A question for film users?

Question

Since you film users talk so much about film being better because of the tonality, colour reproduction, contrast, saturation, etc etc being better than what digital can do, can you give me examples? Anything that supports your claim. Show me any evidence that proves digital can't reproduce a film image.

In answer to your challenge, Ben, here is a 2 minute exposure from my D200. The content is boring because I wanted to get the image now rather than wait til tonight when it's dark.
http://www.straightshots.co.nz/noisefree.htm

So there we are. Yet another claim from a film user who didn't actually bother to do his own experimentation first.

Answer 1

There's an intersting point. How can we compare apples and oranges in the orange medium? If you scan film and then display it on a monitor, it will not be a valid comparison for all applications or users.

If you look at the end point and see what is the best path to arrive at that point, you will find that both film and digital have their limitations.

I'm not jumping on either side of this argument, because it is my postion that each medium has its virtues, but here's one example that I would love to see a match for in digital. I'll look through my own for a similar sky, but maybe someone else can post one of their own. This was scanned and uploaded as is. It was shot with no filters at all. I think the sky has darkened after 40 years of film aging, but I do recall my initial reaction to seeing the slide was that the sky looked great.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/617803939/

Check this out and read the specs, which I had written on the slide mount:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/856121089/
View it in the original size. Obviously, there is no digital noise. The D200 may just be the noise-reduction benchmark for CCD sensors. It is the measuring stick for anything that comes out today, even though it is two years old. I am not sure I could do this with my D200. I have this "comp" on-line, but I think I went around cleaning up the noise. I just can't remember.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/1296331083/

I definitely recall cleaning up about 20-30 hot pixels from this image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/935289030/

I did not have "noise reduction" engaged in these shots as I never use it. It is only used at the expense of detail, so I feel that I'd rather make the choice to apply NR in Photoshop, if it makes a difference.

I'll have to go out tonight and do an actual test if it's not raining.

I am a digital photographer with a 45 year background in film before I touched a digicam. Frankly, I found very little difficulty in the transition. My knowledge (such that it is) is so deep in my brain that I don't even know what adjustments I had to make - if any - in converting to digital. I used to pride myself on being able to give precise driving directions. Some of my trips are so familiar to me that I couldn't even tell you how to get there. I don't even use landmarks anymore, so I can't describe them to you. I just "know" where I am and when to turn. I think some of my photographic "skills" are like that, so I don't know what compensations I made in converting to digital.

I happen to be pretty much 100% a digital photographer now, but I hasten to admit - openly - that it is because I am an amateur and digital is expedient. I do not have easy access to a good film lab anymore, as I am in a small town and the drug stores have put the good labs out of business. I shoot digital because it brings back the control that I used to have in film processing.

If I was a pro, I would definitely want both film and digital in my arsenal so I could choose between them appropriately.

My bottom line is that neither medium is better at all things than the other and the "Complete Photographer" knows each and when to use it.

Answer 2

Forrest Gump - Lt. Dan is in a wheelchair for a reliable component to the action picture saved! - Macauley Culkin's character is in a wheelchair Coming homestead - Older conflict vet action picture yet nevertheless available - Jon Voight is in a wheelchair The X-adult men movies - Professor Xavier is in a wheelchair.

Answer 3

ok come round to my house and i will show you some prints.............you might not realise screen res isnt the right medium to show art work on - dont come round just watch prime on a saturday or sunday morning

compare the old and new star treks on TV, they both look great, lighting etc, however they both have a different look - imagine being able to make both........(they broadcast in digibeta but the sources were different) - both i mean have old looking and new looking, and if you want large enlargements....

imagine enlargements of large format shots that have that "old" look about them - for weddings, its about both, they have a different "look" - maybe film can be made to look like digi in the computer and the other way around?

the oringinal starwars was shot on film - it "looks" wonderful to me - the film makes it look dated, that adds to the appeal to me, its been remastered to dig but still has that look about it, some "films" now they want the old look and high res so they shoot on 70mm, its not whats best or better its about being able to deliver both really

to be a wedding fotog, isnt having as many creative chioses important to you, you can do the normal thing and shoot lots of shots, or now your going towards "making images" not taking photos so that great, next add a 35mm film nikon to your arsenal, burn a few shots - you might fall in love........dont know till you try

a

edit: i would never say digi sucks! they both have qualities, as a fotog if one knows when to use which they are better off than one than restrcits their creativity to just one medium

**starwars was shoot on 70mm and the light sabers were hand painted on each frame........thats art.....lol

Answer 4

Show me a 2-minute long digital exposure that's not anything more than a puddle of noise.

Here's my 2-minute long exposure made on cheap color negative film

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b6d626b3127cce8bf96c9100da00000036108AcN2jNi0Yt7

Answer 5

both systems have their advantages
as a photographer who uses both formats i recognize that the differences can be subtle, but differences there are.
as to which is best, if either, who cares
as long as i continue to mix the best of the old with the best of the new i will remain happy with what i do

Answer 6

I don't talk about that stuff at all.

I say film *looks different* from digital.

;-)

Answer 7

Depth of field without detail loss.

Digital still sucks.