Digital v Film again

[paulcontax]

Hi Paul,

I have to disagree ! If you scan the slide you never increase quality but decrease it because every lens (the lens of the scanner) doesn't let 100% of the light pass through. The discussions about lens quality also matters with scanner ! The digital shot isn't gone througn another step where light could be changed, colours be changed.... and the processing inside the scanner ? Nobody knows ! What are they doing with what the lens is reading, the electronic elements (CCD ?) is doing with the informations it's getting.... NO !! These comparisons are always better for digital shots, the film shots always get worse than they actually are ! You have to print without manipulation a great (and I mean GREAT) print (100 x 150 cm for ex&le, that's what the Leica-people showed me to demonstrate the quality - compared to MF-shots !). and then : Don't compare a hobby-film made with a zoom-lens .... with the absolute high-end DSLR stuff (like it's often done).

Don't use B&W-testcharts -live is full of colours ! Don't use just one distance (testchart, testobject) but also infinity-objects like landscape.

Then we can have a look - my experience is that the DSLR will not be as good as film....

Best wishes

Paul (who sometimes thinks about a Contax 645 with both film magazin and 18 MP digital back)

 

[djg]

While many good points are brought up on both sides of the film vs. digital equation, one thing that constantly amazes me is how film reproduction is taken as gospel. C'mon, guys! How different are the images captured by the various film products? VERY!

Sure, I can look at a slide and say, "That's what I saw!". OK now take the same exact shot with five different slide films - do they all look the same? I think not! Which one did you actually see? None of them!

Each film has a personality. Some people prefer NSP to Reala to VPS and such. Moreover, film is actually quite inaccurate in capturing the true gamut of the image when you take into account the fact that each emiulsion reacts quite different to the other one in terms of linearity, reciprocity and such.

What it comes down to is, use the one medium that makes you happiest

.

DJ
Back to lurking ...

 

[paul_schliesser]

> I have to disagree ! If you scan the slide you never increase quality > but decrease it because every lens (the lens of the scanner) doesn't > let 100% of the light pass through.

Hi Paul,

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but I was talking about the issues of digital versus film for a professional photographer who is shooting for publication. All color separations and prepress work is done electronically today, so the final product needs to be a digital file, regardless of what you started with. If you have a slide, the only way to get your photo into a publication is to scan it. In spite of the fact that some amateurs also own them, it's my belief that a USD$3000+ digital camera is primarily intended for the professional market. That's why I was suggesting that a good test would be to compare two digital files, one from a scanned slide and one from a digital camera, since this is the finished product that such a professional requires - it doesn't matter how nice a wet print can be made from the film, because a wet print is not what is needed.

Yes, in the process of scanning a slide your image will lose quality - I agree completely. But if you're a professional photographer and need your slide to appear in a book, magazine, brochure, calendar, package design or advertisement, you must scan it - today you have no other choice.

The question is, will the scanned slide be superior to current digital camera technology, if what you are looking at is the final result in a publication? At smaller sizes I believe that you'd get similar results, but at larger sizes, the fact that there is more real data in a good scan should allow reproduction at larger sizes. There are more issues than the sheer number of pixels, of course, but a 4000 dpi scan of a slide has nearly 4 times the number of pixels that the N Digital will give you; a drum scan can be much higher still.

The best way to test this would be to compare the two digital files - no matter how it was made, even if it was scanned from a print, the quality of the final digital file is all that matters.

My other point is that many people with digital cameras, even seasoned professional photographers, are often far out of their depth when it comes to dealing with digital files - their work often suffers because of this, and that they often blame it on their computer, software or camera.

If my finished product was going to be a large print for a gallery, then I'd care about different things.

- Paul

 

[mayebaza]

> In principle for reprographic purposes, film will be superior because of the time taken to produce each image. Film scan takes more time, therefore a scan is capable of being made of greater data power producing a more quality image.

 

[paulcontax]

Hi Paul,

Thanx for this explication - yes if you want to sell your shots 8and that HAS to be digital) it's a different thing.

I was thinking about the amateurs who are mostly considering this topic and often have invested in high-end digital DSLR equipment and afterwards are bashing at film equipment - as if it'd be necessary for argueing (with their wives ?) their investment.

