Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#658887 - 11/10/2005 23:58 Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
Firstly, what a great idea to have two seperate photography forums. Whoever thought of this needs a gold medal.
This is a debate i have been wanting to start for a long time but have been worried about starting a new photography thread.

wink wink
Well, for me there both pretty much of a muchness. They both have there advantages and disatvantages.
The most obvious is the ability to view/delete your photos with a digital, and have them on your PC pretty much straight away. Also, the ability to crop the photo before it gets developed/printed.
At the same time, digital photos can appear flat, and oversharp sometimes. Where as with film, the photos tend to have a lot more atmosphere about them.
Things like skintones,late afternoon warm light, etc... can be captured better with film in my opinion.
What are other peoples views?
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658888 - 12/10/2005 00:03 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Weathernut Offline
Member

Registered: 24/07/2002
Posts: 5207
Loc: Darwin, Northern Territory
In my opinion digital still has a long way to go before it will beat film. I still like film but the only thing i hate is once you have used the film there is no going back if you think the images may not be great (unless you have a other roll of film). wink

One issue with digital is that it needs battery's were as the old film SLR's (not the newer film SLR's) don't need then (unless you want the flash wink )

I could go on and on.. :p

ooh just about forgot.. With Film camera's and lightning is that you only know if the lightning came out until you get the film developed but with digital you can look at the display to see if you got the image or not without the worrying about wasting money!

Top
#658889 - 12/10/2005 00:04 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
I think i should of put this thread in the other photography forum!!! shocked shocked
Can someone please move it!lol
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658890 - 12/10/2005 00:06 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5245
Loc: Not tellin!
Well speaking from a weather photographer novice I love my dig cam. I once tried to take photos of lightning with an advantix cam and wasted an entire film! Worst of all I had to wait until I got it developed to see how I went. With the dig cam at least when you are learning the ropes it's not so expensive and you can use the dollars you were going to spend on film on camera instead! I reckon that not many of the people who are posting images on this forum would be taking storm photos if not for dig cams. They may lack the image quality but they are defly the best for getting into it.
:cheers: adon

Top
#658891 - 12/10/2005 00:07 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
Weathernut, i have three old film SLRs and they all have batteries.
They need the batteries to run the light meter.
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658892 - 12/10/2005 00:10 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
Your certainly right there Adon. Its not that they lack in quality with most things, only certainl things.
Digital cameras can struggle with very long exposures, with things like startrails, and long lightning photos. They get a lot of noise in them, although i have heard that a lot of the more modern digi SLRs (namely the canon20D) have excellent in built noise reduction software.
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658893 - 12/10/2005 00:11 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Weathernut Offline
Member

Registered: 24/07/2002
Posts: 5207
Loc: Darwin, Northern Territory
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob Alexander:
Weathernut, i have three old film SLRs and they all have batteries.
They need the batteries to run the light meter.
ooh doh Robert! shocked


Top
#658894 - 12/10/2005 00:22 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
Here is an example. This photo was taken last summer with slide film. Its not a fancy photo, but it has atmosphere in my opinion.
If it had been taken with my digital SLR, it would of been very colourful, very sharp and very vibrant. Also very flat and 2 dimensional looking.
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658895 - 12/10/2005 00:29 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
And here is a couple more, these are printfilm film photos, (negatives) taken with 100 ISO fujifilm last week with an old practika camera.



Theyre not sharp, vibrant colours or anything fancy, but once again, they have a better feel to them. Not too flat!
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658896 - 12/10/2005 00:37 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
And then theres digital, i took this on sunday.
Its very pretty. very colourfuL, very vibrant, lots of fun to play with, but to me it lacks that true photo look and feel.
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658897 - 12/10/2005 07:36 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Jake Offline
Member

Registered: 26/12/2004
Posts: 798
Loc: Sunshine Coast, SE QLD
Digital without a doubt, it's got to the point where almost everything including resolution has caught up, 8mp+ cameras like the 350D and 20D have no problems competing with 35mm film. The 11+ megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds, EOS-1Ds Mark II and EOS 5D absolutely blow it away with quality bordering on medium format.

