Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#658927 - 02/11/2005 13:00 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Ray Mullens Offline
Mod Squad, This is my second home!!

Registered: 31/03/2003
Posts: 1223
Loc: Lismore,Goonellabah. Norther R...
Iíve just done a quick experiment in PS.
All I done was applied auto levels, contrast & color then the same small amount of sharpening to both images.
The top one is the digital file.





:cheers:
Ray :p

Top
#658928 - 09/11/2005 15:35 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
bigwilly Offline
Weatherzone Mod and Photog

Registered: 25/09/2002
Posts: 6543
Loc: Junee - just north of the 'Bid...
Well looks like digital has nothced its first big kill

Original article here :
Quote:

Now the photographic firm of Agfa has announced it is bankrupt. The announcement in May that the company AgfaPhoto had filed for bankruptcy protection sent a chill through the company's world operations. It will probably stop operating by the end of the year.
:cheers: Will

Blue Mountains Photography
_________________________
YTD Rainfall = 281.0mm (Avg to March 117.0mm)
MTD rainfall March = 34.7mm(Avg 41.3mm)
February 2011 total = 203.9mm (Avg 37.8mm)
2010 Rainfall: 759.3mm (Annual Avg: 521.5mm)

Top
#658929 - 09/11/2005 15:59 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Ray Mullens Offline
Mod Squad, This is my second home!!

Registered: 31/03/2003
Posts: 1223
Loc: Lismore,Goonellabah. Norther R...
Thanks for that Will.
The digital age certainly has made a big foot print on the world!!!!!
I read some were that Kodak werenít travelling that well, canít remember when I read the article but it shore has had a major impact on the film industry.
Like LPís giving way to CDís
Even though throw a top end HiFi a LP will out do a CD in dynamic range every time!!!!!!

Cheers
Ray

Top
#658930 - 09/11/2005 17:33 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
teckert Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 27/05/2001
Posts: 17498
Loc: NE suburbs, Adelaide, South Au...
Kodak havent been travelling very well for a couple of years... must be awhile since they had to close down their Melbourne factory.. and there was a report again last week of big losses in the last qtr..
I think it started going downhill for them when they thought digital was just a passing phase lol... wink

Top
#1408218 - 17/02/2017 19:55 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Andy]
Wild Wassa Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/03/2012
Posts: 390
Loc: NW ACT
Originally Posted By: Andy
Whatever the arguments are about film versus digital, it can't be denied that the appearance of reliable, immediate and low-cost digital photography has raised the standard of the images we see by a significant degree.


With all respect, this is something that I truly doubt. This is a photo thread without any of the contributors posting images to back up their advice or arguments or to show how they have benefited from the digital revolution after using film.

If you were to give the world's worst photographer the world's best digital camera they will still be the world's worst photographer, no matter how often they conveniently reviewed their work. If anyone uses a mobile phone to take images that's is along way from any form of photographic quality.

If you were to give the world's best photographer, the world's worst film camera (like a $10 Holga, an optical abortion) they will still be the world's best photographer. Because they know how to communicate, they know the difference between making a photographic image and dare I say it, a non photogenic subject. No digital camera can teach a talent-less image maker, how to communicate in photographic terms.

This image below was shot on film. On KODAK Pan X 50 ASA then converted to being here. I have been slow to transition to digital, yet, I'm reasonably prolific digitally.

http://wildwassa.deviantart.com/art/Slow-to-Transition-525003948?ga_submit_new=10%3A1487321667&ga_type=edit&ga_changes=1

I was apprehensively slow to transition to digital, because of the lack of quality that digital gives over film. In terms of image resolution (measured in line pairs per millimetre), and the reduced degree of tonality (densitometrically speaking)... I'm still hanging around in digital limbo over tonality, the low image resolution I'll live with. We pay 2000 bucks for a lens that that only gives us 200 bucks of resolution, digitally.

The three greatest achievements digital photography affords, are quickness of review, affordability and the greatest benefit of all, getting darkroom workers away from toxic chemicals. Increased picture quality is not one of them.

Warren.


Edited by Wild Wassa (17/02/2017 20:02)
_________________________
No one's a bushman in a fog.

Top
#1408241 - 17/02/2017 21:59 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
Brett Guy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 4850
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
I would say 'picture quality' has improved in a technical sense but picture quality in an artistic sense has remained the same for good photographers. There is just a crap load of bad photography to wade through to find the good stuff. Similar to the music scene in a way

Top
#1409025 - 21/02/2017 16:18 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Wild Wassa]
desieboy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 31/12/2002
Posts: 3211
Loc: Broome

"Getting darkroom workers away from toxic chemicals. "

This is the biggest plus for me .
Would happily compromise with quality and pixel density etc just to have less exposure to harmful chemicals any day!


