make is that to compare film to digital you need an output device that can display the full dynamic range and spatial resolution of the camera. There aren't many 5k x 3k projectors with a dynamic range of 12 stops. Perhaps some of the new HDR displays can do this, but I haven't seen them. For most people the only media that allows a fair comparison is print, especially since you can print film and digital on the same paper.

 

[peterbj7]

The limitation that makes the harsh look to digital may be that light hits film and changes each spot to produce a color while digital has 3 separate color pixels that react to a spot of light. When they develop pixels that react to all three wavelengths in each pixel, there will be a much better picture quality IMO

How do you think film works? You don't have a definable spot that adopts different colours. The emulsion has layers which respond to different colours, hence the term (that has been adopted in digital photography) of "saturation".

 

[SeaYoda]

...You don't have a definable spot that adopts different colours. The emulsion has layers which respond to different colours...

Layers on film vs side by side pixels in digital.

The equivalent to layers in film would be a single pixel that reacted like the layers of film to a single point of light. The side by side arrangement of the pixels we have now produces a different look than the single spot of light on the layers of film. I think the single spot exposure on something that is layered produces a truer representation than 3 pixels picking up light from 3 close but not exact points of light. These three channels are then combined to produce the digital image. A single point of light that would cause a single pixel to react to all wavelengths would be more like film and "smoother" rather than "harsh" as the OP was observing. This is what I was addressing.

The value of the color would be dependent on the quality and properties of the pixel just like different types, formulations, and manufacturers of film made images turn out slightly different. This would effect saturation and other color related parameters, which I was not addressing.

 

[Nemrod]

The digital projectors I have at my disposal are from mid tier to very high end. They belong to the company I work for. I have several at my disposal. I see the same artifacts on all of them, more or less. That is why I figured it was intrinsic to digital media. Clearly there is a lot to this to consider.

Again, you all have had some interesting comments for me to explore, thanks. This is how I learn BTW, we don't all learn the same way. It may seem argumentative but it is a result of my science background.

N

 

[vondo]

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

Others have addressed your other "negatives," so I won't except to say that for people who care about image quality, you should be comparing film to DSLR and some of your comments sound like you are comparing film to a P&S, in which case your comments are accurate.

Ok, on to this one. a DSLR makes it so easy to switch "ISO" that you are likely to see a lot more high ISO (ASA) shots now. In shooting hundreds of rolls of print and slide film, I think I shot one at 1600. Because I knew I was going to be in a position to shoot a whole roll. I lost a lot of shots I could have taken if I'd had the ability to shoot at 1600. With digital, if I need too, I bump it up. Better that than miss the shot. I'm not sure how I feel with color print grain vs. digital "grain" but I know I prefer B&W print grain to digital grain.

B&W print grain can be a beautiful thing that adds to the photo, just like the brush strokes in a Monet.