Reading digital photography forums you see a lot of long time film users or even new photographers who purchase a DSLR and expect brilliant jpegs straight out of the camera in the auto modes. Digital or not the camera is still an SLR and needs to be used in the creative modes if you want to get good results. Like the old days of darkroom processing, digital images still need both global and local tonal adjustments. Saturation and contrast rather than being introduced by using a different film like Velvia or Provia is processed during RAW conversion. RAW is considered to be the digital negative by imaging professionals, rather than the camera applying set parameters you have total control.

All that has changed is that the photographer no longer just captures the image and sends it off to be processed. Like many colour film users in the 50's and early 60's the photographer must process his own images and possess the necessary skills to do so. This is for the 'best' results, of course point and shoot users can still snap jpegs which would rival what came out of the old 35mm disposable wink

Noise I'd say is definitely on par for exposures up to 10mins, my 350D has built in noise reduction as a custom function and I've used it once, the results are so good after filtering with noise ninja and mapping any hot pixels that it simply isnít needed. Obvious upside is that thereís no more reciprocity law failure to worry about and ISO at the touch of the button. Want clean 40 minute exposures? Easy just shoot 4 x 10mins exposures and combine them in Photoshop or with a program like Imagestack which will average out each frame for you.

Long exposure examples:

Canon 350D F8, 8mins, ISO 100



Canon 350D F8, 9mins, ISO 100




Colour rendition and clarity is absolutely stunning with digital, the ability to change white balance (colour temperature) after the fact is probably the biggest advantage here, unlike film where colour balanced film was a necessity. Like contrast, an experienced digital user has total control.

The only area where digital falls short of film is in the dynamic range, a digital sensor simply can't capture shadow and highlight detail as well as film within a single exposure. Again like the noise this can be overcome by 'exposing to the right' then pulling shadow detail during post process if the need arises. The result is often better than negative film. Or of course you could just purchase a Fuji S3 favourable among the wedding photographers (lots of black and white in wedding scenes) because of its super dynamic range CCD which sports two diodes per pixel, one which records shadow and mid tones and another not so sensitive photodiode which records highlights. Fuji claims 2 stops more dynamic range than any other sensor on the market and is definitely a sign of whatís to come in the next few years.

I agree totally that digital doesnít have the rough around the edges look of film, but personally I donít mind. If I want a film look from digital I can reproduce it in post process. Itís not quite as easy to make film look like digital though wink

eek haha I just wrote a bloody essay, apologies.

Top
#658898 - 12/10/2005 08:19 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
---- Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 25/11/2002
Posts: 5786
Now Mr Alexander, a can of worms.. wink
My opinion (and only mine) is that film at ordinary P&S levels has long been surpassed by digital.
AT the consumer SLR level 35mm film has been exceeded and this thought has been borne from personal experience.
At the pro level with the 12mp and above cams then 35mm is thrashed and medium format is rivalled. This is NOT my experience bugger it all, but comments by photo pros on photog sites.

As for colour noise - well my nikon has less noise at higher sensitivities than film ever had at the eqivalent ISO.

But by no means is film dead just yet, however its days at the top of the image capture medium are gone.
Film is just not something I play with anymore, if I want the film look it can be done with PP techniques.

Remember beta vs VHS video. Which gave the better quality?! In the same way I feel that we are being lumped against our will with the second best digital format though in the form of the bayer sensor. Something like a foveon true RGB per photosite sensor captures unbelievable images. Sure it has its problems, but so did CCD and especially CMOS in the early days that were soon overcome by R&D. Unfortunatley its economics and money making that are driving the current direction. On the upside the technology is now so cheap and ubiquitous that we can all have digicams laugh

Top
#658899 - 12/10/2005 09:02 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...
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob Alexander:
Weathernut, i have three old film SLRs and they all have batteries.
They need the batteries to run the light meter.
Yes but the mechanics will still work without batteris wink , you just need to guess the exposure, or bracket.
For a long time I was strictly a film user and up until the 350D arrived on the scene, for me nothing in the prosumer range could rival a well exposed slide. Now that we have the 350D @ 8MP and the 20D at 8.2MP and both readily available to the average consumer, 35mm film has been surpassed, not in every little factor, like Jake mentioned with the highlights and shadows, but in enough areas to make it worthwhile.
One of the major issues that took me a long time to decide on is the archival ability of digital. What do you mean? I hear you ask...
Well I can take a glass plate negative taken in the 40's and still get it developed, that is I can take a 70 year old negative and provided it was storred properly, still get a decent print from it. Now I doubt that I can burn a copy of an image to a CD or DVD and in 70 years time get it printed off, but I bet I would still be able to get a print from that neg.
Of course all this means, is that you will have to back up your images onto different mediums several times throughout you're life, deffinately not impossible, but I imagine it sure is going to be a pain the @ss laugh

And yes I will still use film as well as my digi.

