From DSLRs Back to Film (Is Film Better?)

[Sam North]

I’m in the very early stages of considering a partial switch back to shooting 35mm film (I shot negative film exclusively). So far the main reasons for this are inherent contrast problems with my 300D’s images and the fringing associated with sensors – no, it’s not chromatic aberrations.

Also, channel-splitting digital images for B&W filter effects does not compare favourably with film – the results tend to look a little blotchy at times due to unavoidable interpolation. Black and white prints from colour negative scans manipulated in my image-editing software are effective and very hard to beat.

I was just wondering if anyone has run with DSLR totally for a while then backed off a little into film again for his or her more important work. I’m still mulling the whole thing over, but thought it might be useful to bounce this issue off those here who are more knowledgeable.

Then there’s the future to consider. I was struck by these comments from Ken Rockwell: “Remember, film shot today can always be scanned better in the future. Digital is always stuck in whatever quality you had when you shot it” ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm ).

Like most, I can’t afford the best digital small format cameras with their much larger sensors, but the best quality professional scans of my Fuji Reala film captured with my EOS 50 (an impressive camera that found its way into many a pro’s bag!) and the resulting digital prints consistently impress me more than images and prints from my 300D. Fuji Reala film (Fuji's sharpest) has remarkably fine grain and captures colour beautifully with excellent highlight/shadow detail. See: Fuji Film (http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83266_3120crx.aspx#reviews)

But the convenience of digital straight from the camera to the computer is a significant advantage.

Sam

[BearSummer]

Hi Sam,

Firstly, no I am not intending to switch back to film, even when I had only the D60 it was, to me, a no brainer. Personally I could see no bonuses from changing back to film a D60.

With regards to Ken (oh please not him agin...), there is a finite amount of data in film, once you have all of the data there is no point in scanning at higher resolution. By all means drum scan all of your negatives, get all of the data that you can from them and pay through the nose for it. There are two things you have to decide before getting into the film scanning vs digital. What size print are you going to make from the data and how much noise/grain is acceptable. With small prints there is no difference between a good negative vs a digital image vs drum scanned file. As your print size increases you will start to get towards the maximum uninterpolated size for your digital file, you will also start to see more grain appearing in your scanned image. It is up to you at what point one becomes unusable. If you are producing images smaller than that then the deciding point becomes which is easier/makes more sense to use.

If your 300D is being outperformed by scanned slides and you are working within the limits of the digital file (ie how small is the print forcing your ppi to become) then I would suggest that you should review your workflow. Large prints from digital files are possible, but its best to start with as much data as possible.

Best regards and hope that you find something that works for you

BearSummer

[gillyworld]

So far the main reasons for this are inherent contrast problems with my 300D’s images and the fringing associated with sensors – no, it’s not chromatic aberrations.

Also, channel-splitting digital images for B&W filter effects does not compare favourably with film – the results tend to look a little blotchy at times due to unavoidable interpolation.

Are you shooting in RAW? Inherent contrast sounds to me like you have a problem with your workflow. As for B&W effects, there are several plugins and actions for creating the effects that give excellent results

[evilenglishman]

Dynamic range.
Digital cannot compete with film in this respect, even if you shoot raw and post-process til it bleeds. You will not get the full range of film.

If we are talking about pro printing (magazines/books etc) a drum-scanned slide will be far superior to a digital image.

[dtrayers]

...and the fringing associated with sensors – no, it’s not chromatic aberrations.
Sam

Have another read of your signature line and the Reichmann article about Pixel Peepers.

[ron chappel]

The KR quote is interesting-unfortunately it's not entirely true as scanners will 'level out' sometime soon because there won't be enough sales to provide the development $.

And as bear above mentions there is only a certain amount of info in a film

I can't pretend to fully understand your reasons for prefering film(i don't do B&W for a start) but don't let us digital disciples :lol: talk you out of what is best for you.

