Want better resolution, i.e., DETAIL? Go back to film!

[rufis6]

I bought a Canon 10D and was dissatisfied with it so I sold it and bought a Canon 20. It was really not much better. My dissatisfaction stems from the fact that with either camera there was the problem of poor resolution which manifested itself when enlarging the image past a certain point. Also I was exasperated by the fact that the colors and contrast were not as compelling as with film. Furthermore, I really hated the fact that after I had shot the picture I was then required to learn how to sharpen the images in Photoshop. The upshot? I am done with digital until there is a 22 mb camera on the market so I don't have to deal with these issues.

My current resolution has been to forget digital for now. I just purchased a Leica R8 with a f.1.4 Elmar lens. I am happy as a chicken who just escaped from Tyson's. Once again all I have to do is scan the images on my Nikon scanner and watch the vibrant colors and the great detail.

Has anyone else out there had the conundrum; if so, how did you solve it?

[Belmondo]

You don't say much about the lenses you were using, but that's really only half the story anyway. You're right....there is the post-processing issue in digital photography, and it will still likely be an issue even after you come back with your 22mp camera.

It is a very different discipline, and there is a greater emphasis on what happens to the image after it's captured than you ever had or will have with film. Even so, digital has, within its relatively short life, already given photographers far greater flexibility than they ever had with film.

I guess it's just not for everyone.

Good luck with your new camera.

[rufis6]

Thank you for your kind response, belmondo. As for lenses. I had a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Zoom Lens. Sold everything at a loss but doesn't matter now because I'm a happy camper again. I had no problems with the lens though; it was just that after I had taken a photo I didn't want to have to "sharpen" and boost "saturation," etc.

[picture-this]

It's my understanding that when you scan an image and really care about perfection, you still have to go down the same road and do manual sharpening. To me it seems like the best idea would be to select a brand of lens you like then get two bodies one expensive digital and one cheap film one or in your case the reverse and for people with the bucks both a high end film n digi. Then pull out wichever one fits the situation best. As for beginners well I am new to photography and as I learn more I seem to want try my hand a both formats but right now I like/need the historigram plus not worring about wasting film taking lots of practice shots of pointless objects in my room. I always hear the big dibate about one or the other being better but they are just different and each has it's strong point for the situation that arises weather it be, being able to choose ISO on the fly or getting that poster sized print.

[robertwgross]

If you're serious about photography, I think you need to give digital another try.

I don't think anybody needs to talk him into anything. His mind is made up.

Some people just don't have the right attitude for digital photography.

---Bob Gross---

[rufis6]

As far as giving digital another try, I left that option open. Leica is going to market a 10 mb digital back for the Leica R8/R9 in April. I understand though that for a digital camera to produce the same resolution as film, it must be at least 22 mb. Also, I have never had an occasion to "sharpen" a photograph until I started using digital.

I too have no faith in placing my film in labs for processing. I have been developing my own color film for over 20 years; for that reason I do not worry about a stranger corrupting my work. I have the same aversion to labs that you express. Admittedly the putative advantages of digital are numerous: Not having to worry about toting around rolls of film; immediate viewing of a histogram to check exposure; not having to worry about dirt or dust on the scanner, etc, the list goes on. But they are all negated if the finished product does not measure up. I have tried high-pass sharpening and usm sharpening, which can be time consuming: the results have been mixed and inconsistent. I have produced some work that passed muster as far as resolution is concerned, but I also spent an inordinate amount of time doing it.

As far as the usual and sometimes unavoidable problems the are going to crop up, such as color cast and other issues, I am competent to deal with those since I have been using Photoshop since Photoshop 4 came out. I'll never consider myself a Photoshop genius but I do feel that I am capable of dealing witl most issues that arise. Maybe at some later date I will revisit digital but for now I'm sticking to film.

"Some people just don't have the right attitude for digital."

I have been taking pictures for over 20 years and have yet to have a customer complain about "attitude" for a particular method, but they will complain about poor quality.

[Monito]

The upshot? I am done with digital until there is a 22 mb camera on the market so I don't have to deal with these issues.

Film is classic, but no bed of roses. To mix metaphors, film has its own thorns. For artists, it comes down to issues of control over the medium or media. For me, Canon digital gives me more control and plenty enough quality. But if you are happy with film and labs, fine with me. More room for us. Bye bye.

[KennyG]

I understand though that for a digital camera to produce the same resolution as film, it must be at least 22 mb

It is actually 11mp and the new 1Ds MK-II will outresolve 35mm and is very close to MF with a digital back. However, even with the 22mp top end digital backs you still have to post-process.