: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
#658900 - 12/10/2005 10:40 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Harry Spotter Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 14/11/2001
Posts: 1955
Loc: Springwood, Brisbane
The quality of digicams is up there with 35mm film, but the cost is not, so it's not really a fair comparison. Choose a digicam that costs the same as an average film SLR and it won't print half as well.

Also, looking great on a monitor does not equate to a great enlarged print. At the end of the day it depends on what you want to do with the image.

Marty.
_________________________
www.MartyPhotography.com.au

Top
#658901 - 12/10/2005 11:08 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Tim S Offline
Member

Registered: 10/06/2003
Posts: 1549
Quote:
The quality of digicams is up there with 35mm film, but the cost is not, so it's not really a fair comparison. Choose a digicam that costs the same as an average film SLR and it won't print half as well.
Yeah thats the main difference I think in my opinion, though digi slr are catching up they still are a much more expensive alternative as far as quality of the final product goes. I use a film slr mainly because I am only a very amatuer photographer and for me 2grand is too much to spend for someone that can get the same results from a camera a quarter of the price.

Though if you take price out of the equation digital would definitely be the way to go these days, with the improvment in not only the technology of the cameras themselves but also the printing technology. You can get a home printer for a few hundred bucks that can print very high quality prints and when you consider the costs of developing film and the film itself it very quickly pays for itself.

Though saying this I still think that film slr will never be replaced, it will always be there as another method of getting image onto paper. Just like now days artists can use computers to create art, although plenty still use the old fashioned paint and canvas or pen and paper method.

Top
#658902 - 12/10/2005 11:25 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Jake Offline
Member

Registered: 26/12/2004
Posts: 798
Loc: Sunshine Coast, SE QLD
I agree totally about the initial cost of a DSLR but if you shoot more than a few rolls of film a year it's a worthwhile investment. Even if you only shot family gatherings on film a point and shoot for under $300 would even pay for itself in no time, and you're not going to print Auntie Mavis at poster size are you so 4-5mp will be heaps :p

Looking at the Canon SLR range wouldn't a fair comparison be something like the 350D/XT VS a Elan 7N/33V? Both have about the same feature set with the Elan performing a little better for continous shooting (4fps instead of 3fps).

The Elan 7N/33V is about $300-350 used, $800 or so new vs $800 or so for used 300D and $1400 for the 350D. I've shot 7000 frames in the last six months which is equal to approximately 291 rolls of 24exp film. Say we purchased our film in triple packs and used Fuji Superia which is about $12 or so. We end up with $1164 in film alone, no processing costs, no fuel costs for running around pick up and drop off negs.

Agree about resolution too Marty, but as mentioned earlier it's just as good as 35mm film. So unless you're shooting medium format or your output is 1m + on the long side then there's no comparision when it comes to print.

I'm not saying film is totally dead, commercially a lot of professionals still use it. There are ALOT of myths about digital that have to be put to rest though. The same thing happened with the introduction of colour film, black and white purists said that film speed could never rival that of bw and who would want to shoot in something as unemotive as colour. It seems that many did wink

Top
#658903 - 12/10/2005 12:34 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Harry Spotter Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 14/11/2001
Posts: 1955
Loc: Springwood, Brisbane
Good point Jake about film/d&p costs but not everyone shoots 7000 frames in 6 months - that equates to about a roll and a half every day. But then without the added cost of film processing, perhaps people would actually shoot more.

I keep meaning to do some proper printing tests to compare the quality of digital with 35mm at larger paper sizes. But then the cost of the digicam does complicate the issue somewhat regarding a fair comparison. I guess it depends on how much an individual shoots... they then need to determine how long it would take for the extra cost of the digi to pay for itself, compared to a film camera, and whether it's worth it for them.

