Good luck!|||I have compared an image taken with a Canon 5D camera and a 35mm film Leica M6 scanned on an epson scanner and the film image had better details when zoomed up. Also, it feels like film has more dynamic range than digital images. Lensmen and MixedMoj 鈥?you just didn't get what I was asking.
Report Abuse
|||It depends on the film format.
On a monitor it is very hard to tell. But a print is a little more revealing. As far as 35mm goes it is almost impossible to tell the difference to my eyes.
I can generally tell if the source image was large format film or not.|||I have noticed a trend. When work is hanging most people will stand back and say ... Ahhhh, how nice. When asked how, what, when, where, and digital comes out into the conversation, they step right up and press their nose against the glass and then say, OH, yes.. I see now..!!
WT* people, just a moment ago you were in praise of the image, now your conceitedness drips off your tongue like venom. I have had others who could NOT tell, but when I did tell them, their attitude changed.
Many can not tell the diff if the image is from a better camera and printer. But there is still a stigma against and on digital as not being - real..!
Real..?! What is real..? Digital is as real as anything and is as real as film. Film tho had a head start, like almost 200 years. Lets see where film and digital are in just 50 years from now. Many film makers, Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc have scaled WAY back in film production and some films have all but gone away as it is. Where is Kodachrome 25..?
64..? Film IS dieing. It will not die altogether and be gone, but some types of film WILL be gone, and already are.
Movies ARE being shot on digital. There is a digital movie camera with a chip up to 6x18cm. The camera is called RED. The back alone is in the 100's of thousands of dollars. They also have full frame 6x6 and 6x9 backs as well. With a camera outfit costing 4 or 5 million when completed (remember, digital needs boo coo memory and these cameras need a LOT) many movie companies will stick to 35 or wide format film cameras and only spend a few 100 thousand for a complete system, right now.
Many high end digital cameras pictures look as if the 'film' was set at 4 to 800 ISO, a speed many 'pros' shot with for a number of things. Because this 'grain' can be seen, and once told it is a digital image, up go the noses. Oh well, digital is here, like horses, but you don't see anyone riding a horse to the next city any more..
Bob - Tucson|||Since neither medium is perfect and each has its characteristic flaws, you will always be able to tell, with close enough examination, what the original medium was. Digital has taken over many film applications simply because it is more convenient. Which medium is better matters little in most cases, as long as it's good enough.
In those few applications where image quality is the primary concern, medium or large format film is still the medium of choice. On the other hand, digital imaging has completely replaced film in astronomical research, because its sensitivity is so much better.
You will see more movies being shot in digital as suitable cameras become more available and as more cinematographers become experienced with the medium. I suspect a lot of producers are sticking with film because it's more familiar, and they aren't willing to experiment with new technology on a multi-million dollar production. Movies are often digitally edited already, then returned to film for release. The studios would be glad to get rid of bulky, expensive film prints, but most theaters don't have digital projectors. This will probably all change not too many years into the future.|||There are many subjective ways to assess quality, and different people will have different views about the relative balance between each of these when assessing film and digital.
One of the less subjective measures is the resolution of the image, which generally comes down to a measure of how many lines per mm can be resolved, a measure sometime called spatial frequency. With digital, it is easy to calculate, because a line requires two pixels, and you already know how many pixels the sensor can resolve in either direction. Simple arithmetic takes over.
For film, the test requires photographing special test cards and then visually assessing the results.
At this point, film looks to have the game won hands down, with the equivalent of over 50MP for even quite ordinary film. What we do know is that what would appear to be a significant advantage doesn't seem to make that much difference.
The reason for this is the lens. If good film can resolve over 160 line pairs per mm, and a 13MP sensor around 63 lpmm, what can the lens do? Only the very good lenses will be able to resolve 60 lpmm, with some very expensive lenses such as Ziess reaching 70 lpmm for some of their lenses.
The system resolution can never be any greater than that of any of the parts, and the effect is to reduce the resolution further.
So what? Without boring you with the maths, it is possible to compare the system resolution for a film and digital camera. If we used a moderately good lens capable of resolving 50 lpmm, and film capable of 160 lpmm, then together they will achieve a system resolution of about 48 lpmm, which on film will give you about 8MP. A 14MP FX sensor with the same lens will result in a system resolution of about 39 lpmm, and will give an effective picture size of about 5.5MP.
Looked at this way, its clear that one reason it is getting more difficult to tell the difference between film and digital is that as a lens and sensor system, the difference isn't really all that great. People who say they can tell might be kidding themselves.