I'm an amateur myself - although with quite a ot of experience - and the print is my final product. That's the reason why I was argueing this way and that's a complete different thing - like you said too.

Have good shots

;-)Paul

 

[clive_kenyon]

DJ is correct in describing the various characteristics of slide film adding its own interpretation of the final image. Being able to change the iso and saturation qualities mid roll so to speak is probably the biggest advantage of digital for my kind of photography. I am equally sure that being able to alter the white balance at will or preview the final image will also be handy.

Commercial labs treat all images the same and have an automated exposure system similar to that of a camera’s meter. If you take a fabulous sunset shot on slide your results are purely down to your own skill in interpreting the light levels. Take the same shot on negative film and the processor will invariably blow the sky and render the under exposed foreground a grainy sort of grey. I have no doubt that they will do exactly the same when printing digital files.

The one and only thing that prevents my actually buying a 6Mp DSLR is that the image quality when viewed alongside a conventional wet print or indeed a film derived image in a magazine’s page shows that there is still some way to go towards image quality. Almost all commercial printers are now using digital means at a final resolution of around 250 dpi to print 35mm negatives and digital files. A conventional wet print of the kind you would have received from them a couple of years ago was around three or four times that dpi density. Even so, on digital prints the results from film still show more fine detail and a better rendition of colours. Those of you who have some good prints taken a few years ago should put them alongside today’s offerings to see just how far back we have ‘progressed’ in image quality. Check out images in your photography magazines – cover the captions and try to guess which were produced on a digital camera and which were scanned from film.

In the UK we have a professional wildlife photographer who is obviously paid by Canon to promote their digital cameras. Every month he takes two or three amateurs out on an expedition. Every single month the results from his film toting pupils are visibly better than his own digital images. A couple of months ago the editor was asked to explain this and he basically said that the best image for printing still came from a scanned film image.

Consider that many image libraries still insist on slides or at least high end scans of slides and you can see that digital still has not arrived in the pro' market as people like Marc Williams would have us believe. The photographic world is made up of many factors and news hounds and wedding snappers only for a very small part of that world. They have gone digital for reasons other than image quality. Bearing in mind that many of the photographers who came to use Contax did do in pursuit of absolute image quality it would be a backward step to throw away the best 35mm film images in the world to go digital at this time.

 

[rbudding]

Interesting debate. But I made my decision based on economics. There are some great buys in film cameras right now! And I just can't see dropping $2,000 or more on a decent digital SLR when it will be obsolete in 6 months.

 

[fotografz]

I'm having difficulty following some of the points being made concerning the film verses digital debate.

As stated, all journalistic, editorial and commercial images reproduced by the printing process MUST become digital. Digital capture is direct, film images have to be scanned. Both have to be sized to the final application. NO ONE scans film to sizes of the actual application as it would cost a fortune per image and take forever. The printing process itself is the limiting factor and levels the playing field between the two mediums. Overkill is not economically tolerated by budget sensitive clients, nor is lessened quality. My ad agency hasn't shot a job on film in three years now...which includes outdoor billboards and 10 foot wide Duratrans displays to be viewed from 5 feet away. And, while there are still commercial photographers who use film for it's specific characteristic look, they are fast becoming a minority.

Then there is "the print is the final product" debate. Wedding photography falls into that catagory. Hard to deny where that is going as digital capture sweeps through that industry. Cameras like the Fuji S2 and Nikon D1x started killing 35mm SLR sales, and now the Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14n are killing the Medium Format camera business. Even Denis Reggie went digital some time ago, and I doubt he would risk his hard earned reputation and economic empire supporting an end product of lesser quality than he delived with film. In fact the biggest suprise when I started shooting weddings was that the young couples prefered digital. They are the digital savy generation, and want to do reprints and e-mail images to wide spread friends and family.

Even MF is focused on digital capture. MF is fighting back with highly portable 645 AF cameras which directly take high res digital backs (Contax, Mamiya, Hasselblad H1).

In the area of matching scans of film verses medium format digital capture. The argument that scanned film of art work or museum objects can be done at a much higher meg count than can be produced by a digital back isn't true. There are digital scanning backs now being used for that work that make up to 16 passes and produce huge meg count files.
The fact that the Smithsonian is now archiving digitally (backed up on DAT) provide us with a clue of how the future is shaping up .