And of course, everyone's needs are different.

Marty.
_________________________
www.MartyPhotography.com.au

Top
#658904 - 12/10/2005 14:17 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5245
Loc: Not tellin!
Well I defly know that I would not have shot nearly as many pic if not for the dig camera. I spent 7 months in Europe and shot 6 rolls of film with my old camera and have shot off 1600+ (pics)since getting my dig cam in March. While heaps of those have been nothing shot with lightning, they all count if you have to get them d/p. My cam is 4 megapixel but if I get more serious I would go for 6-7mp so I could print bigger pics. But I would never go back to film now. I know I would not be taking as many shots if I had to d/p them all.
:cheers: adon

Top
#658905 - 16/10/2005 09:19 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...
I agree with you Adon,
In the last two or three days I have taken over 100 pics, the equivalent of just under 5 rolls of film. A lot of those pics I have deleted as they were just muck around shots or experiments that didn't work out. But just going over the figures in my head, you're talking around $60 just for the film and if it were slide film wich I use then another $50 or $60 for developing, so all in all you're looking at $100+.
I love digital...

: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
#658906 - 16/10/2005 09:32 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Andy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 29/06/2001
Posts: 1017
Loc: Mid-North Coast, NSW
I think there is another aspect which isn't always considered. Because of the immediacy of digital photography people are getting almost instant feedback. You can see whether the shot is good, bad or indifferent and you can just take it again and again until you get the result you are after.

This seems to have had the effect of raising the quality of images ... not just among enthusiasts, but also everyday snappers. It is amazing to look at peoples family snapshots these days and find images that a few years ago would have been attributed to a professional.

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.

Top
#658907 - 16/10/2005 22:47 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
One thing that i find to be a trap with digital, is if you tinker around with the settings, and take a few photos with the ISO set at 1600, its very easy to forget to change it back to 100 or 200, then next time you take important photos (wedding, party whatever) take a heap of grainy photos. Ive done this a few times.

Here is a comparison. The top photowas taken last thursday with my 300D, and the bottom photo was taken pretty much at the same time with my old (early 80s)canon AV-1 that i bought for $20 a few weeks ago.




_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658908 - 17/10/2005 08:21 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Jake Offline
Member

Registered: 26/12/2004
Posts: 798
Loc: Sunshine Coast, SE QLD
Totally agree about that ISO setting Rob, canon have to get ISO in the viewfinder asap. People have been complaining about this since the D30-D60 and Canon still haven't addressed it. When I first got my 350D I was playing around at home in low light @ iso 800, next day we had small storm come through and I got some great shots of two horses watching the approaching cell with a rainbow in the BG....got home and almost died when I saw F8 1/4000th ISO 800. These days I've got a little process that I go through where I reset ISO back to 100, aperture priority to F8, shutter priority to 1/500th and M to F16 1/100 (base for sunny 16 rule). I'd like to think I'd notice 1/4000th flashing in the viewfinder these days too :p

With the comparison, as I mentioned earlier you've got to process your digital images just like processing film if you want the best results and a fair comparision. The film example has quite a nice dynamic range but has a strong magenta colour cast. The digital examples colour balance is good (maybe a tad green) but is underexposed, you can avoid that by exposing to the right I shoot raw exclusively so usually take it a touch further by overexposing just a touch, a lot of the time this helps to avoid noise when processing and any slightly blown highlights can be pulled back easily. The only downside to this method is that on the odd occasion you'll blow an individual RGB channel because the consumer DSLR's only offer a lumiousity histogram for reference. I think the one series have a full RGB histogram though, would be a very nice feature to see on the consumer series. smile


Top
#658909 - 17/10/2005 12:53 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Blizzard Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 31/03/2001
Posts: 10341
Loc: Blue Mountains
Thanks Rob and Jake, that is interesting.

Jake, for those of us still learning and indeed wanting to make the most of our P&S's (with some manual settings), is it possible to use a watered down approach of what you have mentioned above?

For example, slightly overexposing this shot from 2004 season up here and then bringing it back a little in Irfan View seemed to produce less noise than the underexposed shots being brightened up. Does that sound right?



I think I was on ISO 50, manual focus, 1/2000 (my limit sadly) for this shot. I have a Canon A70.