I have been a serious photographer since the 1960's and have come up though various high-end film cameras, my first really decent one being a Leica M3, then switched to Canon when the A1 came out in 1978. I don't miss film one bit and my current digital work is better than anything I did with film. I totally disagree with you regarding the amount of resolvable detail by the way, having had extensive experience with both medium.

I just don't think you are ready. The technology is there now to put film in the dark ages, but if you can't get yourself into the right frame of mind to make the switch then no amount of megapixels will entice you to move over. You either have to make the commitement, or stay where you are, hope they keep making good film scanners and there will be chemicals available to process the films.

[IanD]

The learning curve for digital photography is rather steep and very time consuming if you factor everything in. It can also be very expensive with the add ons and doo dads needed.
Not only is there a sizable investment in a quality DSLR body and matching quality lenses but it can soon be apparent that a new computer and monitor is needed. Monitor with very high resolution and a system with enough "horsepower" to handle the larger files that PS will create. Neither is cheap. After that you realize that a lot of storage is needed and you had better make backups of backups since you do not have negatives.
Just the process of calibrating a monitor/printer/scanner can drive a grown man to drink. Getting your head around the workings of PS can cause a cranial meltdown as well.
However all that being said, there are thousands of professional photographers that have tossed film in favor of digital. They range form PJ's for newspapers who really do not need to examine their work under a loupe for details due to the media that it will be presented on, to some some of the best know photographers in the world. Sports to Fine Art and everything in between. Digital is not for everyone, just as not everyone wants to drive a car but would rather walk or use a horse and buggy. You still will get to where you want to go.
There is no denying that digital is the future. The future is here, right now as it has been embraced my the finest in the world. But hey, we all make our own decisions as to where we what to go and how we get there.

[kb244]

It is actually 11mp and the new 1Ds MK-II will outresolve 35mm and is very close to MF with a digital back. However, even with the 22mp top end digital backs you still have to post-process.
...


Small Correction, 1Ds = 11Megapixels, 1Ds Mark2 = 16Megapixels.

[KennyG]

Small Correction, 1Ds = 11Megapixels, 1Ds Mark2 = 16Megapixels.

Read my post. Where did I say the 1Ds MK-II was 11mp. I said 11mp pixels would be the same resolution as film. The 1Ds MK-II statement was seperate to this. I happen to know the difference between the two thank you.

[Bruce Watson]

My mother alway said "Don't ever argue religion or politics".

To that I would add digital vs. film, what camera/lens brand is best, OEM lens vs. 3rd part, etc.

Too much of a personal thing, formed sometimes by life experience, sometimes a mixture of dogma and faith.

Free will to all, make your own choices and everyone else should respect them.

For me, the current generation of digital has converted me and I won't be going back.

[BearSummer]

My mother alway said "Don't ever argue religion or politics".

To that I would add digital vs. film, what camera/lens brand is best, OEM lens vs. 3rd part, etc.

Too much of a personal thing, formed sometimes by life experience, sometimes a mixture of dogma and faith.

Free will to all, make your own choices and everyone else should respect them.

For me, the current generation of digital has converted me and I won't be going back.

I'm with you, Religion, politics and art, if it turns into an argument just walk away cos you are never going to win, what you will do is lose friends.

It's unfortunate that the "overhead" required to get good prints from digital drove rufis6 away, but at least he's a happy camper now. If you want to turn out nice work then it helps to be inspired, and if your tools are driving you made that can really stop you getting in the zone. Good luck rufis6 and I hope that your tools are supporting your art rather than getting in the way of it.

All the best

BearSummer

[kb244]

Read my post. Where did I say the 1Ds MK-II was 11mp. I said 11mp pixels would be the same resolution as film. The 1Ds MK-II statement was seperate to this. I happen to know the difference between the two thank you.

Well sorry I mis-read that, but the resolution of film varies on the type of film used, can be anywhere from Velvia 50, to cheapo kodak or others. And I think the quality of Velvia 50 with a sharp lens is going to able to hit above 11Megapixels.

Here is one reasource that kind of shows a chart using spatial resolution.
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

[Jesper]

Oh no, are we going to have a digital-vs-film war... ?! :rolleyes:

Before I bought my 10D I was using my EOS 30 (= Elan 7E for the USA people), mainly with slide film (I was using Fuji Provia 100F a lot, which is a very good slide film). I was scanning the slides with my Minolta Scan Dual III film scanner.