[Sam North]

I've shot a little of the RAW format and experimented with its advantages. While it's true it can help with highlight problems (along with other techniques I've tried, curves and so on) it can't put back in what wasn't recorded. DSLRs have a good bit of catching up to do before they record highlight detail anything like as well as film, especially negative film. I read that again in the Rockwell article I linked to above:


Unfortunately this highlight issue is a basic characteristic of CCD sensors, amplifiers and sampling and quantization electronics and won't be fixed soon. To simulate film's shoulder one needs to add several more stops of highlight capture in the digital camera so the image processing electronics can use this information to simulate a decent shoulder curve. CCDs and the related capture electronics will need about ten times more dynamic range (three stops) than they have today to be able to simulate film's shoulder. Of course negative film has more range still, but that's not really relevant to good photography since the dynamic range of negative film already exceeds what you ought to be photographing. For instance, a negative can be way overexposed and still retain detail in otherwise blown out highlights, if you custom print and burn in those areas.


Overexposing Reala film a little brings on shadow detail very nicely and has virtually no effect on the highlights. So I'm tempted to prefer negative film because it clearly handles the hightlights much better, and the grain of Reala is not that noticeable in my scans, even in areas of continuous tone. It's worth remembering that grain can be relatively easily smoothed out in very large prints.

Ron, I'm not really talking about what's best for me, but rather the likely advantages of film over DSLRs. :)

Dave, I know what you're trying to say, but the shortcomings of less expensive optics can be dealt with reasonably well in software, a fact that saves the cost-conscious amateur quite a sum. (See here:Cost-effective Photography (http://www.theimageplane.net/tip2_020.htm) ) The fringing I'm actually referring to, that's built into not so cost-effective DSLRs, is another matter. With film and my favourite lenses, it's not there in the first place! In this context, the Reichmann quote below is astute.

Sam

[Mark Kemp]

Then there’s the future to consider. I was struck by these comments from Ken Rockwell: “Remember, film shot today can always be scanned better in the future. Digital is always stuck in whatever quality you had when you shot it”
Sam

Yes and you will get ever more accurate images of the grain in the film

[Steven M. Anthony]

Sam:

RE "I'm not really talking about what's best for me, but rather the likely advantages of film over DSLRs."

There are no objective advantages of one over the other. Which is "better" is completely dependent on the needs and intentions of the user. What are "advantages" to you might be completely irrelevant to me.

From the above, it appears you are interested in, and value, what film can do above and beyond what digital can do. If so, then shoot film or some combination of film and digital--depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

I shot film for 30 years, the last 2 of that with a heavy splash of digital. But this past year I've only used digital. I don't miss film one bit--but that's me.

I did, just yesterday, discover that I accidently deleted one of my favorite shots, and one not easily re-done. I thought--oh, if I had shot it on film, I'd still have it. Then I remembered how many negitives that have gotten destroyed over the years through accidents and carelessness. It tought me a good lesson, though. Back up everything (not esy to do with film!).

BTW--I have 2 hopes left for that "lost" file: two old computers that might still have it on the hard drive!

[Sam North]

Yes Mark, you're right - grain will be grain, and bigger scans, more of it!

I'm reminded of the very large, and very well received, digital prints Galen Rowell made around 1998-99, something like 50 inches across, if I remember correctly. Commenting on the comparison between two prints of the same image, one conventional and the other digital, he wrote:

"... the digital print is amazing, bringing out the detail and color present in the original slide, but difficult to get in a traditional print..."

In the article I have in mind he mentioned how successfully he smoothed out the grain in areas of continuous tone. Grain elsewhere was of no real consequence.

The point is, very fine film grain blown up in very large prints need not be a major concern - and more so now than when Rowell first produced his prints.

Finally, another major factor is the distance at which you view a very large print. Will you see Velvia or Reala grain? I suggest not.

I enjoy using my DSLR, especially its immediacy, and I'm sharing my learning curve here to see if I - we! - can learn even more. I'm convinced that film will be around for quite some time, and has a lot to offer.