Now onto the amateur market. Mom and Pop may indeed still have droves of film cameras at home in their closet. But plummeting film sales argues that they are staying in the closet as Mom and Pop go digital. Not because Joe average suddenly dropped a bundle in desktop processing and became a genius at PhotoShop, but because the labs are going digital to meet the demand. Take in a CD-Rom or your CF card and 4X6 prints are 19 cents each...and you print only the ones you want, not a whole roll of 36 with 5 keepers on it.

The advanced amateur may indeed currently be the last bastion of film useage. We'll see how that goes as cameras like the Canon 300D start converting them to digital. I predict a $600. 7-8 meg consumer SLRD with-in 2-3 years. Plus, each year brings a new crop of desktop printers better than the ones they replaced. Darkroom gear has already become a quaint cottage industry, while used darkroom gear has become a white elephant in terms of resale. I still have my darkroom, not out of some misty eyed emotional attachment, but because it's worthless. So I figure I'll just keep it should I desire that experience ever again.

In the end, I'm in DJs c&. Shoot what you like and enjoy it. Arguing film verses digital won't change anyone's opinion of what they like. And the debate will not slow the onslaught of digital one single second.

For the record, I still love film. I have a bundle invested in Leica M and Hasselblad 503CW gear. I just sprung for a new Hasselblad X-Pan film camera, and still have a Mamiya 7II system. All of them produce AWE INSPIRING Quality as silver prints or scanned images printed on a Epson 2200 Ink Jet. ANd no matter where digital goes, I will most likely always shoot B&W film for its emotionally oriented, unique look, not out of some misguided notion that the resolution is better.

 

[mike_nunan]

(Wading in here ;o)

Hi Marc,

I'm not saying that I think you're wrong, but I do think you are overstating the case. While the tide is obviously turning, there are still pros who are not yet happy to make The Switch. Case in point: not long ago I met a guy who makes a good living selling travel shots to Getty Images. He expressed disdain for the best of the current crop of digital cameras and backs, saying that the file sizes are nowhere near sufficient and that the image quality was not up to par in low light.

There is also the matter of what Getty will accept. Interestingly, they have only just changed their policy to admit colour neg images, and then only in medium format. 35mm work must be shot on chromes. Scans must be Imacon 848 or drum scans.

I suppose for a big agency like Getty, it's crucial that the images in their library can be used across as broad a range of applications as possible. 11Mp or even 20Mp files may be sufficient for a largish fine-art print, but for really large reproductions they can't compete with the gigantic files from 8000ppi Imacon scans of medium format film.

Anyway, as an amateur it was a very interesting experience to hear the other side of the argument from a well-established pro. I'm not even trying to say I take his word as gospel, I just found it interesting that he took the "unfashionable" view.

Regards,

-= mike =-

 

[fotografz]

Hi Mike, as I said, there are indeed Pros still dedicated to film. My professional mentor ( a well known NY photographer) has yet to go digital. But many very important commercial photographers are very involved in digital capture these days. I know this first hand as I am a Creative Director of an Ad agency doing a lot of national and international work.

Stock places like the Getty do indeed have film requirements. Their infrastructure centered around that is massive and would require expenditures that would distroy their profit margin if they tried to change drastically. We who buy their product could care less about their image source as long as they have the image we need on hand. It takes a long time to accumulate such a huge inventory of stock photos so it'll be slow to change. Interestingly, the purchased items are often sent on a CD or even downloaded from an internet site.

BTW, while I disagree with some of your pro's comments in terms of resolution, I do agree that low light is still the absolute domain of film.

Clive, my debate isn't on the quality of resolution and color rendition, which you would like to be objective, but is in reality subjective and has been a source of debate in terms of lens performance way before the digital/film debate.

As to "Digital not arriving for Pro's as people like Marc Williams would have us believe"...I wonder how much original photography you purchased this year? In fact the stock photography aspect is a smaller industry for photographers than the "wedding snappers" you brush off. At the commercial level, original photography is still the biggest image producing industry in photography. It's morphing to digital at a expotential rate.