Larger images:

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~bmstorms/summer2004/dec13th2004storm2.jpg

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~bmstorms/summer2004/dec13th2004storm1.jpg
_________________________
BoM Storm Spotter, snow chaser, webmaster for www.blackheathweather.com

Top
#658910 - 17/10/2005 13:57 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Jake Offline
Member

Registered: 26/12/2004
Posts: 798
Loc: Sunshine Coast, SE QLD
Quote:
Originally posted by Blizzard:
For example, slightly overexposing this shot from 2004 season up here and then bringing it back a little in Irfan View seemed to produce less noise than the underexposed shots being brightened up. Does that sound right?
That's spot on Blizz, to avoid unwanted noise with any digital camera you have to try and get exposure as close to perfect as possible in camera. When you try and brighten the image up after the noise will only become more pronounced.

Without a histogram or the ability to shoot RAW on most P&S cams makes it much harder. If you go too far the blown pixels will simply contain no information (255 being pure white) and will not be salvagable.

There is a way around it though, buy a 512mb-1GB card and use exposure bracketing. This not only increases the chance of getting exposure right for any given situation but gives you frames which you can layer in editors like Photoshop and The Gimp (free) By combining a couple of shots you not only increase dynamic range but you can paint back any lost highlight detail.

Top
#658911 - 17/10/2005 15:25 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
GraemeWi Offline
Member

Registered: 30/06/2002
Posts: 78
Loc: Auckland NZ
Hi Blizzard - I hope you don't mind - I had a quick play with your image in Gimp... there is a fair amount of detail that can be pulled from the image... I used a couple of layers and masked blends... though if the picture was a bit larger I could have had a go at the noise as well...

Initial image: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~bmstorms/summer2004/dec13th2004storm2.jpg

My attempt below:



With my digitals I tend to slightly under-expose to try and not blow out any highlights. My S1 IS has a histogram (not a live one though!) which helps me get the exposure a little better while 'still out in the field'.

By way of keeping on the topic - I'm another ex-film user. My film SLRs are stored away with silica bags... sad to say I can't see myself using them again.

Cheers,

G

Top
#658912 - 17/10/2005 16:20 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Blizzard Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 31/03/2001
Posts: 10341
Loc: Blue Mountains
Don't mind you fiddling about with it at all, Graeme. Taa. smile

And thanks Jake. Your info is much appreciated.

I'm just working on getting the most out of my cam for another year or two before I consider going SLR or whatever. Establishing a better grounding in basic photography is more important to me at this point.

Blizz
PS: Hmm, might go and try out GIMP.
_________________________
BoM Storm Spotter, snow chaser, webmaster for www.blackheathweather.com

Top
#658913 - 17/10/2005 17:32 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
---- Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 25/11/2002
Posts: 5786
I expose to the point of blowing and use the histiogram and the "blinking highlights" to gauge exposure. I never underexpose, it exacerbates any noise especially in post. I also shoot raw which gives huge latitude in processing and for me reduces the need to bracket except in the highest contrast scenes. A litle bit of blown highlights is fine as it can be pulled back from the raw file, but too much and its gone forever. Its a fine line but not so difficult with practice and knowing how your breed of cam responds.
The image below was shot in just the method used above with much broader dynamic range than the camera could capture in a single jpeg. The data was there locked up in the raw file..

Ona side note I have printed this image to 40 inches and it looks great!!
Cheers,
Tim

Top
#658914 - 17/10/2005 18:25 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
GraemeWi Offline
Member

Registered: 30/06/2002
Posts: 78
Loc: Auckland NZ
I love the warm colours of the land in that shot!

I suspect the raw shooting / processing is the magic key to blown highlights recovery - I've never been able to recover blown highlights from the jpgs my cameras produce. In the early days some consumer P&S models did have raw, but sadly this feature has been left out.

I must admit I'm really tempted to get a DSLR so I can shoot raw... at least I can reuse my Nikon glass if I get a D70s!

Cheers,

G

Top
#658915 - 18/10/2005 14:47 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...
I use RAW all the time, it can be a savour or it can be a pain!!!!
Blown highlights can be bought back a little but not very often Iím afraid.
If you are unshorn of the exposure I would under expose a little, at least it can be bort back with very good results. Iíve seen an image pulled out from a black frame (amazing demonstration of what can be done) at a seminar once.
If you can upload custom curves to you Cam (the D70 is one) these are well worth getting to know, there great for JPG applications when you wonít your results strait away.