Steven, I hope you find that lost file! It reminds me of my favourite picture (see below). I lent the print to someone to reproduce it as a drawing, and she disappeared! To make matters even worse I lost the negative. Fortunately, just last year I managed to get the print back, but the neg is lost forever. :(

Good luck with your photography.

I'll leave it here then, because I don't want to annoy anyone. Just wanting to learn a bit and keep my options open.

Sam

"Digital is not 'better' than film — it is different. It is clearly much better at certain things and just as clearly worse at others" (Nick Rains).


http://www.theimageplane.net/tip2036003.jpg

[dtrayers]

The fringing I'm actually referring to, that's built into not so cost-effective DSLRs, is another matter. With film and my favourite lenses, it's not there in the first place! In this context, the Reichmann quote below is astute.

Sam

Sam,

I'm not sure what built into fringing your referring to. Do you have a reference? Are you referring to the Bayer pattern of the sensor photosites?

Regardless, the proof should be in the print, not the screen. To that end, I've printed at home 8x12 and had 16x20 made at the professional lab and to my eye, and those of my friends and colleagues, the results are outstanding.

To each his own, though... some prefer the look of film and film grain, some prefer the smoothness and low noise of digital.

Your point about the convience of digital is the primary reason I got back into photography after 15 years. Not having to deal with a lab, the immediate feedback of the histogram, and the ease of the digital darkroom outweigh any advantage film has over digital. And in my opinion, I don't think film has any advantage over my 10D in the prints I make.

[Persian-Rice]

I have started messing around with film again lately, and you know what, they just look different.

I mostly do B&W on film, and I have a very very good B&W conversion method down pat for digital, but I just feel that in some pictures, film produces, I don't know the word, but something like emotion where most of my digital images don't.

It might be the colors, or contrast or many combinations, but one thing is clear to me, they just aren't the same.

[BDM]

I still use film for 4x5 work and some medium format. The 4x5 has resoilution and contrast range which is superior to digital at present. So does medium format, although, the comparison is much closer. But I make silver prints from my film negatives (both B&W and negative color) - - I don't scan them. I also occasionally use my 35 mm film equipment because I switched from Nikon film equipment to Canon Digital stuff and my Canon lens collection is still much less extensive than my Nikon inventory. For extreme closeup work using macro or stacked prime lenses, I do not yet have the Canon optics required for the job.

The 4x5 offers perspective and depth of field control which I can't get with a 35 mm size digital camera.

For me it isn't a question of going back to film from digital - - I never stopped using film. I think there are uses and a future for both depending on the subject matter and what one is attempting to achieve.

Bruce

[Mthorpe_Davies]

Well I haven't moved over to digital yet and I don't think I will for a while. I'm currently looking at getting a Eos 1rs, I will probably get a digital camera when the price of a 1 series has come down from the stratosphere to a sensible level. I hope that competition from Nikon and KM will do this.

[Alexandre Gabriel]

Based on my photography needs, I think my EOS30 and G3 are the perfect tools (artistic/learning experiences and everyday/holiday photos, respectively).
Film or digital? Why not both? :wink:
Even when I have a DSLR, my EOS30 will be my backup.

[msvadi]

I think that one can get decent B&W from digital. However, I'm seriously thinking about B&W, may be medium format. For landscapes, the sensor of 300D is just too small. Film is also better in terms of smoothness and range of tones.

I'm sure that this digital SLR is much-much better than any 35mm film, unfortunately, there is no way I can afford something like that:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/mamiya_zd-001.jpg

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp

[msvadi]

this is actually quite interesting, digital killed Bronica medium format:

http://www.tamron.com/news/corp/bronica_discontinuation.asp

[Sam North]

After thinking about the feedback here and my experiences with both film and my DSLR, I thought it would be best to include these conclusions:

The disadvantages of small format DSLRs include, their cost compared to 35mm, image cropping (there goes your wide-angle prime!), significantly reduced dynamic range that struggles with the highlights, limiting image size for larger digital prints (300D, 10D, 20D, etc), dust on the sensor and sensor aberrations.