_________________________
Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.
- Mark Twain

Top
#1410951 - 05/03/2017 16:29 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
EddyG Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 19/12/2008
Posts: 4333
Loc: NSW Port Stephens
Very interesting reading everyone's thoughts on Digital V Film, to be honest I have never had much to do with film, mainly because I had plenty of other expensive hobbies to deal with.

Personally I think possibilities with digital are endless.

And Brett you are right with the crap load of bad photographs about, it seems anyone with a DSLR that you can pick up for around the $400 mark, think they are instant photographers!!

Wild Wassa, I spent a couple of hours going through your album last night and probably will do the same again tonight, your images are nothing short of stunning!! cool
I may have to sign up.
_________________________
Rainfall
MTD 15.9mm
YTD 1110.3mm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eddygroot/
YNWA

Top
#1410977 - 05/03/2017 18:59 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: EddyG]
Brett Guy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 4850
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
Originally Posted By: EddyG
Very interesting reading everyone's thoughts on Digital V Film, to be honest I have never had much to do with film, mainly because I had plenty of other expensive hobbies to deal with.

Personally I think possibilities with digital are endless.

And Brett you are right with the crap load of bad photographs about, it seems anyone with a DSLR that you can pick up for around the $400 mark, think they are instant photographers!!

Wild Wassa, I spent a couple of hours going through your album last night and probably will do the same again tonight, your images are nothing short of stunning!! cool
I may have to sign up.


Hey Eddy. When I was referring to the large amounts of crap photography around I wasn't actually referring to the cameras being used. More the tendancy for many to go nuclear with their post production

Top
#1411296 - 08/03/2017 09:21 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
DaveM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 21/05/2001
Posts: 9744
Loc: Bathurst NSW about 700 m asl
Yes Brett - agree 100%.

Having been a film photographer for about 30 years before digital came, I knew that I only had so many shots in the camera + whatever spare rolls I had (always carried plenty).

I thought about every photo, very rare that I took a mindless snap. I generally used my cameras on a manual setting. It was important to get it right, think about the lighting, framing, focus etc. Of course it was mostly instinctive after so many years and took only a moment or two to do.

Setting the exposure manually for the conditions meant that most times when I wanted a photo, the exposure was already really close. Use an f stop of about F11 or so on a 50mm lens usually gave me reasaonble depth of field for a quick shot. Manual focus lens made that easy.

I love film and actually miss it quite a bit.

Top
#1411675 - 11/03/2017 08:28 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4339
Loc: Brisbane
Whilst I did a small amount of film photography in my younger days I've really only become more serious about my photography in the "digital age".

What I find interesting is how polarized some people's views are.

I think there a degrees of skills that are acquirable whether you shoot film or digital and I've seen a wide range of quality arising from either format. You could spend a life time mastering and produce either stunningly good or bad results irrespective of the format you prefer.

To me its simply ego and/or snobbery to consider one might be better than the other.
_________________________
This post and any other post by Locke is NOT an official forecast & should not be used as such. It's just my opinion & may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. For official information, refer to Australian Bureau of Meteorology products.

Top
#1411722 - 11/03/2017 18:09 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
Markus Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 02/12/2010
Posts: 2108
Loc: Clare, SA
Film is actually making quite the resurgence in recent years thanks to sites like facebook making connecting with other enthusiasts possible. There's some groups with over 25k members to be found, all mostly from Australia. Infact kodak and such are actually bringing back some types of film due to popular demand.

Not going to lie though, there's quite a large number of film shooters that call digital 'sterile', not as versatile as film etc and are simply trying to imply it is inferior. But as you said Locke, this is merely snobbery by the select few involved.

Very few pro landscapers shoot film anymore though, except for the niche of panoramic, highly saturated film. People like Mark Gray for example went from shooting solely film and made their name off it, to shooting digital and ironically being simply outclassed by modern digital shooters (aka the highly saturated film they used was doing the heavy lifting)...a MASSIVE part of making the most of digital comes from the post processing part, film in this regard can do a hell of a lot of heavy lifting as it doesn't tend to need much, if any at all post processing. Of course though, digital is much more forgiving, one has to nail the exposure of film at the time, modern digital cameras can pull nearly pure blacks back into perfectly useable detail.

Digital is advancing in leaps and bounds though, for dark conditions digital is far far far better than film now.