As for the Film v Digital------ they both have there applications that only that formate will be able to produce. What I can say I wonít be going back to film for some time to came, I like the idea of have an instant preview on hand & the histogram is one awesome tool to get your head around & learn to use.

My two cent worth!!!!! laugh

:cheers:
Ray :p

Top
#658916 - 18/10/2005 15:49 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Andrew Miskelly Offline
Weatherzone Webmaster

Registered: 15/11/2001
Posts: 3146
Loc: Mittagong, NSW
One problem that's inherent to anything digital is that the model you end up forking out for is superseded almost before you get it out of the box!

I get the impression that this isn't the case to the same extent with film cameras (or lenses) - people seem to happily use the same model for many years.

Top
#658917 - 18/10/2005 15:53 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...
Bloody hell Tim, that is one fantabuolous shot you have there! Sums Australia perfectly, the land of drought and flooding rains. Awsome.
The only pain I have with RAW and it was alleviated quite considerably with RAW essentials I think it is (Thanks Jake wink ) is the workflow. Having to download the photos from the cam, edit and convert to TIFF and then open up in PS does get a little tiresome, especially with the software that came with the cam. However as I said, the new software seems to improve the workflow considerably, especially with the ability to prioritise what images you want to work on and saving them as you work on them, great little program.

: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
#658918 - 19/10/2005 14:57 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...
Very true Andrew

One thing I have noticed over the latter part of this year is the Camera manufactures have slowed down with the reales of new models some what??
I think for the average person anything over the 5 Meg pix is a bit of an over kill.
Any thing over this is more costly & if you arenít going to print large poster size or crop the hell out of your images you really donít need to spend the big bucks for a bigger size sensor, you really arenít gaining anything from the money you have spent.
You can add a bit more money onto the Cam price for bigger sized cards to hold the larger file sizes that go with the bigger sensor as well.
A 6X4 printed from a 5 meg pix cam looks, to the every day person the same as a 6X4 printed from a 8 Meg Pix Cam once you get up to the 8X10 you mite start finding a little difference but you would have to hard up to say anything .
The differences from the normal viewing distance would be quite undetectable IMO.

So I donít think I will be upgrading from my D70 for some time to come.

:cheers:
Ray :p

Top
#658919 - 21/10/2005 12:11 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
mic_o7 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/10/2003
Posts: 521
Loc: Brisbane
dont know if its been mentioned but for ppl with apples( the only way to go) u might be interested in this

http://www.apple.com/aperture/

http://www.apple.com/aperture/profiles/

Top
#658920 - 30/10/2005 21:09 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
RickC Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/10/2001
Posts: 1597
Loc: Back in good ol' Whyalla, Sout...
People, people, people........digital has surpassed 35mm film has it and its now bordering on medium format. Well, my, Ive heard some big statements but......

Here in whyalla, digital surpassed 35mm when cameras exceeding 3mp came out. Why? Because, I think we are (were - theyve all gone out of business now when everyone went to digital - wonder why) home to the worst minilabs in australia. If you process the film in the wrong chemicals or spent or contaminated ones at the wrong temps for the wrong times you can make an iso 25 film look like an iso 1600! and then if your incompetent at printing them you can add another quantum leap in image degradation.

I think you should be extremely careful at saying 6mp dslr's are past 35mm film slr quality. I have significant doubts about that.

Wait until you've seen an iso100 film developed to perfection and then printed to perfection. Nice and sharp even at 20 by 30 inches. I have seen this myself, mind you with a film about 4 generations old. Each subsequent generation gets finer grain, sharper res and usually better colour reproduction. So imagine what current generation iso 50 can produce.

I was asked a while ago to rate what I thought the res 35mm film goes up to in mp terms. My answer was from 0.3 through to about 24mp. I will stick with that answer too, hey, even if Im out by 6mp, thats still a fair margin ahead of most dslrs. Now, about medium format.............

Top
#658921 - 30/10/2005 21:30 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Lert Offline
Member

Registered: 17/02/2003
Posts: 377
Loc: Duncraig
I guess there are arguments one way or the other and i'm not qualified to have an opinion but I happened to read this Canon D30 vs film comparison earlier this afternoon. Take into consideration that the D30 was a 3MP class camera..