The advantages include, image analysis/correction in the field, no wasted shots, no film or film processing costs, immediate results. These are significant adavantages.

If anyone reading this is trying to decide whether or not to go DSLR or stick with film, you may want to consider investing in a quality film scanner instead, like the NIKON SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 ED. This scanner, and others like it, will cost roughly same as the 300D kit when it was first introduced, and less than the 20D.

A scanner will provide larger images for detailed work in the digital darkroom and you can archive both film and digital images.

I'm glad I bought my 300D and really enjoy using it, but I'd much rather use my 50 (and even 620). If I had invested in a good scanner, for the same cost, I could now produce 18x12 prints without interpolation. Film grain, especially with Reala, is not a quantifiable problem, as mentioned above.

Sam

[photography By Evangelos]

D30, D60, 10D, and now the 20D. I agree dynamic range of film is still not here in any of the current digital SLR cameras. I was hoping the 20D would be better but it is not. I am looking at the S3 which claims to have film like dynamic range just like Fuji Velva film. It will get better in the next few years but it is still not there yet. I still shoot digital an if I need I pull out the MED format gear.



Angelo 8)

[MrChad]

I love using or P&S digital for instant feedback and quick turn around. But I definately love the feel of film. I don't have the best scanner in the world but my Dimage scanner does one heck of job IMO. I have plenty of 8x10's in my office at work that I'm extremly happy with.

Sometimes I hate the grain of my faster speed films, but I definately have had strange artifact in digital prints before that were just as bad if not worse.

My absolute favorite feature of film, the fact my camera never needs batteries (practically they last for months!) My least favorite thing, having to change film, especially in the rain.

I'm also not sure why, but I can leave a film print as is, but I have to tweak a pure digital image in photoshop. I just think the contrast and tone of the digital prints always need tweaking, but that may just be my software.

I also have concerns about the future formats of digital. I'm worried about being able to read the files in the future. It's easy to know what to do with a negative, but are my TIFF and JPEG's the 8 tracks of the future?

[Steven M. Anthony]

I can't believe I found my missing photo! I woke up this morning remembering I had used the photo on my company hiliday card 2 years ago. I went into my company archive folder and found the card--with the photo!

Here it is. It might be hard to see so small, but it has the Minneapolis skyline in the background. The posts are from a fishing dock the city puts in the lake for the summer. I took this one sunday morning. On friday they had removed all but the posts--on monday the posts were gone!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v405/santhony/Skyline-mpls.jpg

[Sam North]

Great shot Steven! Really like it. It would look fantastic on the wall.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Thanks, Sam. As a matter of fact, the reason I thought it was missing is that after 2 years of blank walls in our "new" family room, my wife and I were picking photos to hang. I had a print that was somewhat damaged from sitting under a stack of crap in my office and went to print a new one--but couldn't find it! Well, I just printed a fresh one and will need to go to the framer and switch it out for the damaged one we were having framed.

[evilenglishman]

I'm still wondering when a camera manafacturer will develop my idea.

A film AND digital based Dslr.
Whereby you can "pre-shoot" and then preview your shots on an LCD. Trash what you don't want and then click a button that will record it to the film.

I think there would be a lot of money in that, and I'm sure one of the companies will steal my idea now :lol: :lol:

[MrChad]

I'm still wondering when a camera manafacturer will develop my idea.

A film AND digital based Dslr.
Whereby you can "pre-shoot" and then preview your shots on an LCD. Trash what you don't want and then click a button that will record it to the film.

I think there would be a lot of money in that, and I'm sure one of the companies will steal my idea now :lol: :lol:

How is this any different then digital, you are still storing 1's and 0's in a buffer and putting them on film.