Just a few weeks ago I picked up my EOS 30 and a roll of slide film again and scanned the slides. I was quite disappointed with the amount of grain, scratches, dust etc. that was visible on the scans.... :( Maybe the Minolta Scan Dual III isn't the best scanner in the world, but I've never been able to make such smooth, clean and sharp images with my EOS 30 and scanner as with my 10D.

[rufis6]

I would like to thank all of you who responded to my post. Your comments are appreciated; I did not intend to come across as a one who blindly restricts himself to the "Good ol' days." My remarks were, as I stated, intended to ascertain if there are others out who have had the same experience and how they dealt with it. From the responses it seems I am alone in reaching the conclusion to revert to film. I did not close the door on digital conclusively; as I pointed out, Leica is in the process of marketing a 10 mp digital back for the camera I now have. I would like to state that my conclusions were in no way affected by "attitude" or "frame of mind." I am a pragmatic person and I formed my opinion based on results and the steps required to reach those results. Again, thanks to all of you.

A special thanks to KB244 for providing the excellent article on this very subjest: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/...l.summary1.html (http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html)

[jimsolt]

Has anyone else out there had the conundrum; if so, how did you solve it?
I had a similar conundrum with color TV. The Plumbicon tubes came nowhere near the resolution of the B&W 4 1/2 inch Image Orthicons. Fortunately I didn't solve it by throwing out my color TV. :D
I see in the B&H ad, if you have a spare $8,000 you can get close to your goal tomorrow by ordering the Canon EOS 1DS Mark II, 16.7 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera (Camera Body)-- temporarily out of stock.
Of course, you would still need a lens . . .
Jim

[Hellashot]

As far as giving digital another try, I left that option open. Leica is going to market a 10 mb digital back for the Leica R8/R9 in April. I understand though that for a digital camera to produce the same resolution as film, it must be at least 22 mb. [/color][/b][/left]

I belive this is a big myth. Most people talk about qualilty of digital cameras in megapixels when it's a combination of megapixels AND sensor size. You could have a very small sensor packed to the brim with 22MP but what good would that be? You could then have a huge 100x100mm sensor with 22MP but the pixels would be large. Digital photography is a vastly different world than film. I'm considering getting into film photography to see "how it used to be", and so I can use my lenses at their given focal length.

[J Rabin]

Rufis:
Seems a fair discussion to share experiences. I was so frustrated with first generations of digital toys in the 1990s that I stayed with 35mm. Then when all my gear, macro lens, flash, and all was stolen in an airport, I still waited then went Canon digital SLR.
Many times I wanted to go back to slides, or at least get an EOS 3 with a spot meter to complement digital. Then after about 8 months of study, reading, experimenting, and frustration, I finally came to a decent understanding of Canon metering specifically, and generally how metering digitally is closer to slide film than negative film. Then I studied EOS E-TTL flash. Then I got an EOS 20D with a joystick focus point and some L glass and ALL PREVIOUS CONCERNS for digital limitations died.
My exposures are the best in my life. The flexibility, ease, and power offered by post processing negates most film benefits. The ability to pull out shadow detail, the image quality retained after cropping, the grain-free smoothness of large mono-tone areas, like skies, and learning to use a histogram as a true 21st light meter are functional joys.
As a comparison I have scanned over 600 slides using a decent quality Nikon L5000 scanner. It introduces softness no less than digital. And using PhotKit Sharpener with its built in digital AND 35 mm sharpening routines has completely eliminated sharpening as a workflow issue for me anyway. Best $99 add-in spent in terms of hours saved and quality raised. Any theoretical benefit offered by film resolution is lost for all practical purposes in low-to-modert end scanning. (I'm not comariing with medium format drum scanned for $35-$50 an image!
For 95% of what I need, film is over. I can only think of three reasons I retain any 35 mm film interest.
1. For $400 I can get a used EOS 3 with a full, bright, near 100% viewfinder, faster autofocus, a spot meter, and usability under adverse weather. This compares with a wonderful 20D, with less ruggedness, for $1,400. If those features are needed at a low price point (1/10 of a 1D MkII), can beat film camera prices these days.
2. With an old rugged 35mm camera like an Oly OM-1 or OM-4 I can put it in a bicycle pannier, go on trip, and shoot for weeks, months, on a set of batteries. No worries. No CF cards, no cords, no nothing. Digital does tether a user to technology and batteries.
3. Exposure latitude of negative film for event photography under rapidly changing lighting. But even here, once I got over frustrating learning curve and learned digital well, it trumped and killed film use because the ability to shoot RAW and recover missed exposures, the ability to change ISO on the fly, and the ability to adjust white balance BEFORE or AFTER the shoot with RAW and the WhiBal® card killed any benefit film offered in exposure latitude compared to narrow digital latitude for highlight detail.
Lastly, you mention color punch. Once I started shooting exclusively RAW, and converting to ProPhoto RGB .tif, there is MORE punch than in K-64 or Provia Slides to be drawn from images. I will admit that .jpg is a disappointed for off or exgerated color (usually the wrong color!). But, hey, NO ONE ever admitted that films like Ecktachrome, Portra, or Velvia were ACCURATE. They are attractive BECAUSE they are exagerations of reality. All there effects, and more can be had with digital, even taking that exagerated image and making it an Ansel Adams high contrast B&W.

