diff. between iso 1600 (film) vs iso 1600 (digital)

[classicsphinx@yahoo.com]

i think the difference is when you enlarge your image.
if you use iso 1600 film - bad picture quality
if you use iso 1600 digital - better picture quality

anything else?

[René Damkot]

I wouldn't call ISO 1600 film bad, just different :p
More grainy for sure, but if you use BW, give Neopan 1600 a try; If exposed and developed correctly, it still amazes me sometimes. Also the old konica 3200 or kodak 1600 Press films give some 'typical' results ;)

[Andy_T]

I think the difference is quite noticeable on a 3x5 image... (at least with colour film)

The other thing that comes to my mind is the cost of fooling around with ISO 1600 film vs. digital :mrgreen:

Best regards,
Andy

[classicsphinx@yahoo.com]

i like high range iso because i can take candid picture....

:lol:

[Jon, The Elder]

It is quite similar in results.

1600 ISO film = more grain
1600 ISO digital = more noise

However, digital is easier to work with as far as reducing unwanted artifacts.

Unfortunately because of the use of film as the main media for the last 70 years, we use it as a basic criteria for judging/comparing digital results. It really is an apples-to-applesauce correllation.