What we need is a post view feature for film. A Digital sensor next to the film. Then you could see if the shot was good or garbage. Obviously you would have a bit of error in the preview kinda like a range finder. But it would be nice to know if the film shot sucked.
But at this point, let's just buy digital. Besides film and it's cameras are so cheap lets just shoot away.

[evilenglishman]

How is this any different then digital, you are still storing 1's and 0's in a buffer and putting them on film.

pardon?

[Steven M. Anthony]

A film/digital combo camera exists--but it's a post-view deal. You see on an lcd what you just captured on film--but it lets you reshoot if you blew the first one (on another frame of film).

[msvadi]

it's a good idea, but it seems that one gets the same result just by caring two cameras - film and digital. it's cheaper than combining two cameras in one body.

I'm still wondering when a camera manafacturer will develop my idea.

A film AND digital based Dslr.
Whereby you can "pre-shoot" and then preview your shots on an LCD. Trash what you don't want and then click a button that will record it to the film.

I think there would be a lot of money in that, and I'm sure one of the companies will steal my idea now :lol: :lol:

[Steven M. Anthony]

yeah--and the one that exists doesnt keep the digital image! It's just a post view disaster check.

[Sam North]

There are shortcomings with film and with digital. So, for some time to come I'll be carrying my EOS 50, loaded with Reala, and my G5. The G5 continues to surprise me. I'm putting my 300D to bed for the time being.

Scanning film yourself is time consuming and can be tricky. Having a pro lab scan to CD for you can be expensive. With consumer DSLRs the sticking point for me is the limitations of the small sensor. Image cropping and the effect on the focal length of my favourite lenses don't help.

Even with full-sized sensors there's still no getting away from the disadvantages of limited dynamic range, as was posted above by evilenglishman: "Digital cannot compete with film in this respect, even if you shoot raw and post-process til it bleeds. You will not get the full range of film." It's just a fact.

Carrying two cameras is a logical option for me. In the final analysis I do prefer the way scanned film looks, and the resulting digital prints have the edge on my 300D digital prints, to my eye anyway.

I'd like to try shooting landscapes on medium format film for a while. If I did, I wonder if I would ever go back to digital small format again? :wink:

Sam

[HKFEVER]

What I am doing now is carry 1D Mark II, Nikon F5 and Mamiya Pro TL all together.

If 1D Mark II's shot is OK than I will shot with Pro TL with similar setting.

If don't have time, 1D MarK II for pre-view and F5 for good (because I still think Nikon's len is much sharper than Canon's).

But I am carrying a big camera bag (I mean bag with wheels and my wife hate this.....)

[blinking8s]

as much as i have learned in the last few months, with both film and digital, the darkroom is my playground, i have a blast shooting film and pulling all nighters in the darkroom to get my assignment finished...but if class did not require film I would be all about digital 24/7...I love my 20d, it NEVER leaves my side...unless Im in the shower...

the photo students I spend a lot of time around rag on me for owning a dSLR...they think that digital is extremely limiting...I think they stopped reading about this stuff when they were in highschool and dont have a clue what they are talking about...but I never smart back about the advatages or advancements...I just smile and let them hate me for being a pixel jockey! Then go get a better grade on my assignments :D

[johneo]

First, I'd like to thank the digital camera for making photography fun again. Years of using film, with frustrating and costly results relegated my Minolta X-700 to a lot of lonely time in the closet. When it did come out, it was used mainly for family snapshots (I hadn't used it in a year and a half before I bought my 1st digital in Feb '99)

Digital peaked the passion for my photography instantly and has only gotten stronger since.

Having said that, I, like most, have upgraded to a dSLR and my 10D is with me almost everywhere I go. Along with that is a very large and heavy camera bag with all the accessories I might need. (Funny, I remember telling others in '99 that digital was SO great because you don't have to carry a big heavy camera bag anymore :) )

This past spring/early summer I decided to get an Elan 7NE (film) because looking at some websites I saw a lot of great variety of film. I'm having a lot of fun shooting all sorts of film, mostly slide and getting great results.