So, stick with film, and come back to digital in a few years. For me, it's mostly dead.
J

[mbze430]

rufis6, I am with you. Though I am not dumping my digital, but rather complimenting it. I have been shooting film since mid-1980s (I'm only in my early 30s) and only recently have gone to digital (2 months ago actually). I am still learning how to post-process digital.

Unlike film its not as easy. Plus film gives different looks to my art, but with digital you need to "play" with it. I just haven't been able to tweak my digital to look like Velvia 50 or Provia 100. Or NPS or NPH for weddings. Shooting JPEG everything looks like its Kodak MAX 100 :(.

So what I do? If I need Velvia 50 or Provia 100 looks, I still shoot film. If I want NPH or NPS looks, I shoot film. If I want high grain B&W 1600 Tmax. There is just no substitution for "classic" looks/films.

[Scottes]

One of these days I want to get a shot of a chickadee with a large format camera. Seriously, I'd love to see a frame-filling pic of a bird on large format.

There's a part of me that wants to use film, but for the stuff I do now it doesn't make any sense to go with 35mm film. But someday I may develop enough of an eye to truck an LF out to take a nice landscape. I'll be very happy that day.

I just hope that day comes before someone makes a 500 megapixel large format back or something.

[rufis6]

To those of you who expressed your opinion based on objective differences between the two protocols I thank you. At least you did not attribute my decision as being based on emotions: "frame of mind," or "attitude." I am aware that there are those who prefer to gravitate towards the latest tools that come over the horizon; I did the same thing until I decided digital is not for me, at least for the present time. I did attempt to explain that my decision was based on facts. I had never utilised USM or high-pass sharpening pror to digital, nor did I feel a necessity to do so; my post processing was very limited for the reason I did not require it. I should also add, that I am quite capable of utilising these tools, I just hate to be required to.

As to the fact mentioned that 22 mp is not of itself necessarily a remedy, you are merely stating the obvious. But it should be noted that the makers of large megapixel cameras and camera backs are also aware of this fact and are not going to the trouble of manufacturing a camera that is not up snuff; it would be bad business. Also, I do not believe I have to worry about Leica manufacturing defectibe camera.

[johnellisphotography]

Haha... this is great. Its like round 5 of Mike Tyson vs. the egos. I had the same discussion with a guy today about the same thing. If your digital output is not satisfactory, then youre not doing it right. If your'e not willing to learn the ropes, then go back to film and let the lab do it all for you. I read that leica magazine sometimes. Great images! Its amazing what kind of pictures an uber multi thousand dollar manual camera can take for you.(Just Kidding. Thats my stab at the executives I know with M6's and 7's who cant use them.) As far as an 8MP camera lacking way behind 35mm film, I cant say i've experienced that. My 16x20's when produced correctly rival my Mamaiya 645 16x20's. Regardless of what you do, just have some fun. I'll put on my Thriller LP as a salute to you. HEE Hee!

Also, lets hope leica steps up to the plate on this digital back. So far, ALL of their digital offerings have been high dollar rebranded Panasonic stuff. I just dont see where a company that has been making levers and gears for a hundred years just wakes up and makes quality electronics. The truth is they dont. They rebrand stuff from other manufacturers and hope their ritzy name pulls in the sales. If you want the best in digital, you cant get any better than Canon. I think you'll be even more dissapointed with your multi thousand dollar back for you manual camera. Just my .02 megabytes worth.

UPDATE:
I just read that this back for the R series leica is going to be from one of the big boys. Either Kodak or imacon, can't remember. We'll just have to see.

[Olegis]

I just haven't been able to tweak my digital to look like Velvia 50 or Provia 100. Or NPS or NPH for weddings. Shooting JPEG everything looks like its Kodak MAX 100 :(.

There are quite a few PS actions which simulate Velvia / Provia looks - here (http://share.studio.adobe.com/axBrowseSubmit.asp?c=37) for example.