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

Top
#658922 - 31/10/2005 18:24 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
RickC Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/10/2001
Posts: 1597
Loc: Back in good ol' Whyalla, Sout...
Lert, your reply prompted me to go out and do a bit more research. Findings were interesting to say the least (http://www.theimage.com/photography/photopg1.htm). Having gone all technical on everyone, I am now going to do an about face and say, that after a while the technical is irrelevant and that what looks better to you, looks better to you!

Top
#658923 - 02/11/2005 01:36 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
Im still convinced that they both have fors and againsts.
Have a look at this rainbow photo i took with slide film near urana in southern NSW last summer,


You will notice the photo has atmosphere. Its almost like looking out of a window rather than looking at a photo. It hasnt been altered in any way apart from clone out a couple of hairs that always end up on slides when you scan them.
On the other hand, had i taken the photo with my digital SLR, i would of had the photo on the computer that evening rather than have to wait for the slides to be developed and mounted. Also with the digital i probably would of needed to adjust a few levels of saturation, contrast, sharpness etc... to get it how i wanted it. wink
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658924 - 02/11/2005 01:46 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
And here is the digital equivelent, taken at the same time. Ironicly exactly 12 months ago today!lol
Both shots are unedited.
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658925 - 02/11/2005 07:56 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Andy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 29/06/2001
Posts: 1017
Loc: Mid-North Coast, NSW
Rob, to be honest I think the digital version has much more accurate colour rendition. The slide picture has too much red/magenta. On my (calibtrated) monitor the sky in the slide picture appears almost purple and the white road markings and post have a definate red cast. I also notice a fair bit more noise in the sky area of the slide pic compared to the digital, although this would be due to the scanning process and also the fact that the images are small, low resolution and not the originals.

A couple of minutes in PhotoShop and I think I could make either one of the pics look like the other.

Top
#658926 - 02/11/2005 08:30 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...
I think you mite find alot of the difference is in the white balance setting in the two images.
If you play around with the white balance setting in PS you could get them looking the same.

:cheers:
Ray :p

Top
#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: 17409
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: 339
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: 4802
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 Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 31/12/2002
Posts: 2933
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: 3584
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
YTD 412.5mm
MTD 263.2mm
Summer Storms 8 - Another p1ss poor season!!
Summer Southerlies - Too many to count.
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: 4802
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: 9015
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: 4189
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.

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: 2026
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: 17409
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: 9015
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: 2026
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: 4802
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: 2026
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: 339
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: 4802
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: 4802
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
#1413048 - 17/03/2017 23:15 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better? [Re: Volkl_1]
Foehn Correspondent Online   content
Weather Freak

Registered: 01/11/2001
Posts: 515
Loc: Bardon 4065
Interesting discussion. There was an article on the ABC website recently about a Brisbane film processor and the resurgence of film.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-25/film-is-not-dead-film-photography-resurgence-brisbane/8210526

Greg
_________________________
If at first you donít succeed Ė call it Version 1.0

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >


Who's Online
60 registered (Lunar, Foehn Correspondent, Ticktock, BIG T, Patrolit, WANDJINA G'vale, Sepo, desieboy, Ms.Weatherfreak, Red Watch, Perfect Storm, Bobby Bouche, Rainheart, Sbv72, Tempest, FNQ, Stargate, darwindix, breezy04, synopig, LonglifeMilk, Mad Elf #1.5, pkgjmg, CraigA74, Wrasse42, Thrombus, Show me the weather, bundybear, Weary, Ollieo, Ronfishes, troycookie, Townsvilleblowin, HolySmoke, RC, TSVWeatherNerd, Timbuck, Doug, exodus, Aussea, ozone doug, Willraja, gecko, RichieM, Max744, MangroveJack70, former_qlder, meedee, Drought declared, Aussiestormguy, show_me_weather, Rhys., phreeky, nthqlndr, sunworshipper, mysteriousbrad, Matt_30, White Squall, 2 invisible), 636 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
andyman, Stealth, T2Tornado
Forum Stats
29145 Members
32 Forums
23559 Topics
1443506 Posts

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