Will the 7NE replace my 10D ... Not a chance! BUT, it's nice being able to try such variety of films especially th fine and ultra fine grains and highly saturated color slide and print films. It just makes photography even more fun :)

Up here in New England, where I am, the autumn colors are just begining to peak and I found myself out yesterday with my 10D, 7NE and even loaded some film in my X-700. While I don't intend on bringing the X-700 and a 2nd heavy bag with me all the time, it's a nice way to take a bunch of shots using a couple different films at the same time.

The 7NE has a place in the bag with the 10D and shares the lenses. I'm guessing that the ratio is for every 10 shots on the 10D I get 1 shot on the 7NE. While I still like getting imediate feedback from digital, it's fun knowing that in a week or so I can get my results back from the film I shot. Sitting down and checking out my slides is just another way to see where I'm going with this hobby.

I have shot 25 to 30 rolls since I got the 7NE. I recently bought another 17 rolls of a variety of film which I intend shooting over the next week or two (3 rolls yesterday). After that, I'll be looking at B&W and Infrared has caught my eye ... that looks like fun!

[Sam North]

Here's an example below, straight from the camera, of sensor fringing with the 300D. After 8 years of use I know the lens well and it's not caused by the optics. This aberration is caused by the light striking the edge of the sensor at an angle. It's worse with a wide-angle lens.

I wouldn't mind this if it was caused by the optics of a less expensive lens. I can correct it easily enough, but in truth this aberration is par for the course before I get a lens on!

Yes, before I bought the 300D I knew it would happen, but it's a bit more common than I would like, and along with highlight problems, image size and so on, it's pushing me back to using film for more important work.

John, good luck with your film shooting! Have a go with Reala, if you can get it. You'll be surprised how sharp it is, how tight the grain is and how well it looks alongside slide film.

Sam


http://www.theimageplane.net/fringing.jpg

[johneo]

Here's an example below, straight from the camera, of sensor fringing with the 300D. After 8 years of use I know the lens well and it's not caused by the optics. This aberration is caused by the light striking the edge of the sensor at an angle. It's worse with a wide-angle lens.

I wouldn't mind this if it was caused by the optics of a less expensive lens. I can correct it easily enough, but in truth this aberration is par for the course before I get a lens on!

Yes, before I bought the 300D I knew it would happen, but it's a bit more common than I would like, and along with highlight problems, image size and so on, it's pushing me back to using film for more important work.

John, good luck with your film shooting! Have a go with Reala, if you can get it. You'll be surprised how sharp it is, how tight the grain is and how well it looks alongside slide film.

Sam



Sam, if that's what you get from the 300D I think there is something seriously wrong with the camera or lens set up. I NEVER have had anything remotely close to being that bad with my 10D (same sensor?) and I don't think I could if I tried. Never even that bad when I used my Sony Mavica FD-91 floppy disk camera with .8 megapixels and that had some serious purple fringing, depending on the scene!

Haven't tried Reala yet. Got a couple rolls each of Velvia, Kodak Ultra Color (print film), Kodak E100G & GX and a 6 pack of Kodak Elite Chrome Extra Color. Tried a roll of this a few weeks back and WOW! :shock: The colors were amazing!) Decided to buy a bunch more for the Autumn colors.

[redbutt]

Unfortunately this highlight issue is a basic characteristic of CCD sensors, amplifiers and sampling and quantization electronics and won't be fixed soon.

Canon cameras, except for the 1D (and has been "Rectified" with the 1d Mark II) do not use CCD sensors. They all use home grown CMOS sensors that do not have many of the issues that CCD sensors have.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Johneo--I had a Minolta x-700, too. What a piece of crap that camera is! I was, and am still a Minolta fan--ever since I bought my first 101, in high school. I love my 800si (and my canon 10d!) but got rid of the x-700 within 6 months.