In terms of actual image quality, medium and large format film can still edge out even the best of digital sensors at the moment but given another ten years I doubt this will be the case. In fact the biggest issue with these high resolution sensors of the current age is matching them with lenses capable of resolving to that level. Unless you are shooting billboard sized images though, there's no reason to pick film over digital unless you do it for the love of it or just prefer the 'look'.

Personally I shoot digital because it cheaper, I don't have to pay someone to develop it, and its far more versatile. I can shoot 200 images if necessary to get one lightning bolt, and have it online within an hour. Try doing that with film.

At the end of the day of course, the skill of the photographer will determine the quality of the image and the appeal of the image. Unfortunately it is VERY easy with digital these days to 'overcook' images, it comes down to ethics and there is huge debate in the digital world as to what is acceptable, this differs person to person so one will never make everyone happy. One of the biggest landscape photograhers at the moment, Marc Adamus sometimes spends 20+ hours on a single image in photoshop to perfect it, by blending different focal lengths, focus stacking, exposure stacking, warping etc to produce the final image. In the digital age there really is no limits to what is possible.
_________________________
My Blogging site.

http://markdawsonphoto.wordpress.com/

Top
#1411733 - 11/03/2017 20:10 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
teckert Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 27/05/2001
Posts: 17498
Loc: NE suburbs, Adelaide, South Au...
just to counteract that Mark - unfortunately Fujifilm are discontinuing production of consumer film this year.
I'll try to find some imfo on it...

Meanwhile... https://www.zorkiphoto.co.uk/2017/02/2017-the-year-that-film-returned/

Top
#1412503 - 15/03/2017 11:19 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
DaveM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 21/05/2001
Posts: 9744
Loc: Bathurst NSW about 700 m asl
I mainly enjoyed the fact that I was forced to think about every photo because I had only a limited number of shots available.

I have 4 digital cameras that I use all the time, from SLR to a pocket point & shoot - not to mention the phone.

I just miss my old Olympus OM4 and using it - it was a brilliant bit of kit to use physically - so small but with such stunning pin sharp fixed focal length lenses. I knew every nuance of that camera and the lenses and was able to use them quickly by setting up manually.

That camera and a 50mm or 28mm lense would fit happily in a jacket pocket if needed.

My 1.4 aperture 50mm was brilliant in low light. A far cry from F3.5 - 5.6 on a common modern zoom. smile

Not trying to be elitist or poo poo anyone else, I just loved the whole way of shooting film. It was fun - as long as you loaded the film properly - couple of times I buggered that up - not good. frown

Top
#1412563 - 15/03/2017 15:38 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
Markus Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 02/12/2010
Posts: 2108
Loc: Clare, SA
Thanks for that Tim! I'm very interested to see whether film will *eventually* die out to the point of production of further film not being profitable, how long this could take who knows but I do wonder if that day will eventually come.


Yeah Dave, you REALLY have to think about the shot with film. But of course you can take this approach in digital with discipline, e.g. using a tripod/filters and waiting for the light, these days I might only take 5-10 images for an entire outing but the quality is generally much higher. I wish I could have lived in a time before digital just to have appreciated the process behind film. I have a good mate who shoots medium format film with a hasselblad and watching the process of taking a single frame with that camera is so cool and the image quality of his images when scanned in high resolution is simply crazy, better than my FF DSLR even.

Although the typical 3.5-5.6 zooms are certainly limiting (might have to stop down to f/8 to get corner to corner sharpness), at least cameras are getting to the point where you can shoot @ iso 1600 quite comfortably with not that much IQ loss, essentially gaining 4 stops of light for the compromised lens (weight savings!). Currently my favourite lens is Nikons cheapest, 50mm f/1.8, damn that thing is incredibly sharp. Combined with iso 6400 is can shoot handheld in near darkness, never ceases to amaze.

Personally I hope film continues long into the future, there is the certain look to it that just can't be replicated by digital from my experience.

Have you ever thought of re-entering the world of film photography Dave? Plenty of groups on FB to help with the return to that format.
_________________________
My Blogging site.

http://markdawsonphoto.wordpress.com/

Top
#1412642 - 15/03/2017 20:49 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
Brett Guy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 4850
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
I think that while digital imaging is the greatest thing to happen in photography(a very debatable statement I know), I also tend to think that the ability to do SO very much in post compared to film has caused a lot of people to forget the main ingredients in a good photograph. Subject, light and composition. Ansell Adams is probably the most renowned landscape photographer of all time but if you actually look at his photos the technical quality is really far below what you get from even the cheapest entry level DSLR now. His images however remain incredibly engaging because of his use of light and there is no medium that can make up for that. The sharpness or or grainyness of an image is what everyone focuses on now but in reality these things are far from the most important aspects of an image.