If you were able to afford a much higher quality lens, one that could resolve say 70lpmm, then the system resolution with that 14MP sensor would have reached 47lpmm, and the effective picture size would then be close to 7.6MP, now very close to our film setup with the lower resolution lens. I suspect that most people would not be really able to tell the difference, because there really isn't that much at this level.
If you went back to our pretty ordinary lens, an FX sensor of just under 30MP would achieve result in a system resolution about 85% of film.|||yeah.....I can't say I really care to be honest. I don't spend my days analyzing prints with an eyeloupe. So you can still see a difference huh, you must be, like a rocketscientist or something. Digital surpasses film in terms of ease of use - you point and shoot, then print. People like easy. And easy advances civilization. Sure, vinyl sounds more authentic, but compact discs are a more efficient means of storing music. Rocketscience, this ain't. Moore's Law will catch digital up to and beyond film sooner, rather than later. So in terms of the differences you claim to see now, just give the technology a few more years. It's not a matter of if - but when. Film has its uses over digital (maybe) and it still does the job quite well - But - the debate is now pass茅, seriously. If you're a photographer - go photograph something and quit debating about which is better - film or digital (who cares?). Shoot whatever you want.......geez
- End rant
Gateway:
I thought that my not caring was obvious at this point. Sure, photography is more than easy, but I don't really care. I'm tired of the talking. At some point, you end up realizing you may spend more time arguing about it online than you do taking real photographs. So yeah, who effing cares? Amazing things can be done with my 2 mp LG shine phone that is also a camera. You go ahead on fight the good fight, bro. I'll be out taking pictures.|||Digital is NOT better than film. The fact is that film can still take much better quality pictures than digital...but most people don't know the difference because they're just taking snapshots. They just want the fastest and cheapest way to get pictures.
As an example. I went up to the mountains with a friend, and while we were up there I took some pictures with my completely manual 35mm fim camera. In fact, it's an antique camera, an Argus C3. When I got the pictures developed a few days ago, I was showing them to my friend and he was asking "why are the pictures so clear?" He is so used to seeing pixelated digital images now, that he was actually surprised to see how sharp and clear a picture is from film. I explained to him that film is often better than digital...but most people have no idea about that because they've just been brainwashed by consumer magazines to think that "digital is better." Also, the people who typically just take snapshots and bring in their memory cards to get pictures printed at Walmart really don't care that much about quality...they just want the fastest, cheapest way to get their "pics."
These aren't the best pictures, but are just a few that I took that day. It was freezing cold! The lake was actually frozen!
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/ga鈥?/a>
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/ga鈥?/a>
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/ga鈥?/a>
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/ga鈥?/a>
The actual prints are much better than the scans.
And yes, film gives a much warmer tone, with better color saturation. Digital cameras tend to get easily overexposed and they don't handle mixed lighting conditions well at all. They also tend to give a very cold tone to pictures.
I know I'm going to get voted thumbs-down...but it's the truth. You can get MUCH better pictures with film.
And as far as detail goes, digital is NOWHERE near what medium and large format film can do. This is a picture I took earlier. It's from black and white 120 size film, which I developed myself. The actual print is better than the scan, and the negative is so sharp that I could enlarge and magnify the picture on my enlarger and you could clearly see everything on the other side of the lake. If you try to zoom in with a digital image that much, you'll just see pixels.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f86/ga鈥?/a>
EDIT:
MixedMojo...he asked about QUALITY. Notice that all anyone talks about with digital is how easy it is. Okay If you want easy "point and shoot" and that's all you're looking for...then fine. Go take some pics for MySpace, and print them out at Walmart. There, easy. Point, shoot, and print.
But I thought that we had all agreed that there was more to real photography than just aiming a camera and pressing a button. Well, maybe some people think there is more to it, I guess. I have a digital camera too...but I only use it for quick snapshots when I'm out with friends. For "real" photography, I use film.
I don't want "easy, point, shoot, and print." If that was all I wanted, then I would just get a webcam or a disposable camera. Why even get into photography if that's all you want?
MixedMojo...you can take "amazing photos" with your LG cell phone camera? Really, amazing photos with a cell phone camera? Yeah, right. Have fun, dude. I'll be out taking photos with my medium format cameras and getting pictures that make me imagine I was there again...instead of blurry, underexposed, pixelated "pics."
No one takes serious pictures with a cell phone. Sorry. Phones are for making calls. Cameras are for taking pictures.
No comments:
Post a Comment