[Sam North]

John

Thanks for that. I'll go back a second time over my scanned negs and slides to compare. Many good mid-range lenses will fringe at the edges in severe contrast situations and in retrospect the pic might not be the best example to use, but it's fairly consistent with the results I've been getting with the 300D. Unfortunately it's a fact that small sensors are more likely to fringe, especially with wide-angles.

In balance, I like the 300D, but the various shortcomings combined (fringing the least of them) constitute quite a problem compared to film. The answer here seems to be shooting both!

By the way, I was about to add a Reala crop to the above post so you could judge the grain, but changed my mind - lots of extra files on the server already!

I'll look into all of this and maybe put a bit on my site about it. Trawling the Net shows that it's a debate that rages on - a bit like RAW vs JPEG!

I would like a decent scanner someday to help me produce bigger prints without interpolation, and to get a lot of my older work onto the computer.

One thing's for sure - there have never been so many options for the photographer!

Cheers!

Sam

[skid00skid00]

[quote="johneo"][quote="Sam North"]Here's an example below, straight from the camera, of sensor fringing with the 300D.



PLEASE, everyone, tell all your friends: this is **NOT** CA/fringing!

The sky has put more charge into those pixels than they can hold, and some of that charge has leaked into the darker landscape pixels.

Bottom line: you overexposed the sky. You must remember that digital sensors don't have the 'toe' and 'heel' of film, and cannot accept poor exposure technique.

[Sam North]

Hello Skid

Hmmm... Sounds like you know more about it than me.

I don't have all the info to hand, and please correct me if I'm wrong but here's what I've read generally when I was trying to get my head around digital:

The design of CCD and CMOS sensors dictate that microlenses are necessary to direct as much of the light as possible onto the photodiode. This in turn causes aberration at the edges and corners of the sensor because of the angle at which the light strikes the sensor. 35mm lenses don't fare well with smaller sensors.

Sensors don't handle highights well at all, and often I struggle to hold enough detail in the sky without underexposing everything else. Just me? The image above is an example. In this shot, the mountainside below is a tad underexposed, yet the sky has blown and "charge has leaked into the darker landscape pixels".

Give me film!! :D

Sam

PS

Bare with me...

By the time I had come to expect highlight problems I'd invested in the impressive G5. Several weeks ago I wanted to record a scene by a lake but knew before pressing the shutter that the hand-held G5 simply would not cope. No DSLR would have. In fact, I doubt if even slide film would have coped without a grey grad. On the other hand, negative film would have delivered comfortably without losing the sky.

In the end I was forced to carefully take 2 hand-held shots, one exposed for the sky, the other for the landscape, and then combine them in PHOTO-PAINT.

Going to these lengths to get a simple shot is a real limitation with digital. Before you even get to wrestle with the RAW format to try and fix it, the camera's image is already several stops behind neg film.

Having said that, I took a shot of foxgloves and everything was evenly toned, including the background. The image is very impressive, but if there had been highlights about... :?

Time for bed...



http://www.theimageplane.net/rav4muck.jpg

[skid00skid00]

Hi, Sam.


(snip)
"The design of CCD and CMOS sensors dictate that microlenses are necessary to direct as much of the light as possible onto the photodiode. "

I shoot a full-35mm-frame 1Ds. I don't have problems with CA (the aberration (sp?!) you refer to). ....Well, actually, I do see some chromatic aberration, but since I shoot RAW, I use the lens correction tab in Photoshop Camera Raw to fix it. If I did not fix it, there's just a pixels' worth of green or red tint on the edges of detail at the extreme outside of the frame. I don't think CA is a problem with the Canon CMOS, assuming the lens is half-way decent.



"Sensors don't handle highights well at all, and often I struggle to hold enough detail in the sky without underexposing everything else. Just me? "

Nope, I had that problem too. In these situations, you NEED to shoot RAW, and you need to know exactly how much to expose. I found it easiest to watch the histogram and blinking overexpose warning. If you need to get massive shadow detail, shoot a bunch of shots at differing EV settings, and merge them in your photo editor. You'll have to crop to make the edges of all shots match...