Edited by Brett Guy (15/03/2017 20:49)

Top
#1412652 - 15/03/2017 21:45 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Brett Guy]
Markus Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 02/12/2010
Posts: 2108
Loc: Clare, SA
Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
I think that while digital imaging is the greatest thing to happen in photography(a very debatable statement I know), I also tend to think that the ability to do SO very much in post compared to film has caused a lot of people to forget the main ingredients in a good photograph. Subject, light and composition. Ansell Adams is probably the most renowned landscape photographer of all time but if you actually look at his photos the technical quality is really far below what you get from even the cheapest entry level DSLR now. His images however remain incredibly engaging because of his use of light and there is no medium that can make up for that. The sharpness or or grainyness of an image is what everyone focuses on now but in reality these things are far from the most important aspects of an image.


Very true. One description that has stuck with me on this subject is the act of 'polishing turds' poke Can try and fix an average image in post all you want but it won't fix the composition.
_________________________
My Blogging site.

http://markdawsonphoto.wordpress.com/

Top
#1412817 - 16/03/2017 19:30 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Markus]
Wild Wassa Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/03/2012
Posts: 390
Loc: NW ACT
Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Ansell Adams is probably the most renowned landscape photographer of all time but if you actually look at his photos the technical quality is really far below what you get from even the cheapest entry level DSLR now.


Is this sentence meant to be a joke? Is there something that I've missed by not reading all the posts on this thread?

Ansell Adams is one of the greatest technicians of the photographic process of all time.

I'm a reader at the National Gallery of Australia, and I've seen all of the originals in Adam's 'Museum Collection' and I also own two original Adam's prints.

The quality of his work is outstanding, that photographers who have a poor understanding of sensitometry and densitometry, can only guess what Adam's achieved. The exposure development techniques that he perfected are unassailable.

There is no way that a digital image measured in pixels, can be compared to the tonalities, resolution and clarity that can be realized by film's fine grain, of a plate negative that Adams embraced.

Warren.


Edited by Wild Wassa (16/03/2017 19:39)
_________________________
No one's a bushman in a fog.

Top
#1412821 - 16/03/2017 19:50 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Wild Wassa]
Brett Guy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 4850
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
Originally Posted By: Wild Wassa
Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Ansell Adams is probably the most renowned landscape photographer of all time but if you actually look at his photos the technical quality is really far below what you get from even the cheapest entry level DSLR now.


Is this sentence meant to be a joke? Is there something that I've missed by not reading all the posts on this thread?

Ansell Adams is one of the greatest technicians of the photographic process of all time.

I'm a reader at the National Gallery of Australia, and I've seen all of the originals in Adam's 'Museum Collection' and I also own two original Adam's prints.

The quality of his work is outstanding, that photographers who have a poor understanding of sensitometry and densitometry, can only guess what Adam's achieved. The exposure development techniques that he perfected are unassailable.

There is no way that a digital image measured in pixels, can be compared to the tonalities, resolution and clarity that can be realized by film's fine grain, of a plate negative.

Warren.


Sorry mate. Probably didn't express myself correctly. You are dead right that the digital image is totally different to film. The technical aspect I was referring to was the sharpness etc of images we see today(which is what often seems to be the only thing that matters). His images though as you have pointed out have far more than that. They have an 'organic' aspect to them that digital struggles to emulate(not to mention many of todays modern lenses). But it wasn't just Ansells gear that gave that organic feeling. It was the photographer himself. His use of light and tone is something that is not easy to come across now. Probably beacause most people do not have his patience and determination to chase the light. And nor do they have the level of passion he had in post production. While we have the ability to do so much in post now we tend to do too much or do things the wrong way and many images while looking quite spectacular tend to lose that intangible something that Ansell achieved. Not sure if this makes sense but I hope it does.


Edited by Brett Guy (16/03/2017 19:53)

Top
#1412885 - 17/03/2017 07:30 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
Brett Guy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 4850
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
Oh. And to clarify even further WW I wasn't really referring to the technical mastery of the photographer. More that of the camera. If you took an entry level DSLR and Adams' camera and shoved them in the hands of a rank amature the DSLR is going to produce the best image SOOC so to speak. In camera post production for jpegs and a 24mp sensor will give some pretty nice images for someone who is not a master of the art. Put both in the hands of a master they will both produce magic of course. In that sense the 'technical' ability of the camera is way beyond past equipment and it takes the vision of the best to produce what most of us can only dream of. That is why they are the best. And why they would be the best regardless of equipment.

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Who's Online
2 registered (2 invisible), 255 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
aurbina1, Justin Case
Forum Stats
29389 Members
32 Forums
23700 Topics
1465986 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image