Film vs digital camera pros and cons

[djg]

Sing, I think we're in violent agreement. However, I don't consider the kind of end product you mention photography. To me that is graphic arts, with a photograph as part of the end product. TO me a photograph is an image of a point in time at specific location, the visual recording of an event. Any processing done to the captured image is done to provide an optimized rendering of the image, not to add elements not originally part of the composition.

This is not to say that doing so is wrong or inferior, merely a different kind of craft and if so it should be noted and not tried to be passed on as an original image. Now for the severe arguments as to the various gray areas and shades of interpretation in this description .

And Mike, you're not the only hard-core computer professional here .

BTW, anybody upgrade to Photoshop 8 yet?

DJ
Loving his ND, dual-Xeon/dual-monitor PC and Photoshop

 

[saspencr]

Mike, thanks for your comments, I'll have to think about this more. I wonder how much better film in 35mm can get too? And thanks to all for a spirited debate.

 

[mikel]

Scott,

How much better can the film get?

Well, as far as I know, most of 35mm Zeiss lenses are designed to deliver over 200 lp/mm. Most of professional films are already there or are very close. For the last few years, most of film manufacturers (Kodak included) have been working on increasing the speed of film while still maintaining same color reproduction, contrast and resolving power (or even improving it). The tricky part though is that once they reach the limits of lens resolving power - any further improvements in resolving power of film won't be utilized and will require better lenses.

Can film get beyond 300 lp/mm ? Or 1000 lp/mm ?
It all depends on science. Since it's mostly chemistry, it's quite possible that they can improve it on and on until finally resolving power reaches the limit due to molecular count on emulsion. That will mean though that film will "loose" grain I believe. But what would be the price for lenses that can deliver such performance? I don't know, but I think it will be very scary

That's what I think, although I wouldn't know for sure. Someone from AGFA, Ilford, Fuji or Kodak will know better. Actually, perhaps we shouldn't even bother asking Kodak considering their behaviour and product line

As far as my needs go, I'd like to see Provia 800 that would be totally equal to Provia 100 (same grain, same colors, same contrast, same resolving power, just higher speed) and NPS 800 that would be just as NPS 160. And Ilford Delta 800 that would be equal to Delta 100.

DJ Garcia,

My condolences

Mike.

 

[Colin645]

Scott, I believe 35mm film was/can get better.
Unfortunately some of them are history. E.g. Kodak's Ektar 25. I have not found a print film that is as sharp or grain free. They discontinued it! Can you imagine this stuff in a C645?
Another unsurpassed film is Kodachrome 25. Again lack of sales caused its demise.
Thank God that Tech Pan is still available in 35/120 for B&W users. Although these are all Kodak films, I am not a Kodak fan. This based purely on their customer attitude and service. It is the 'service' part that has Kodachrome sales so low.
Colin

 

[djg]

Mike, condolences accepted

. I actually LIKE most aspects of my job - how sick is that!

Anyway, I've added 26 boring tourist images from Biarritz, France to my web site. I was just there for my only nephew's wedding. It's a totally charming place, if on the expensive side.

These were taken with my ND, so being digital and post-processed in Photoshop, please lower your expectations

. Here's the direct link:

http://improbablystructuredlayers.net/Beauty/Fr_03_Biarritz/FullGallery.htm

Cheers,

DJ

 

[mikel]

DJ Garcia,

Actually I like my job too. That is, when things don't start falling apart all in one day.

I'm surprised you guys stayed at Sofitel. There is Sofitel here in US, I stayed there once and didn't like them at all. I think in such a small French town it would be easier and nicer to stay in some small hotel (probably cheaper too). Anyway, I still have 47 States to visit, so France will wait

On most pictures with sky, there is some noise in there. Nasty. There are three pictures there that are also odd. On both pictures with that stray cat, it seems there is color fringing and there is also something wrong with the floor. Can't quite describe be, but it doesn't look right.
The third one is Fr_03_Biarritz_26.jpg (number 9 on the wall). It might be natural, but bottom part and left bottom corner seem to have a lot of reddish-purple hue (I think that would be best way to describe it).

As about noise, is that normal for ND? Seems like it, because I have seen it often already.

Mike.

 

[djg]

Mike,

The fringing in the cat picture is from the harsh sunlight I would guess refracting around the tree - I recall the effect which drew my attention.

The slight noise in some of the originally somewhat underexposed continuous sky tones is there, obviously worse than in the original due to the JPEG compression.

I take it as the digital equivalent of grain in film, but actually find it less obtrusive. In truth not necessarily better or worse, just different, IMO.

Cheers,

DJ

 

[coyot]

> D.J.

Some very nice shots. Will worth clicking the link! Thanks. Here's to the ND!

Michael.

 

[coyot]

> Mike,

You have to be kidding. What noise? The only noise I have had a problem with on the ND is if there is an exposure of longer then 1/2 second. I just don't see the noise you are seeing???? Perhaps you need to clean your monitor.

Kidding aside. You are trying to "analyze" a jpg that is about 50 K which started out being 2.3 megs in size. If I had one complaint about the images it would be that they could have a bit more contrast ... but having said that the tonality is very beautiful and I have never seen the original scence, so I would bow to the photographer's discreation as to the interpertation of the scene.

They are a nice set of shots.

Michael.

 

[mikel]

Michael,

All three of my monitors are squeaky clean. But that's not the point anyway. I don't know how raw images look like in this case, but in other cases when I saw jpeg and then the source - noise was present in both. As about contrast - I noticed that too. To me it actually appeared is if the shots were made with polarizing filter... DJ, is that the case?

Mike.