Film vs Digital photo?

Question

Can you get the same blur/ realism effect on a digital camera as opposed to film? I'm thinking about getting a new camera....but should I stick to film or do the new digital cameras provide the same characteristic effects.

Film >
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3DNikon%2BBw%26ni%3D18%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26b%3D91&w=500&h=333&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F11%2F88275676_9d76007b05_m.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fhamwithcam%2F88275676%2F&size=81.3kB&name=88275676_9d76007b05.jpg&p=Nikon+Bw&type=jpeg&no=93&tt=229,219&oid=6b6bc18b2cb7cc84&fusr=HamWithCam&tit=Chester+The+Cat+BW&hurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fhamwithcam%2F&ei=UTF-8&src=p

Digital>
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Ddigital%2BBw%26y%3DSearch%26ei%3DUTF-8%26js%3D1%26ni%3D18%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26b%3D109&w=500&h=375&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F33%2F43329576_ce1a538f0b_m.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fbluekdesign%2F43329576%2F&size=95.4kB&name=43329576_ce1a538f0b.jpg&p=digital+Bw&type=jpeg&no=122&tt=113,275&oid=4ebb248a6d99002a&fusr=bluekdesign&tit=DSC03886+BW&hurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fbluekdesign%2F&ei=UTF-8&src=p

Very well....thanks to your help, I have decided to go for a "Nikon SLR D-40". Thank you all for your input.

Answer 1

I am confused by your examples. The size of your example would make it impossible to distinguish between the film and the digital image.

At this juncture, a DSLR that can replicate a 35mm SLR in terms of resolution is about $5000. That is a lot of rolls of film!

And you have hold-in-your-hand negatives with a film camera.


P.S.: Your links do work, but they are terribly slow for some reason.

P.S.S: You betcha, a Nikon D40 is leaps and bounds better than a digital P & S. Congrats.

Answer 2

I was taught with film, but now have digital. My reasoning for moving to the other side was purely economical. With a digital camera I pay the initial cost and the editing and 'printing' i use my computer for, with film theres ongoing cost. As i am also coming back to photography i can get more instant results and play around more. Film will always have my heart though, being able to manually produce photos in a dark room, the smell of the chemicals, the feeling that you truly were behind every process. If i had the money i would have my own dark room in a second. I also found that i get 'better' photos when i used film.

Answer 3

I assume by blur you mean bokeh or being able to isolate a subject by making things in front or behind the subject blurry. If so, then yes you can do that with either a film or digital camera because it's a function of the lens and not the medium (film/digital sensor).

If you're already a photographer, then I would certainly avoid point and shoots unless you're use to having the camera make the photographic choices for you when you shoot. I'd opt for either a decent Prosumer (point and shoot offering full manual controls and a decent lens) or an SLR. If you already own an SLR with a decent set of lenses, then consider a digital slr body that can take advantage of those lenses.

HTH

Answer 4

The examples you've given can't be compared! If you want to compare digital vs film, you should take pic of same subject in same lighting conditions.

If you asked this question several years back, I'd have said film. But now, digital is much much better than film. You can do much more with digital than film. Almost everything is possible with digital cameras. You've more freedom, more options and of course the benefit of post processing. And yes, cost effective as well!

Answer 5

The photos wont load for me because I am on an insanely slow dial up connection at the moment....

However, the arguments for and against film cameras are extensive... I suggest you just start looking at websites that argue the cases for both, because evidently there are pros and cons with both of them....

I think as far as blur effects go though, you should be able to produce the same on either or film or digital... What you really need to consider is which one will be best for you personally....

I prefer digital, but that is simply because im not too crash hot with all the technical side of video cameras (im better at movie cameras mind you) so that's my choice... A good argument for the film cameras though (despite the cost of getting the film developed etc) is the fact that scanners will always get better, so you can scan in your pictures, and five years from now say, you can scan them again and they will be a better picture quality on your computer, where as with digital cameras you will always be stuck with the resolution values it had when you bought it...

Just some of the arguments, but there are some good websites out there so get googling... Sorry, now I'm just waffling on.... yadda yadda yadda...

Let me know what camera you do get, when you get one! :)

xox

Answer 6

Yes - the background blur effect is controlled by the aperture, the lower the number the wider the aperture and the the more the background area will become blurred.

Other factors include the focal length of the lens (the longer the lens the more blurred the background will be).

Otherwise the quality of digital is as good as or better than film - astronomers have been using digital imaging for decades and the results can be tens of thousands of times better than film - it all depends on the size of capture chip you use and how often images are refreshed... so you can also introduce these creative effects after you've shot the image as a post production job!

Best wishes

Mike

Answer 7

You want to get a digital SLR if you really want control over the "background blur." Point and shoot cameras have a small sensor that makes it hard to achieve much blur in the background. At least go for a larger sensor if you get a P&S camera. Look for a 1/1.8" or 1/1.7" sensor instead of the more common 1/2.5" sensor and you will be much happier with this effect.

Here's an example. I could have done a lot more to "defocus" the background under different conditions, but these are hand-held indoor shots.

1/1.8" sensor: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/2105262500/

1/2.5" sensor: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/2104143615/

The white balance is correct in the first shot, but try to ignore that for now. Look at the things in the background. Although the apertures and effective focal lengths are nearly identical, the larger sensor gave a much more pleasing result.

See also: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/843563558/

See also: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/tags/bokeh/ where most of the images are made with a digital SLR. The D40 is an excellent choice for you.

Answer 8

digitals unless full frame (5D canon or D3 nikon) have cropped sensors so its more difficult to achieve the results than with a 35mm film cam. If you shoot full frame its the same as a film cam.

Links are next to useless i'm afraid

a

Answer 9

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1325/1393422452_fa6630e112_b.jpg

Shot with digital; I was trying to replicate the 40's - 50's depth of field where the near eye was in focus but the far eye was not. No problem.