But I really don't have a problem getting detail out of the deepest shadows in my landscapes (bright wispy-cloud skies, and deep shadows under dense trees). I can get a good sky, and still see some detail in the extreme shadows (tree trunks). I don't try for light brown tree trunks, just some visible detail in the light/dark blacks. I do this, because that's exactly what my eyes see - the shadow areas *are* black to my bare eyes!




"Bare with me..."
Uhhhm, my wife won't let me... :-)))




"without a grey grad. On the other hand, negative film would have delivered comfortably without losing the sky."

Yup, the heel and shoulder are gone, in digital...



"Having said that, I took a shot of foxgloves and everything was evenly toned, including the background. The image is very impressive, but if there had been highlights about... :? "

I've started using fill-flash for flying birds... :-)

[Stealthy Ninja]

I wouldn't do it. Film is good for nostalgia I suppose.

Sensor tech has improved a lot in the last 5-6 year. :p


Old threads rock.

[NinetyEight]

I wouldn't do it. Film is good for nostalgia I suppose.

Sensor tech has improved a lot in the last 5-6 year. :p


Old threads rock.

This thread is not old, it's prehistoric!

[yogestee]

I would really love to shoot 4x5 B/W again,,fond memories.. There is something magical about 4x5 B/W..

[RWatkins]

Its ZOMBIE thread

[Stealthy Ninja]

Its ZOMBIE thread

Necromancy is fun.

:twisted:

[RWatkins]

Necromancy is fun.

:twisted:

So perhaps your sig lines needs to be amended to


living ladies, they scare me

[Stealthy Ninja]

So perhaps your sig lines needs to be amended to


living ladies, they scare me

Don't know, the sig fairy did that for me.

[Fliger747]

I can only comment on my personal expereince. For many years I have done aerial mountain photography. The instrument of choice was a Hasselblad 6x6 cm. The results were quite good, however over the last number of years I have been using various iterations of constantly improving Canon digital bodies (currently 5D MKII). last seasons crop of 16x20 prints from digital are better than what was possible from the film 6x6.

Going back through a signicant number of transparencies taken with the same lenses and film Canon bodies, at best with a very good slide I can approach the sharpness and detail of the digital images, but usually not equal or surpass despite the often very nice colors.

"Digital, just too damm sharp"....... A quote by a film guy.

Your mileage may vary!

Cheers: T

[PIXmantra]

I’m in the very early stages of considering a partial switch back to shooting 35mm film (I shot negative film exclusively). So far the main reasons for this are inherent contrast problems with my 300D’s images and the fringing associated with sensors – no, it’s not chromatic aberrations.

In today's modern environment and available technology, the reality is that there is no instrinsic / sustainable reason to switch back to Film, unless sheer resolution is your concern, or heavy investment in film-processing technology sits at your bench.

The problems you have listed have little to do with digital imaging's true potential and today's state-of-the-art technology.

Good luck,

PIX

[hpulley]

In today's modern environment and available technology, the reality is that there is no instrinsic / sustainable reason to switch back to Film, unless sheer resolution is your concern, or heavy investment in film-processing technology sits at your bench.

The problems you have listed have little to do with digital imaging's true potential and today's state-of-the-art technology.

Good luck,

PIX

You are replying to a message that was first posted in 2004...

[PIXmantra]

You are replying to a message that was first posted in 2004...

Precisely.

PIX

[AdamLewis]

Why do people do this...

[Tallking]

. . .
Your point about the convience of digital is the primary reason I got back into photography after 15 years. Not having to deal with a lab, the immediate feedback of the histogram, and the ease of the digital darkroom outweigh any advantage film has over digital. And in my opinion, I don't think film has any advantage over my 10D in the prints I make.

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner... Even more so here in 2010 with the dizzying advances in sensors we've seen since this thread originated -- a half-decade ago. . .